Debates of March 25th, 1999

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. All parties have been consulted and I believe they all agree with the following. I now want to submit it to the House. I move:

That for each of the following items of business, at the specified times, all questions necessary for the disposal of the specified stages shall be deemed to have been put and divisions requested and deferred to the end of consideration of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 13, 1999:

1. Report stage of Bill C-27, when debate concludes or at the end of the time provided for Government Orders on March 25, 1999, whichever is earlier;

2. Second reading of Bill S-11, when debate concludes or after 45 minutes of debate, whichever is earlier;

That at the commencement of consideration of Bill C-27, all amendments that are ruled to be in order shall be deemed to have been duly moved and seconded;

That, when the aforementioned business has been completed, if the House has not yet attended a royal assent ceremony, the sitting shall be suspended to the call of the Chair; and—

For further clarity, if we complete government business before question period, that would also mean that the Chair would suspend the sitting until question period and recall us for that.

That the House shall not sit on Friday, March 26, 1999, but shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned on that day for the purposes of Standing Order 28.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees Of The House

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on the quality of life in the Canadian forces.

Estimates Part Iii

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board I am tabling part III of the estimates consisting of 83 departmental reports on plans and priorities.

These documents will be distributed to members of the standing committees to assist in their consideration of the spending authorities sought in part II of the estimates.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has studied the report of the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we wish to indicate that the Bloc Quebecois has tabled a dissenting opinion to the final report of the finance committee concerning the Mackay report.

We feel it lacks precision where Canadian financial services in support of the disadvantaged are concerned, as well as not going far enough. We also consider it an injustice toward provincially chartered insurance companies in Quebec, which cannot at present acquire blocks of insurance from federally chartered companies, and this is an injustice which must be remedied promptly.

Unfortunately, the dissenting opinion does not allow us to remedy that injustice in such a way as to serve the interests of Quebec.

Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, on behalf of the Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-77, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Auditor General Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-490, an act to amend the Auditor General Act(Poverty Commissioner).

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any tools to demonstrate the true face of poverty and of any assessment of the effectiveness of federal government programs and policies, I propose creation of a position of poverty commissioner.

This person's mandate would be to analyze the causes and effects of poverty in Canada, to assess the effectiveness of federal government measures to reduce or eliminate poverty, and to advise the federal government on measures it might take to reduce or eliminate poverty.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, October 28, 1998, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate that I have to stand today in the House to address a very serious issue that happened in the House of Commons yesterday. I will take my time to go through it. From a personal perspective, I am going to tell members what kind of impact this decision has had on my community and many communities throughout the country.

My concurrence report and motion, which I originally put on October 28, 1998, No. 17, refers to the justice committee and issues relative to victims' rights, the sentencing of offenders and that sort of thing.

The rights of individuals, in particular victims of crime, the issues related to prison reform and what happens to individuals who walk away from our prisons and commit crimes has been an issue that has been very near and dear to my heart. I can tell those people listening and members opposite that not only is it a very serious issue for me and my community, which has affected my community very dearly, but I can assure the House that members on this side, in particular, have been fighting these issues for some time. I have a private member's bill that is very close to the issue that I am about to bring up.

This is not just an issue of the Reform Party. There was a very interesting private member's bill that was introduced by the member for Mississauga East. It was brought into the House some time ago. On second reading only three people in the House opposed the motion to send this private member's bill to committee to be further developed. I am glad to see the solicitor general here this morning because I hope to impress upon him how important this particular issue is and how the decision of the justice committee yesterday affects this issue.

The member for Mississauga East knew full well when she developed her private member's bill just what the implications were of the kind of justice issues that we have today. She introduced Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act respecting cumulative sentences for first reading on October 21, 1997.

As we have said all along in the House, the relevance of Private Members' Business is important to all of us. This is not just an issue where the cabinet should be able to say “That is nice. You have a bill, but that is not our decision, so nothing else matters”. The fact is that the member for Mississauga East who developed this private member's bill was not only speaking for the people of Mississauga East, she was speaking for many members on all sides of the House, including me.

