House of Commons Hansard #378 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebeckers.

Topics

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with my friend from Winnipeg, but I do today. The tone with which the hon. member for Jonquière has defended her community and the jobs there and the way she has been constructive in her suggestions is really admirable. She is fighting for jobs in her community in the same way the member for Oshawa fought for jobs in his. However, this time the shoe seems to be on the other foot.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the Bloc and the Conservatives are doing this today.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is clear that they did not do their homework. It is true that it is important for parliamentarians to communicate with the Quebec National Assembly. However, we sometimes need to take a step back.

As federal parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to do our job. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, who are pushing to implement this approach at any price, rejected the amendment that my colleague from Sherbrooke proposed today to try to ensure that there would not be any job losses. Their answer was a resounding no.

That clearly shows that they have not given any thought to what will happen next. They are not prepared. A party cannot just propose ideas without looking into the specifics. They need to come well prepared. It is disappointing to see two parties here in the House of Commons fearmongering. The 5,500 workers are worried, particularly those in my riding of Jonquière. They are worried that the tax centre will shut down. Those are good jobs, and I will do everything in my power to fight for those jobs and keep them in my community.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise at the end of this debate to conclude what was quite an eventful day. We were able to get to the bottom of the issue and determine who are the fearmongers in this House.

The question before us is, will Quebeckers keep filing two tax returns? The official opposition believes that it is not a good idea and that Quebeckers should file a single tax return. That is simple common sense. It is all about making life easier for Quebeckers, making sure that they are no longer the only Canadians filing two tax returns, and implementing that change without any loss of employment.

Similar agreements already exist. Since 2011, there has been an excellent agreement in place that is based on the same principle, namely that the Government of Quebec collects the GST and delivers it directly to the federal government with not a single penny missing.

That is what is being proposed here, to allow Quebeckers to file a single tax return like all other Canadians, along the lines of what is already being done with the GST, without sacrificing any jobs.

Why are Quebeckers the only people in this country who have to submit two income tax returns?

Back on February 24, 1954, in what was then known as the legislative assembly, Premier Maurice Duplessis passed a bill to create an income tax return for the province of Quebec.

Some may wonder why he did that.

War being what it is, urgent measures were needed, and the Canadian government appropriated certain taxation powers. After the war, things should have gone back to the way they had been, but that did not happen. The Right Honourable Louis Saint-Laurent—although I do not know the man, I say his name every day as the MP for the riding that bears it—recognized that Quebec had the right and the power to create its own income tax return.

Historians agree that, in the 1960s, Quebec's taxation power made it possible for the Hon. Jean Lesage's government to introduce all its new measures during a period later known to many as the Quiet Revolution.

Over the years, the issue has surfaced a few times at the provincial and federal levels. We wondered if it might be a good idea for Quebeckers to be able to file a single tax return, just like every other Canadian. The issue came up occasionally at the federal level, and the least we can say is that there was not much interest in the proposal. The issue was brought up in Quebec on a few occasions, if I recall correctly, by a federalist party. A party that wanted Quebec to remain in Canada proposed a single tax return in 1988. That was Action démocratique du Québec, a party that I obviously know very well.

This idea surfaced year in and year out, but not in a very concrete or well-formed way, and it was not very realistic or doable. With all due respect to those involved, it takes two to tango. There had to be a proponent in Quebec and a proponent in Ottawa. As there was not much enthusiasm for this initiative in Ottawa, there was not a lot of dancing going on.

Things just stumbled along. Just over a year later, we Conservatives floated the idea again during a meeting that we had with our leader, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and leader of the official opposition. Like many Canadians, he knew that Quebeckers were the only ones to file two tax returns. He wondered if there was a way to change that. That is when we the Conservative members from Quebec did our homework to see whether there was any interest in this and whether it could be actually done.

We started the process. We debated the idea within the party. There were consultations across Quebec. There were results after the first phase, because this does not happen overnight. The first phase was done on May 12, 2018, when our party adopted the resolution during our provincial convention. All federal Conservative Party members were gathered in Saint-Hyacinthe. Nearly 500 people were there. No one will remember that the former leader of the Bloc Québécois decided to rejoin our party. No one will remember that the current mayor of Trois-Rivières decided to join our party. Many will remember that the convention was a resounding success.

