Debates of March 25th, 1999

Division No. 363

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

I hear someone saying “so what”. Perhaps there is a disconnect between the justice committee and the will of the majority of Canadians. I believe it is imperative and important for the matter to have a full hearing.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am the a member who said “so what”. On issues like this one, issues involving the lives of people and understanding justice issues, we should not conduct opinion polls in order to enact legislation. Those people, the Mulroney Tories, were the ones who tried to run the government and the country by opinion polls.

The bill got due process in committee. It heard from witnesses who found fault with it. I suggest that members of the Reform Party accept parliament as it is. Members of parliament have spoken to the bill, so let us leave it and move on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like clarification, if I could, from the Chair whether the member is indicating that the lives of Canadian citizens are more important than fish.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member knows that is not a point of order. He is really raising debate.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tempers are rising here. I am sure my colleague did not mean to suggest that this is not an important issue for debate.

However, it is my firm belief, after being here 10 years, that the only way the bill should be dealt with is by a vote in parliament. A handful of individuals may be thoroughly disconnected from reality.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the member for Mississauga East for her diligence and persistence, much against the will of her own party. I do not want to get into the partisan side of it. I do not want to respond to the remarks in the previous intervention with respect to which parties best represent public interest.

There is a very important element here of representing what it is that the public wants. As has been quite clearly demonstrated by the comments of the member for Mississauga East, this is a very emotional and visceral issue for most Canadians when we start talking about volume discounts and shortening the parole eligibility of murderers.

We are talking about repeat offenders, those who have not committed just one offence but have committed multiple offences and offences on the very high end of Criminal Code violations in terms of their seriousness. The consecutive sentences that would result from this private member's bill would obviously—and I defy anyone to argue otherwise—protect Canadians from those specific offenders to which these sentences would attach.

Implicit in the bill is the very genuine intention to deal with habitual criminals who are released by virtue of early parole. The current government and the current commissioner of Correctional Service Canada have a very insidious plan with respect to the release of prisoners on parole, a 50% release plan that would see by the year 2000, 50% of current inmates back on the street through one form or another.

This is something that should be alarming and shocking to all Canadians. The point of the bill is to ensure that convicted offenders, murderers and rapists, do not have an opportunity to go out on to the streets and perpetrate the same types of offences.

The most startling and disturbing statistic was that the likelihood a person who has committed an offence of murder or rape will reoffend, compared to average law-abiding citizen, was 100% more likely to commit a murder or a rape after being released on the conviction of such an offence.

I invite the member for Mississauga East to respond to the intent of the bill and what it would accomplish in terms of its broad spread application on our parole system and the effect it would have in terms of protecting Canadians from repeat offenders for these types of offences.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very astute comments and insights into my bill. Since I presented the bill I have sadly been visited by far too many victims who have told me their tales of woe in terms of how the justice system impacts on their lives.

Canadians are far too familiar with the story of Don Edwards whose sister was raped and subsequently her assailant ended up murdering her parents. Don Edwards has told me his story of how his family has gone into hiding, how dysfunctional it has been for the community and for the extended family. His sister is in hiding. He has moved his family south of the border. One of the saddest commentaries I have ever heard in my life, including the 10 years I have been here, is when Don Edwards said the border would be his protection for his family.

My bill would impact on victims in giving them a sense of security so they would—

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Previously the member for Sydney—Victoria suggested this debate would replace a critical fish debate. The debate it is replacing is not worthy of support and he should know that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member knows that is not a point of order.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. He named me specifically as a member of the justice committee and he used the term these criminal acts, which he has now withdrawn, in reference to the activities of the committee yesterday.

I will point out a couple of inaccuracies where he implied that all members of the justice committee on the Liberal side who voted not to approve the bill had voted in the House to send it for second reading. I would like to correct that, in that I did not vote for that bill. The implication that the bill was disposed of in five seconds is not accurate. There were many witnesses—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid we are getting into debate. It is one thing for the hon. member to air a grievance in respect of how he voted, but beyond that I am afraid the hon. member is entering into a debate which I do not believe is a question of privilege.

I am not sure that he had one on the first point. It may have been a grievance. I think the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley recognized that this was not a question of privilege.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that today, when we were to debate Bill C-27, we are spending so much time debating a private member's bill because of delaying tactics.

I do not want to get into an argument about the possible merits of this bill, but since spring is upon us and the government is taking such a long time defining a fisheries management policy, I would like to propose the following motion:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

The purpose of this motion is to allow us to proceed to orders of the day to hear what the government has to say on the fisheries bill and to have done with it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 364

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion carried.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent of the House for the following. While the government side pairs with one of the other official parties in the House, the Bloc Quebecois, earlier today at a previous vote we erred in adding the names to the register. I understand from our table officers that procedurally we have to seek unanimous consent to apply the last vote taken to the previous one in terms of the pairings that are in the register for this day.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.