Do not laugh over there. This is damn serious stuff and those members better get used to it.

To the folks who are listening, the revenue minister is taunting us on something that is very important to this country. It may not be important to him in Vancouver, but I can assure him that it is damn well important to most people in this country. That is the problem with this government and its ministers. They have the unmitigated gall to cancel good business that comes into this House from private members, but they do not seem to have one ounce of regard for private members when it is their cabinet business that comes into the House.

The Minister of National Revenue is heckling us. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of the people listening to understand exactly what that fellow is heckling. This is the nature of the bill that was quashed in committee yesterday, which was supported by all members of the House, save three, last October.

This is how the bill reads and this is what a minister of this government is heckling:

This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits—

I am going to stop for a moment because a member of the cabinet is trying to disrupt the process. The member is from Vancouver. I guess the victims of crime in Vancouver would be a bit more than disturbed to understand that a cabinet minister is heckling, because we are trying to get this cabinet to understand that this is an important bill.

It is nice to see the solicitor general sitting quietly and attentively. If we could finally get the revenue minister from Vancouver to shut up for a little bit, maybe—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford is an experienced member of the House. He knows, as we all know, that heckling is something that does happen in the House from time to time. I think he would recognize that while he may disagree with what some members are saying in the House from time to time while heckling, as we all do, I cannot hear the heckling very well. I think his speech perhaps is not being unduly interrupted by the noise in the House. It is fairly quiet in here today. Perhaps we could continue with the remarks with a little more spirit of co-operation on all sides of the House.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am an experienced member of this House and that is why I am standing today. I am sick and tired of private members bringing legislation into this House—

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am having difficulty hearing my hon. friend, the House leader for the Reform Party. I was in fact sitting behind him for awhile and still had difficulty hearing him because of the heckling of the revenue minister.

I would appreciate the opportunity to hear the speech this morning. It is just a matter of respect to allow that to happen.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We all want to hear the speech that the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford is making. I am sure hon. members will bear that in mind.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I sit considerably farther from my colleague in the Reform Party and I am having absolutely no trouble, using my earphone, understanding what the hon. member is saying.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think we will manage. We will do our best to all hear the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. I am sure all hon. members appreciate the assistance of the hon. member for West Nova.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to something that is very serious indeed and I will forget the heckling of the minister of the government from Vancouver.

This is the private member's bill that was passed in this House. I will read it so that everybody will understand.

This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before the person is eligible for parole.

I have to ask, what in blue blazes is wrong with that? This is an issue that all sides of this House felt was very important to Canadian society.

I live in an area that has seven federal penitentiaries and numerous provincial penitentiaries around it. In our communities of Abbotsford and Langley, and throughout Mission where some of my colleagues live, in Chilliwack and, indeed, throughout the lower mainland, people are walking out of prison, and in some cases, like the Sumas Centre, just walking out of prison and committing such crimes as rape and murder, very serious offences. What happens? They go back, get tried and, if they are lifers, nothing really happens. They get a concurrent sentence with no additional time added to their sentence.

One might say that they are serving life anyway, so why does it matter?

The fact is that life does not mean life in Canada. First degree murderers, for goodness sake, can be out after 15 years under the faint hope clause, section 745. The problem is that this Liberal member for Mississauga East introduced a completely logical private member's bill. And we applaud her for that.

It is so typical in this House where it is a logical issue that the justice minister or the solicitor general, who I appreciate is listening today, says that yes, that is logical and we do not want to fight this one publicly, because if we do the public will ask what is wrong with that and they may not vote for the government, and therefore we better be concerned because the general public is concerned.

What happens? Ministers stand in the House of Commons on second reading on a private member's bill such as this and they say that as a cabinet they will support it; that, indeed, they are the champions of the rights of Canadians and the protectors of law-abiding Canadian citizens; that they will see this goes through second reading of the House of Commons, that it goes into committee and everybody will be happy.

