Debates of June 4th, 2013

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as part of this debate, the Assembly of First Nations, the AFN, passed a resolution in December 2011, dealing with this fundamental issue for all aboriginal communities across the country.

In this resolution the AFN called on the government to guarantee that appropriate funding would be available for any regulations governing implementation; to support first nations in the process of developing their own water supply system; and to work together with the AFN to develop an immediate plan to address the lack of clean and safe water.

Can the minister confirm that this will indeed happen?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are working toward a three pillar concept in legislation that supports the penultimate goal of safe drinking water and effective, responsible waste water treatment on reserve. That comes from investment specific to this legislation.

As the minister before had done so in his communications, he had effectively said to first nations leadership that we wanted to engage in a process where investments would be made in this kind of infrastructure, but that it had to be done synchronistically with the other pillars that I spoke of at length in my speech and subsequently in questions.

To restate with emphasis, these all go toward the goal of ensuring safe drinking water and effective, responsible, waste water treatment on reserve that meets what other Canadians have come to expect.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the parliamentary secretary expressed the hope that the official opposition would support the bill.

The NDP will not support the bill, and I will lay out my reasons. Part of that reasoning has to do with the fact that at committee, we presented a number of amendments, none of which were accepted by the government. The problem is that we heard loudly and clearly from a number of witnesses about some very serious concerns about the legislation.

I will start with the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations. It laid out, even before we got to the stage of debating Bill S-8 in the House and at committee, some conditions it saw as being important for the legislation to move forward. It started out by saying, “Preconditions: provide resources, discuss and deal with high risks”. In the report it indicated:

The federal government must close the resource gap. First and most critically, it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to establish by the regulatory requirements. While attempting to assume that putting a regulatory regime in place would reduce the dangers associated with water systems, exactly the opposite might happen. This is because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management and governance.

But the problem is more fundamental than the resources that would be lost to creating a regulatory regime. The underlying issue is that the federal government has never provided adequate funding to meet the 1977 policy commitment as comparable facilities on reserves...

Apart from any legal duty, however, we believe that meaningful discussion between the federal government and first nations is necessary if any action to improve the safety of water on reserves is to be effective and responsive.

It goes on to say:

Deal with high risk communities immediately... Any of the options would take time--probably several years--to reach the ultimate goal of safer drinking water for all First Nations. In the meantime, however, many reserve residents face serious risks from the drinking water available to them, sometimes from collective systems, but very often from individual wells or other water sources.

When government members talk about Bill S-8, they talk about it providing safe drinking water for first nations. When I posed the question for the parliamentary secretary with regard to how long this would take to develop the regulations, there was no answer.

Literally, we can see years before those regulations are developed and implemented. In the meantime, it does not deal with the very immediate risks that a number of first nations have identified. A number of first nations communities have been under boil water advisories for years, not months, not weeks, not days.

When Chief Rose Laboucan, came before the committee, she talked about the fact that they had a $6 million water plant in their communities and they were consistently off and on boil water advisories. Therefore, it is not just having a water plant in place; it is ensuring it is a water plant that is appropriate for first nations communities. This bill, in and of itself, will not guarantee safe drinking water.

I will run through parts of the bill because there are places where we have some serious objections. The first one is right in the preamble, so even before we get into the clauses of the bill. The preamble states that the two departments, Health and Indian Affairs, have committed to working with first nations to develop proposals for regulations to be made under this act. “Working with first nations”, that is not language around consultation.

To refer to the report of the expert panel on safe drinking water, it said:

The second precondition is the need for the federal government to assess whether it has a legal duty to consult with First Nations affected by any of the three options. This duty, according to the Supreme Court, “arises” when the Crown had knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.

As my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou reminds me, it is not only the duty to consult, it is the duty to accommodate. That element around consultation is not outlined in the bill. Nor have we had any satisfactory answers.

The parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out that the bill had been before the House in a number of different iterations. With regard to any kind of comfort about the level of consultation that took place in order to come to this final bill, when the first nations technical services advisory group, an Alberta organization, came before the committee, it talked about what the consultation process looked like.

I will quote from its document. It says:

Disappointingly, the Government of Canada has never responded to any of the concerns and issues identified in the Impact Analysis, which has left Alberta First Nations wondering why Canada asked for and funded the Impact Analysis if it never intended to review it, respond to the concerns it raises, or meet with First Nations to discuss it. Sure, there is a legal obligation to consult, but the TSAG is more concerned about the practical implications of Canada's failure to consider the Impact Analysis because it means that Bill S-8 has been developed without any meaningful input from First Nation leaders, communities or water systems operators in Alberta.

In the earlier days, the government talked about the fact that Alberta was in support of the bill. However, when it provided input, as was outlined by the speaking notes from the technical services advisory group, it was disregarded. It did not even hear back as to why its input was disregarded and not considered in this latest version of the bill.