It was at that time—without wanting to dwell too much on local party matters—that Charles Plamondon, the Conservative Party riding association president for Louis-Saint-Laurent, took the microphone and we put this matter to a vote. It passed with a very clear majority of over 90% by our provincial authorities.

I would like to salute Charles Plamondon, who was our riding association president for two years. I also want to salute all the volunteers for all political parties who contribute to the democratic process in a positive and constructive way, without any pay, simply for the pleasure of standing up for their convictions. There are no wrong convictions, just people who are driven by political passions and their convictions. We can only congratulate them and thank them through Charles Plamondon, whom I salute and thank.

On May 12, the provincial wing of the Conservative Party voted in favour of a single tax return. A few days later, and the timeline is important here, the Quebec National Assembly adopted its motion. Throughout the debate today, we have heard that we support the National Assembly when it suits us and that we are following the lead of provincial parties. This is not the case. As the chronology shows, we made this decision on our own. This will have a significant political impact in Quebec, since we will be governing Canada in nine months, if that is what Canadians choose. I think we represent a serious challenge and that this is a real possibility. We want Canadians to support our party, but the decision will be theirs on October 21.

A major national party took a concrete position that is good for Quebeckers, and the National Assembly could not ignore that. All members of the National Assembly supported this motion, including members from the far left, such as members of Québec Solidaire, entrenched sovereignists, like members of the Parti Québécois, people who were, at the time, members of the second opposition party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, and even well-known federalists, like the provincial Liberals. Everyone agreed. I will come back to this later, because as I said, some mind-boggling things have been said here today. I look forward to expanding on this.

To summarize, the leader initiated the discussion within our party, the provincial wing of the Conservative Party adopted the motion, and all of the political parties in the Quebec National Assembly agreed with it. Then, a few weeks later, the day after Quebec's national holiday, in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, the Conservative leader announced that a government led by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle would ensure that Quebeckers only had to fill out a single tax return like all other Canadians.

There was support for this stance. It is important to point that out because people have been talking a lot of rubbish today. Even during question period, the Prime Minister said that it was strange that we were not asking any questions in English about the single tax form, which is not true. Last week, our colleague from Calgary asked a question in English in this regard. The cameras do not show the members who are not speaking, but Canadians should have seen how shocked the Liberal ministers were to hear a question in English on this subject. I do not know how they do things in the Liberal Party, but we conservatives always say the same thing in both official languages, whether in eastern Canada, western Canada, Quebec, Ontario or northern Canada.

The Conservative Party agrees. The vote held at a convention of over 3,000 people was almost unanimous. We debated this issue amongst ourselves, and we worked hard on this realistic and responsible proposal for Quebeckers.

In short, what is our objective? Of course, our priority is the taxpayer. Our main objective is to help 8 million Quebeckers who have been forced for too long to file two tax returns—even if they do not all file a return of course—while other Canadians file only one. We want to make their life easier. Let us not forget that this would not cost taxpayers a dime and that it can be done through an administrative agreement like so many others between the federal government and all provinces.

It is important to mention that, according to some, we are again trying to pander to Quebec. That is not true. Only Quebec has this problem. Only Quebeckers must file two income tax returns. We are not doing it to please Quebeckers, but to make life easier for them. That is the important thing. When I say "Quebeckers", I mean all workers in Quebec, including those who work in the federal public service and for the Canada Revenue Agency.

Therefore, it would be an administrative agreement like many others. The sovereignty of the Parliament of Canada would not be affected in any way and Parliament would continue to duly vote on all legislation and all budgetary and fiscal measures. For all regulations, laws, measures, paragraphs and forms that the government wants to pass or complete, the authority sits entirely with the elected members of the House of Commons. The Government of Quebec has nothing to do with federal taxation, and Ottawa has nothing to do with provincial taxation. That is what respecting jurisdictions is all about, and that is what we have always tried to do and have always done as Conservatives. All laws and regulations are passed in Ottawa.