We took the word of the ministers on that. What happened yesterday in committee? It took all but three minutes plus a few odd seconds for Liberal members to go clause by clause through this private member's bill and nix, negate, forget, throw away, quash every darned word of this bill. There were no amendments, nothing.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Shame. They deleted the whole bill.

[An hon. member]

It was not only the Liberals. It was not just the Liberals, though, there was a Bloc MP. Put it on the record.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

A member says it was not just the Liberals. Yes, I believe we do have one member who is not a Liberal who did not quash this.

Why do we face the situation in the House of Commons today where all but three members of the House on second reading said yes, but when it went to committee the Liberals, who have a majority on the committee, said no? What happened? Did these very members on that committee who voted no yesterday vote yes in 1997? The answer is yes. So what happened? Only three members said no to it way back when and we had seven nixing the bill yesterday. If they cared that much about it, then what changed between the vote on second reading and a committee meeting?

I will tell hon. members what changed. The cabinet sat down and said that it never did like this bill. Cabinet members only wanted to stand in the House of Commons to tell Canadians they were all for it and then go behind closed doors to tell the chairman of the committee to scrap it.

The parliament secretary for justice was on that committee and voted against the bill yesterday. Government members sitting on that committee said “We do not give one damn what we did at second reading. We are telling you now that is not going to go”.

There are two issues here. There is the issue of criminals who perpetrate crimes, serious offences, who go to prison and get out on an unescorted leave of absence or an escorted leave of absence or parole or some form of exit from prison.

[An hon. member]

Or when they are golfing.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Or when they are golfing or riding their horses. Maybe they jump over the fence. Who knows? When they get out, they commit another crime and then nothing else happens. The public says “He certainly will get punished for raping my daughter. After all, this guy is a rapist”, but nothing happens. They are given a concurrent sentence, which means no additional time. It says on their record that they committed another rape or another murder.

Is this what the Liberal government wants? Was this the agenda all along? It did not care about this issue. When Liberals were standing up in the House voting for it, they lied to the Canadian public. That is what they did. They gave a false impression that they support this kind of stuff but as soon as they get out of the House of Commons, hey, bury that thing.

It is really too bad. It is just sickening for somebody in a community who has seen more than his share of this kind of thing happening. I have recently been working with a victim, an individual who was raped by an inmate who was out on a unescorted temporary absence, a UTA.

We know what that inmate will get. We know he got his pound of flesh and the legal system will give him a concurrent sentence. That is what this bill was all about. It was all about showing inmates that just one crime or as many crimes as they want are punishable by the same sentence. That indeed is wrong.

I can say from personal experience that every time I come into the House on these kinds of issues I get a little more disappointed in how the Liberal government operates. How long did we wait for the Young Offenders Act to be amended? We came in here in 1993 and pushed and pushed again. There was minor tinkering and lots of press announcements by the group over there. It was tabled after two sessions of parliament. Even that is not adequate enough today.

It is not hard to see that the public wants a change in the country. If the public wants real meaningful change it will not get it from the government and it should understand that all the rhetoric will not in any way get or deliver justice in this country.

I remind the House and all those who are listening of three things. First, the Liberal government save three people in the House of Commons passed on second reading the bill I have here. I will read the contents of the bill once again.

Second, after getting it to a committee, it deliberately behind closed doors told its members on that committee of which it has a majority to squash it. It deliberately misled the Canadian public on this.

Third, the good intentions of this private member's bill have been lost. They are gone. The process now may well take another two or three years to get this back and that is sad because I can guarantee there are many people who will become victims of crime, the subject of this bill.

I want to read it once again and remind everybody what the Liberal government has done. The bill said the following:

This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition to the portion of sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before the person is eligible for parole.

It is so very serious that it has been turned down like this in this shady way. I want the member for Mississauga East to be present in the House and she is not available at the moment. Therefore I move:

That the debate do now adjourn.

I wish debate to be adjourned until the member for Mississauga East is in the House so we can talk further on this bill.