The issue around consultation needs to be clearly spelled out for people to have any kind of confidence that meaningful consultation will take place. In too many pieces of legislation that have come before the House in the last two years, there has not been meaningful consultation. It has been probably the one criticism that has been a thread throughout every bill that has come before the House dealing with first nations.

When it comes to clause 3 of the bill, clause 3 is the section that has what the government likes to call a “non-derogation” clause, but what like first nations like to call a “derogation” clause because it starts out sounding like a non-derogation clause but then it throws in the zinger. At the end of clause 3, it states, “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”. Essentially, what we have is a non-derogation clause that now becomes a derogation clause.

When the Blood Tribe came before the House, it actually provided a briefing note that said:

In the current version, the abrogation and derogation clause, section 3, is now broader in scope proposing to allow the Act and the regulations to potentially abrogate or derogate from our constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. Rather than protecting such rights, the provision suggests that it can directly violate those rights and disregard Canada’s legal obligation to protect Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

That position is reconfirmed by the Canadian Bar Association.

The Canadian Bar Association is also very critical of this derogation clause instead of a non-derogation clause. It said:

We believe that the qualification “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the drinking water on First Nation lands” is in itself an explicit abrogation or derogation of existing Aboriginal or treaty rights pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The qualification in section 3 of Bill S-8 does not, in our view, ameliorate the constitutional problems identified in our earlier submissions on Bill S-11.

We have been unable to find any precedent or explanation for this proposal which would still, in our view, abrogate or derogate from section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982 in order to provide safe drinking water to First Nations. This provision raises two key issues:

is it necessary to implement the objectives of the bill?

if so, is it constitutionally valid? Can Parliament use its legislative power under section 91(24) to abrogate or derogate unilaterally from the rights protected by section 35?

The attempt to abrogate and derogate aboriginal and treaty rights by statute or regulation would set a dangerous precedent and should not slip by without full explanation and discussion.

In the testimony we heard before our committee from anybody who was a proponent of the bill, nobody could explain why it would be a legitimate use in clause 3 to actually derogate from inherent rights. We proposed an amendment that would have removed the derogation part on clause 3 and it was voted down.

I want to turn to testimony we heard from Akwesasne. When Akwesasne came before the committee, they indicated they were in the middle of negotiating an agreement that would give them jurisdiction over some of these areas. They asked that a provision be in the bill that would delay it coming into force for self-governing first nations that were developing their own water codes, or for other nations that were in a similar kind of an agreement.

The case presented for this was say, for example, these regulations were being developed and coming into force just before a first nations would be signing an agreement that would allow them to implement their own drinking water regulations. The first nations could then be covered by Bill S-8, and then there would be a delay before they could actually implement their own drinking water provisions.

We suggested an amendment that was similar to one under the matrimonial real property legislation. In fact, we lifted it right out of that bill. It talked about the fact that for a first nations in the process of becoming self-governing, or with one of these other treaty agreements, that the bill would not come into force for three days after the day.

That would respect and allow the time to complete those negotiations so that a first nations would not be forced to deal with two different pieces of legislation. That, too, was denied, even though it was in the matrimonial real property bill which allowed self-governing first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property codes. It would have been a reasonable thing to insert in this bill.

When the next amendment we put in, we heard consistently from first nation after first nation, and from the expert panel, that resources were absolutely critical. In this case, we asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Health to take into account the capacity of each first nation to comply with the prescribed standards to install their drinking water and waste water systems, and to train the operators of these systems.

Now the reason we inserted that particular amendment was because first nations who testified raised a number of concerns about their capacity to comply with the regulations and what the liability would be for the community if they were unable to comply. It seemed to be a reasonable request to ask that the government assess capacity to comply.

If there is not capacity to comply, then it would seem incumbent upon the government to ensure there are resources available, whether it be for infrastructure or training of operators, to ensure first nations could actually meet the regulations being set out before them. Again, that was denied.

We also proposed an amendment that requires capital infrastructure life cycle planning, so that future capital needs are known and expected and can be appropriately budgeted for at the local, regional and national level.

The parliamentary secretary, in his speech, did point out that there are some challenges with infrastructure in first nations communities with regard to the life cycle, the way the infrastructure was originally put together, and certainly with ongoing operations and maintenance.

The government likes to refer to itself as being fiscally responsible. Any of us who have been in control of large budgets know that what has to be done is not only the fiscal year planning but also the longer term planning, the 5-year, 10-year, 25-year cycles. When dealing with large infrastructure projects, it is essential that this kind of life cycle planning is done.

Asking to establish a system of capital infrastructure life cycle planning, again, seems like a reasonable thing to do, particularly when first nations are going to be told they have to abide by the regulations or else there are penalties and a possibility that property could be seized, as laid out in Bill S-8. However, that amendment was voted down as well.

I see that I only have two minutes left, and I have another 25 minutes worth of notes, so I will try to whip through this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

So that the member is clear, you have two more minutes in this timeframe. You have a total of a little over five and a half minutes, but the House will be moving on to private members' business in less than two minutes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on another witness we heard, who was from Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver is a provider of drinking water to a number of first nations communities. They outlined a whole series of problems and indicated very clearly that some of the service providers of water systems, municipalities in particular, were also not consulted on this.

They raised a number of issues around lack of consultation; transfer of responsibilities, which is unknown; changes with bylaw regulation and enforcement; legislative and jurisdictional uncertainties; regulatory authority over Indian reserves, which is unclear; and financial liabilities requiring clarification. They also went on to say that the adequate implementation plan is lacking. I referred to that earlier, that there are simply not enough details in this bill to actually assess a number of factors.

Based on that, New Democrats do not feel this bill should go forward until some of these very serious questions are answered. Liability is certainly one issue, whether it is metro Vancouver, or the first nations communities that are going to have absorb this liability.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-478. I would like to begin by recognizing the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his considerable efforts in bringing this important bill forward. I would also like to share with all the members of this place why Bill C-478 is of great importance to the citizens of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

As some members may well know, Westbank, sometimes referred to as West Kelowna, is a community in the heart of my riding. Many years ago a local Westbank family set off to the back country for a scenic family camping trip. The family was made up of proud grandparents George and Edith Bentley, their daughter Jackie and her husband Bob Johnson, along with their granddaughters Janet, who was 13 at the time, and her 11-year-old sister Karen. The destination was scenic Wells Gray Provincial Park for a two-week camping adventure. We can imagine how close and tightly knit this family was in planning for two weeks together, enjoying all of the special moments that life brings us.

A little over two weeks later, Bob Johnson failed to show up for work. This would be the first time in over 20 years that Bob Johnson had missed a day of work.

I will apologize to the House in advance. The details I am going to share next are unpleasant. They are vile. They are disturbing. However, I believe they are necessary, for it is precisely these situations that speak to the necessity and importance of Bill C-478.

After the Johnson-Bentley family disappeared, a large-scale search and rescue operation was led by the RCMP. If ever there were a reminder of the challenging and difficult work that RCMP members perform, this would be it. One cannot fathom the shock and horror of finally locating the family vehicle of Bob Johnson after a month of searching. Inside the car were the burnt bodies of Bob, his wife Jackie, and her parents George and Edith.

Sadly, it did not end there. Located inside the trunk were the burnt bodies of the grandchildren, 13-year-old Janet and her 11-year-old sister Karen. All had been executed. They had been murdered: shot in the head with a .22 calibre bullet.

It still did not end there. The RCMP later learned that the monster responsible had first killed the four adults and then abducted the two granddaughters. For six days, this monster did unspeakable things to the girls, before finally murdering them and burning them in the Johnson family car along with their parents and grandparents.

Truly, this is one of the most horrific and disturbing acts imaginable.

In 2008, the monster responsible for these heinous acts, David Shearing, applied for parole, only now he goes by a different name. His name is now David Ennis, assumedly so that if he obtains parole he can more easily disappear into an unsuspecting public.

When citizens in Westbank learned of this parole application, they were shocked, terrified and angry. They were again being victimized by the senseless murder that took away their family, friends, co-workers and neighbours. They took action, and soon a petition with over 9,000 names was sent to the Parole Board of Canada to oppose parole for this monster.

I was elected in 2011, and to this very day I hear from citizens in Logan Lake, Westbank and Merritt that they are fearful of this monster. They fear that he will be paroled and will return to the region where he once lived and committed these disturbing acts that took so many innocent victims. That is why I am here today speaking in strong support of Bill C-478 on behalf of the family, friends and co-workers, who went through the parole process and are forced to revisit this tragedy far too frequently.

I apologize for sharing these details with the House. However, all too often when we talk about bills like Bill C-478, I find the victims are often neglected, if not forgotten.

In fact, I have reviewed close to 20 different media stories on Bill C-478, and not one of them mentioned David Shearing, who now goes by David Ennis. However, murdering monsters like David Shearing are certainly not alone. Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, Russell Williams and Clifford Olson are other examples of people who have taken lives and continue to haunt the victims through the parole process. I submit that this is wrong and that Bill C-478 is a needed and necessary step to end the ongoing suffering of victims. It cannot and should not be allowed to continue to occur.

I believe it is also important that we recognize what Bill C-478 ultimately proposes to do. Bill C-478 would not guarantee a 40-year sentence, as some media stories have suggested. This bill is specific on applying to those individuals who have committed the most serious of combined crimes that include abduction, sexual assault and murder. This bill does not propose minimum sentences for those who have committed these disturbing acts, but rather would provide new tools for judges in sentencing.

I believe it is also important to recognize that research has indicated that individuals who commit these most serious of crimes have yet to be successful in being paroled. Some would ask why there should be a change of the parole eligibility if the most serious of criminals in fact are not successful at being paroled. The answer from the citizens of Okanagan—Coquihalla is to please stop this ongoing parole process that revictimizes innocent friends, family and neighbours, and causes citizens to live in fear. Bill C-478 would create legal tools that would allow judges the discretion to do precisely that, and that is why I encourage all members of the House to vote in support of it.

Before I close, I would like to share a few further thoughts with my hon. colleagues. In 2011, a life was tragically taken in a senseless and brutal act of domestic violence in my riding. The family members now wear a tattoo of a dragonfly in memory of their lost loved one as they seek justice for this tragedy. A tattoo, much like the scars of loss through victimization, is something that lasts a lifetime.

The final point I would like to share stems from last September. It was in September of last year that a parole hearing was held in Bowden, Alberta for David Shearing. Some 30 years after this horrific event occurred, over two dozen friends and family members of the Johnson and Bentley families were forced to travel a great distance to appear at a parole hearing to relive this brutal act of unspeakable tragedy. Let us all take a moment to reflect on that.

At a time of year when children and families are excitedly getting ready for a new year of school, the Johnson and Bentley families were forced on a journey of great distance, only to arrive in time to relive a life-altering tragedy and face the monster who forever destroyed their families. How many times should the Johnson and Bentley families be forced to make this journey and relive this horror? It should not have to be this way. No family should be forced to endure what has happened to the Johnsons and Bentleys and that continues to occur as they relive this horrific event over and over at parole hearings.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the House for taking the time to listen to the concerns of my constituents. This is not a subject or speech that I take any pleasure in sharing. However, there are times where we, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to speak out on the matters of great concern to the citizens we represent, and this is certainly important to my riding.

Let us never forget the victims. I ask that all members of the House support victims of very serious crimes by voting in favour of Bill C-478.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not a judge, but as a member of Parliament I am a student of the law and a lawmaker. I speak for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to represent the interests of the people in my riding. This allows me to understand and bring forward the concerns of regular Canadians.

Like my colleagues, I am here to study Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility).

I have several concerns with this bill and cannot vote in favour of it in its current state. The whole idea of changing sentencing to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole from 25 to 40 years seems quite arbitrary. In fact, I ask the member opposite who proposed this bill to explain his reason for choosing 40 years. Why should it not be 35, 75 or 100 years? What motivated his decision to change the Criminal Code of this country?

Many of my colleagues opposite will state that they are moved by victims' rights as if this were a black and white issue, but one cannot be either for or against victims' rights. I believe that all parliamentarians care deeply about victims' rights, and the Conservative government does not have a monopoly on that.

The NDP remains sensitive to the extremely difficult situations that victims and their families may have experienced, but Bill C-478 is not a bill about victim care or victim services, and I am not sure that it is even in accordance with the Charter of Rights and the Constitution of this country: the bill is about sentencing, tougher punishments and a Conservative tough on crime agenda.

The Conservative government has developed a tradition of bringing forward measures to amend the Criminal Code through private members' bills, and this is another example. I ask the member opposite who sponsored this bill why he chose to have this issue addressed as a private member's bill when we know that it is not reviewed by the Department of Justice to ensure it is in accordance with the Charter of Rights and the Constitution.

As I mentioned earlier, I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. Therefore, I will refer to the experts and quote Steve Sullivan, first ombudsman for victims of crime, who stated this legislation was nothing but “smoke and mirrors”. He said he “did not believe that many judges would sentence a criminal to life in prison for 40 years without the right to parole”. Judges simply would not do this. He said that “a life sentence of 25 years already means that a person who presents a danger or a risk will not have access to a parole hearing, although the family must still be present at hearings, and that this would apply to a very small number of criminals, those who abduct, rape and murder one victim”.

He pointed out that “such sordid crimes are rather rare” and that “this measure would be used a few times a year at best, but would not change anything for the victims' families”.

If the law works as it is currently and it is used by judges efficiently, why suggest Bill C-478, if not for a political agenda?

I would also like to quote two other experts who spoke to this bill. They lead me to believe that this is not a bill that we as parliamentarians should support. I would like to share what Michael Spratt, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, had to say. According to him, Bill C-478 is superfluous and does nothing for the victims of crime.

For 10 minutes, the government member has been saying that the purpose of this bill is to protect victims' rights. I am sorry, but this changes absolutely nothing for victims. It extends the punishment, that is true. However, it does not change the fact that the victim suffered the crime.

I used to work as a teacher in a prison. I know that the current system will not make things any better for the victims as long as we do not have a better rehabilitation system, a better system for helping inmates not to reoffend, and as long as we do not have psychologists.

On the contrary, criminals will be kept in prison longer. We will wait until they have learned better tricks and then we will release them. Prisoners teach each other their tricks. They tell each other everything they did and they make plans. Often this is because they are not getting psychological help and they have nothing else to do. Then we release them. If we wait an extra 15 years will that really change anything? I am not so sure.

According to Michael Spratt, even if the purpose of the bill is to spare families from having to attend parole hearings, the truth is that a person who commits first degree murder has to serve a minimum of 25 years before he is eligible for a parole hearing.

Mr. Spratt says that second degree murder cases have hearings every two years. He adds that, by extending the period of ineligibility for parole from 25 years to 40 years—and why not 100 years while we are at it—there is a big chance that we will encounter constitutional challenges or that we could be violating the charter. According to him, the result would likely be that people would no longer plead guilty, which would jam up the justice system. Any hope for rehabilitation and any related incentives would be lost.

Prisons should be full of hope for rehabilitation. We send people there to have them pay for a crime they committed against society; everyone understands that principle. However, rehabilitation is the important part of the process. I do not believe that an extra 15 years in prison will make someone a better citizen when they are released, yet that is what the goal should be.

Michael Spratt added that there could be a disproportionate impact on third parties, such as people who join a gang and have to go through an initiation. He said that the bill does not do anything for victims of crime and their families.

I would like to share what the Canadian Bar Association said about this bill:

Finally, the CBA Section does not believe that Canadians would benefit from a system where individuals are condemned to spend their entire lives behind bars, with no hope of ever being released. Even those convicted of homicide, the most serious of all crimes, should know there is some slim possibility, after serving lengthy periods of their sentence behind bars, of being released into the community and contributing to society, provided that their behaviour while incarcerated makes them deserving of such a privilege.

All of the experts agree that rehabilitation is important. That is the impression I get from these texts.

Our prison system is designed to make criminals serve a sentence and pay society back for the crime they committed with years of their life. However, I will say it again: no one is going to help these victims, despite what the Conservatives are saying. Instead, this bill will add 15 years to a prisoner's sentence but will not provide additional rehabilitation services or education for prisoners who are released from prison and who could give back to society.

The quote continues:

Further, release does not erase the fact that those convicted offenders are still serving life sentences. They continue to be subject to appropriate supervision, and to suspension and potential revocation of parole for a minor breach, or even in anticipation of any breach to protect society.

What these experts are saying is very clear. The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, the first ombudsman for victims of crime and the Canadian Bar Association therefore oppose this bill. These are experts who must be trusted.

To conclude, the government claims that the purpose of Bill C-478 is to support victims of crime, but a deeper look will show otherwise. According to case law, this affects very few offenders already serving a life sentence, and it will benefit very few families. The Conservatives are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes, as they often do. They have—through a backbencher, no less—introduced a bill that may conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For all these reasons, I must oppose this bill. I hope all my colleagues in the House will do the same.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478.

As my colleagues have already said, this bill amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

As my Liberal colleague, the member for Halifax West, stated during the last debate on the bill, we Liberals will be supporting this matter at second reading. We support the principle behind the legislation—that is, we agree that those who are convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim should not easily receive parole.

Many community organizations, including the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, also support this bill.

While we are fortunate that such brutality is rare in Canada, we know all too well that this evil does exist. Just this time last year, the nation was gripped with headlines of Luka Magnotta, who is alleged to have killed, raped and dismembered his victim. He is presently awaiting trial on charges including murder and committing an indignity to a body.

Also at this time last year, a sentence was handed down in the case of Michael Rafferty of Woodstock, Ontario, who along with Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and charged in the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford. Both are serving life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years, Rafferty having been found guilty of first degree murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm and kidnapping.

These names and these cases, like those of Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams and Clifford Olson, clearly prove that this evil does exist in Canada and force us to evaluate the need to amend our Criminal Code accordingly.

Of course, the question might arise as to whether the existing regime is sufficient. All these individuals I have named have been punished, and many will not be out for parole for quite some time.

The answer is that this bill, as the mover noted, is not about punishment. Indeed, it does not increase penalties for any of the associated offences. What Bill C-478 does, however, is extend the period of parole ineligibility to relieve grieving families of the burden of having to relive their awful torment every two years once the offender becomes eligible to seek parole. Indeed, the bill is about ending the re-victimization of families.

It should be noted that the 40-year period that the bill speaks to is not a requirement. Judges are given necessary discretion on this particular point.

That is not to say that the bill is a flawless piece of legislation. These being private members' bills produced with the limited resources that we have as members of Parliament, there are going to be some flaws. Hopefully, at committee we will work hard to make sure that these are perfect bills when they come out of committee.

My colleagues from the NDP have raised concerns regarding its compliance with the charter and with the Rome statute. I am sure these will be questions put to the technical witnesses at the justice committee for which they will undoubtedly have well-researched answers. Surely amendments could then be moved if needed to clarify both our desire to comply with our domestic and international obligations and our desire to achieve our aim of a longer period of parole ineligibility for certain types of offenders.

It is not often that I am able to address the House on matters of criminal justice policy. I am delighted to do so today and I am delighted that the bill before us is not one of the usual mandatory minimum penalty bills that the Liberal Party opposes on policy grounds.

Much of the discussion in the House on justice policy of late has focused on the idea of victims' rights. I am proud to be part of a party that takes the rights of victims seriously and has matched this commitment in word and in action.

On November 1, 2005, the Government of Canada established the National Office for Victims at Public Safety Canada. This office is a single point of contact for victims who have concerns about offenders and questions about the federal correctional system and Canada's justice system.

The office provides victims with information and provides input on policy and legislative initiatives. It also attempts to educate members of the criminal justice system about victims' issues.

Further, although it has perhaps been overlooked in the current debate over Bill C-54, the Liberals proposed the initial amendments to the not criminally responsible regime that permitted a victim to read a victim impact statement at a review board hearing and required courts or review boards to advise a victim of his or her right to submit a victim impact statement at the initial disposition hearing for the accused.

Before closing, I must address one troublesome aspect of the bill as it is before us, not in substance but in form; namely, it is a piece of private member's business that has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice as a worthwhile and necessary change to the law, yet it is something that would have been adopted much faster had it been introduced and advanced as government legislation. Indeed, why was this not part of the crime omnibus bill, Bill C-10? Or, more pertinently, why was this amendment not included in 2011 when Parliament debated Bill S-6, the serious time for the most serious crime act? Surely the government will agree these are serious crimes that deserve serious time.

My point is that the government has had ample opportunity to make this change to the law without having to use private members' hour to advance its agenda. It is a troubling trend because the use of private members' bills limits debate and circumvents charter review, something which is completed by the Department of Justice for only government bills and not private members' bills like Bill C-478.

Another troubling trend is that the Conservatives' justice agenda focuses on punishment without bearing in mind as well the need to adopt preventative measures designed to reduce the number of victims in the first place. Wow. For some types of offences, we should focus on root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and lack of access to affordable housing. For other types of crime, we should be looking at mental health initiatives for early screening and detection such that individuals may be diverted into the treatment programs they need.

Regrettably, changing sentencing and parole rules, however welcome some changes may be, does not prevent victimization. We must ensure a holistic approach is taken to justice, one that seeks to prevent crime, one that seeks to adequately punish the offender, and one that seeks to better reintegrate offenders into society once they have served their sentences.

In short, there is much more to be done, and Bill C-478 is not a magic bullet to solving the problem of crime in this country. However, as I stated at the outset, I believe the principle behind this bill has merit and thus I will be voting to send it to committee for further study and review.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of the private member's bill proposed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake this evening.

Bill C-478, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, addresses a critical flaw in the current parole process, the revictimization of victims and their families, most particularly when it comes to the most heinous of crimes of murder, abduction, and sexual assault. These are the most heinous of crimes.

Four weeks ago when I stood to speak to my own private member's bill which deals with fairness for victims of violent offenders, I spoke about my experiences when I attended the Parole Board of Canada hearings with two constituents and their extended families in 2010 and 2011. To say it was an experience of raw emotion would be a vast understatement. I do not think words can accurately describe the range of emotions that existed in that room. There was the anger and frustration, the injustice and fatigue of having to go through the process once again. More than anything else, there was the overwhelming grief, sorrow, and pain of loss.

While I can only draw on what I saw on those two separate occasions, what I saw told me very clearly that a loss or losses which occurred three decades previous seems like only yesterday to a victim or a victim's family.

I met the week before last with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. Sue O'Sullivan. She agrees it is a revictimization inflicted by the parole process and is most disheartening according to the countless victims her office has interacted with to date.

In July, my constituents will be attending the next Parole Board of Canada hearing of the murderer of their sister, niece and nephew, and I will once again accompany them to observe the process. However, I have no doubt that the day will trigger all the emotions again, and my constituent will weep openly from the moment she begins to read her victim impact statement. I suspect she and her parents are already experiencing periods of great sadness and anxiety in anticipation of that day.

I talk about what I saw in those Parole Board hearings once again in this debate on Bill C-478 because I think it illustrates the issue of revictimization. Just as my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla had a very painful personal experience with a victim's family with respect to a murderous crime, so have I. Our stories are representative of thousands of victims and families, and this grows substantially every year.

The triple murder was the subject of the Parole Board hearings I attended with my constituents, fortunately not matters that included abduction and sexual assault. I can only imagine how much more emotionally taxing that would be on the families. I can only imagine it would be exponential no doubt.

In the specific types of cases that Bill C-478 addresses, those of abduction, sexual assault, and murder, the parole process is particularly cruel because it is unnecessary. The criminals who commit those types of crimes are never granted parole. They are so sadistic that the intent of the law is to lock them up for life to keep them off the streets.

Whether it is Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, or Clifford Olson, we as a society know that parole will never and must never happen. However, under the current law, the Parole Board of Canada must hold a parole hearing for these depraved murderers every two years after the 25-year parole ineligibility period has expired.

Clifford Olson, though now dead, was never going to get out of jail, nor should he, yet the families whose lives he changed forever had to face him every two years. They would be doing that today still, if not for his death. That is beyond cruel because it is completely unnecessary.

If we pass Bill C-478, the judge and the jury will have the discretion to extend the parole ineligibility period from 25 years to 40 years. That does not mean they will automatically choose the period of 40 years, but it will give the judge, as a professional determining the sentence for the crime, the tools to do so if she or he feels that should be the case in the best interests of society; if she or he feels it is warranted, given the inherent evil that would drive an offender to commit such a crime; if she or he feels this will spare the families of the victim, or in all too many types of cases, the victims from being victimized again and again.

As has been noted already in this debate, 40 years is what the maximum parole ineligibility period would be if each of the three crimes of abduction, sexual assault, and murder were treated consecutively; that is, 25 years for murder, 10 years maximum for abduction, and 4.6 years maximum for sexual assault.

The problem is clear and the solution proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake in Bill C-478 is straightforward. It prevents further pain and suffering and it is just. I applaud him for bringing this bill forward.

As I have said many times before, I believe one of the fundamental responsibilities of the state is to keep its citizens safe. Those who abduct innocent victims for sex and then murder them have committed an unspeakable crime. We cannot give the families back their son or daughter, husband or wife, cousin, niece or nephew, but we can prevent them from being revictimized by the process.

Before closing, please allow me to reiterate some of the comments from victims that I referred to a few weeks ago, because it is the voice of those victimized that has been missing from this debate in the past, and it is what we must listen to in consideration of Bill C-478.

This was stated in the Toronto Star on April 9, 2007:

“Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.”

In reference to the Clifford Olson case, which I spoke about already this afternoon, a journalist in the Vancouver Province said:

Olson, 70, who seems to take pleasure in revictimizing the families of those he killed, is automatically eligible for parole every two years until the day he dies.

In that same newspaper, the mother of one of Olson's victims put it quite simply:

“To have to relive this [parole hearing] every two years, it's so inhumane. It really is.”

Let us not forget those words as we continue to consider Bill C-478 and its efforts to prevent those unnecessary hearings in cases that really are the worst of the worst.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to Bill C-478. I thank my colleague for putting the bill forward. I hope that all members of this House, after thinking it through and understanding clearly what this means, will vote for Bill C-478.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I will continue to talk to the Canadian public about my observations on the sectarian nature of the process the government has used to enact public policy since it took power.

I wish to point out to Canadians that Bill C-478 on increasing parole ineligibility is nothing more than the Conservative government’s nth attempt to introduce measures to amend the Criminal Code by means of private member’s bills from the back benches, which are in fact very vocal at the moment.

Over the past two years, I have noticed that the government has used many different tactics to introduce programs that are first and foremost of interest to very specific social classes and segments of Canada’s population, and to influential lobby groups that have the government’s ear.

Some may find private member’s bills particularly useful, in part because there may not be public approval, and also because the government is not as involved as it would be with a formal government bill.

Private member’s bills are all too often introduced to sound out public opinion and to please a very specific segment of the population and the lobby groups, as I already mentioned. They are also used to boost the party's popularity, all with a view to electioneering and marketing.

I have noticed far too often that the Conservatives see public policy enactment and implementation as a form of commodity trading or marketing. The government views public policy as a corporation would. This has happened far too often with advertising for the 2013 and 2015 economic action plans. I do not know the exact title, but it is copyrighted. In short, the advertising campaigns and the associated hype give us a hint of how much effort has been made on the marketing front to publish, fine tune and polish their image.

However, they are not fooling anyone. People with natural curiosity can clearly see what the government is really trying to do. When the advertising shows green fields, families and streams—and people know full well that the economic action plan focuses on extracting natural resources—many are stunned.

This backbench private member’s bill does nothing to burnish the Conservatives’ image, which clearly needs a great deal of polishing and chrome, because their popularity is in free fall at the moment. I want to remind everyone of this and will continue to hammer the point home. The timing is good. The conditions are right.

I would like to reiterate one more time, even though all my colleagues already agree, that the Conservatives’ image is definitely now in decline. That is why we are trying to rally the membership base that has supported us from the outset—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is rare to have filibusters take place in private members' business. It is important that we respect the rules of the House, which means the debate has to be relevant to what is taking place. None of the comments that have been made in the last minute and a half have been relevant to Bill C-478. I would ask that the member be brought to order and that he follow the rules of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for his intervention.

It is true that members should be sure to keep their comments relevant to the question before the House. In hearing the hon. member, he is making some connections in respect of his arguments. Having said that, I will leave it with the hon. member to make sure that he brings his arguments around specifically to the question that is before the House in the course of his arguments.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this has been a rather long day. As well, some rather lively discussion is taking place at this time. If the Canadian public had access to all this shilly-shallying, it would be an excellent thing.

In line with the Conservatives’ idea of developing and adopting public policies with which they can make political and media hay, the bill under consideration will have only a tenuous connection with reality in the courts of this country.

I remind members that I am, first and foremost, a criminal lawyer. I am therefore going to substantiate my argument by using concrete, empirical examples, much as some may not like it.

In Canada, there are not many incidents associated with offenders convicted of abduction or sexual assault followed by murder. When I say “not many”, that does not mean there is not very heavy media coverage associated with the very limited number of such cases.

The Conservatives’ idea is that they are going to make political hay; they are going to try to start it all up again and engage in sensationalism, since these cases get very good coverage. They are simply going to try to polish their image by showing they are on the side of victims and they are going to do something. There is only a very tenuous connection with reality in the courts and on the incidence of this kind of case.

I handled several hundred cases when I worked for legal aid, and several hundred more when I opened my own private practice, but I have never had to handle this kind of case. In 2007, after I was called to the bar, I handled some fairly sordid homicide cases, the details of which I will spare you. Nonetheless, I have never had to take on a case involving an abduction or a sexual assault followed by a murder. That type of case is quite rare.

I would note that in this kind of case, one or two incidents a year are observed in the case reports, in the whole of Canada, and the individuals are already sentenced to imprisonment for life. We therefore cannot help but draw conclusions and make certain inferences: that this is simply publicity hype and a desire to curry favour with groups that are clearly identified in advance.

In the context of this analysis, we also need to weigh the risks associated with initiatives relating to the imposition of maximum sentences. If Canada no longer bases its rules on a 25-year maximum, people will argue that various combined offences should be treated the same way.

When I am writing my speeches, I wonder how my practice is doing. I do intend to return to my practice in the near or distant future. I wonder how thick my Criminal Code is going to be when I go back into court. What will my criminal law practice be like? Will my criminal practice, for me as defence counsel, be significantly different as a result of the very substantial amendments that have been promulgated in recent years?

Over the past little while, we have been going off on this continuous and very pronounced and deliberate march to the right. I have some acquaintances with whom I worked for years, and over the summer I am going to do some research in order to get an answer, and I am going to ask some Crown prosecutors to verify whether their practices and the measures and directives that have come their way have been altered in the last two years.

I will hold back some of my observations, given the potentially controversial nature of this subject.

I submit this respectfully.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Accordingly, I invite the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake for his right of reply. The hon. member has five minutes.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the comments that have been made in the House over the last two hours of debate. I want to thank those members who have spoken out in favour of my bill and the importance of it and how it stands up for victims and the re-victimization that they face every time they have to attend an unnecessary parole board hearing.

I have to take a great deal of exception with some of the statements that were made by members across the way, that this is a government bill. That is an insult to my staff, who have worked on this bill so diligently. It is an insult to the Library of Parliament researchers and drafters, who helped in the drafting process. I can tell members that those types of comments are not at all helpful to the overall decorum of this place when it is trying to minimize us as private members in bringing forward business.

As I said in my opening comments, the catalyst for going forward with this bill goes back to 2009, when I first started thinking about what was happening with the Tori Stafford case, with the capture of Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic and the overall result of having them sentenced to life imprisonment.

While that was taking place, we were listening to the Clifford Olson saga as he was dying in prison from cancer and all the stories about how he re-victimized the families of his victims over and over again by making them appear at these unnecessary parole board hearings.

It is important that we respect one another in this place. Making those types of comments that minimize our role in this chamber as being puppets for the government is deeply disturbing. At some point in time, I may be requesting an apology from the members who made those statements.

Some of the comments revolved around the constitutionality of Bill C-478. I can tell members that is a concern that I had. I wanted to ensure that if we were going to draft a bill, it was not going to be struck down by the courts under a charter challenge. It would give full power and discretion to the judges, to the judiciary, to make the decision whether or not they wanted to increase parole ineligibility from 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years. They would have the power, either through a jury process or on their own, to make a decision whether or not parole ineligibility could be anywhere between 25 and 40 years.

It is important to know that these are the most depraved and sadistic murderers in Canadian society. These are the people who go to jail and are never again released. I think that is something that we have to take special note of. This is not about stiffer penalties and more punishment, because these murderers never ever are given parole ineligibility. Also, to ensure that this bill was constitutional, I wanted to fashion it after Bill C-48, which passed in 2011 just before the last election. That bill was proven to be constitutional and charter-compliant and so I fashioned our bill after that process.

Now, as was pointed by some members here, that maybe it is not perfect in its terms because it was a private members' bill, it was drafted by Library of Parliament and my staff working together. We are willing to accept any amendments that would improve the technical aspects and the legality of Bill C-478.

I have also taken note that some people said that victims' rights groups are not supporting this bill. I can tell members that Victims of Violence, led by Sharon Rosenfeldt, supports this bill; that Yvonne Harvey and the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children support this bill; the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared supports this bill; and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime supports this bill.

Also, I heard from the NDP members in the first hour of debate that this bill would violate international law. They kept talking about the Rome Statute. However, I can tell members that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court applies only to genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

This is a domestic bill, domestic law, and the power completely lies with the country and Parliament can make these decisions.

To point out the hypocrisy of the NDP, it supported Bill C-48 in the last Parliament. Why would it not support this bill, which is fashioned in the same format as Bill C-48 and would even go further in addressing the most depraved, sadistic murderers who go out and abduct children, abduct individuals, sexually assault them and then violently murder them? Those are the people we want to ensure we address. We want to ensure that the families of those victims would not have to be re-terrorized by these horrific individuals.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.