People may have legitimate concerns and might think the province would be given taxation powers. That is not what would happen. Taxation power remains fully within the purview of the House of Commons and the federal government. However, it would be administered by the provincial government. That has been the case for the GST since 2011. That is important. We are talking billions of dollars transferred from the Government of Quebec to the federal government every month. The Government of Quebec collects the GST on behalf of the federal government and sends it straight here to Ottawa. It works, and it works well. It is much more efficient for businesses. It makes people's work easier, and that is a good thing. We know it is working because nobody realizes it or talks about it. That is the best evidence that it is working.

I would note that the agreement was signed in 2011 under former Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who is well known and well liked here in the House of Commons because of his outstanding service during the good years from 1984 to 1998. Mr. Charest and Mr. Harper worked together to make the GST arrangement happen.

Since then, there was a federalist Liberal government under Jean Charest and everything worked out. Then there was a minority sovereignist government under Pauline Marois and everything worked out. After that, there was another federalist Liberal government under Philippe Couillard and everything worked out. We now have a federalist Coalition Avenir Québec government under François Legault and everything is working out.

My point is that this is not a political issue. It is about an administrative agreement like any other between the federal government and the provinces. We want to apply the same model to the single tax return. I simply want to reiterate that, under Pauline Marois' minority yet still firmly sovereignist government, that GST agreement worked perfectly well. Horror stories about a Quebec government that got angry at some point are simply rubbish. Everything works fine with the GST. It could work just as well for the single tax return.

I now turn to the most cardinal and fundamental aspect. I was saving it for last, because it is very much at the heart of this debate and of certain things that we have heard throughout the day, things I have no words for. No jobs will be jeopardized. They will be preserved.

On January 22, in Montreal, when the official opposition announced, among other things, tax measures to allow people to return to work without being penalized, and other measures that directly address the dumping of raw sewage in our waterways and rivers—over 60,000 such dumps occur every year in Quebec, which is outrageous—our government unveiled the first elements of our environmental policy. There are still eight months left in the electoral campaign and a lot of good things to come.

The leader of the opposition was asked a question about the single tax return. He said that “no public service jobs will be eliminated. [Public servants will deal with tax evasion, which will be better for taxpayers.] We need public servants to ensure that our federal laws are upheld. We can also make more effective use of the people who work for the federal government”. He made himself clear. There would be no job losses.

Throughout the day we heard people fearmongering, saying that this makes no sense, that the Conservatives are jeopardizing jobs, that they should talk to the families and so on and so forth, that the world is coming to an end, that their heart was not in the right place and that they had consulted no one. That is not true. Those are lies.

The reality is that we are not going to eliminate jobs. Is that clear? There will be no job losses. I assure the people who work for the CRA in Jonquière, Shawinigan, or anywhere else that they will not lose their jobs. Those who say the opposite are lying. Okay, that is clear. Now, let us hope that is what gets reported.

I am saddened to see that my distinguished colleague, the hon. member from the Shawinigan region forgot one small detail in his 10-minute-plus diatribe, namely that the leader had taken a position and said there would be no job losses. That is too bad.

One of the other things I heard today that completely threw me for a loop was the remark from the member for Mount Royal drawing a link between filing a single tax return and the separatist threat. Those were his exact words. Not to mention that the last time the Conservatives did that, we wound up with the Bloc Québécois.

Need I remind the member for Mount Royal, who was elected under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada, that it was under his party that Canada nearly imploded twice? It was under a Liberal Party government that Quebec separatists gained momentum and that there were two referendums. As everyone knows, it nearly ended very badly in 1995.

Need I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois emerged immediately after the Meech Lake accord died? Who opposed the the Meech Lake accord? The federal Liberal Party, and especially its leader, Jean Chrétien, who did everything he could to make sure it did not work. This had some unfortunate consequences for Quebeckers, but Mr. Chrétien was so proud to go see his buddy, Clyde Wells, to thank him for everything he did. That is the Liberal Party to which the member for Mount Royal belongs. It is funny that he did not mention those things earlier.

His comments suggest that those in favour of a single tax return are separatists or are playing along with separatists. Is the member for Mount Royal prepared to say that Philippe Couillard is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that Pierre Arcand is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that Christine Saint-Pierre is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that David Birnbaum—whom he knows very well, as do I, because he was a colleague—is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that André Fortin, whom some already see as the leader of the provincial Liberal Party, is a separatist? Is he prepared to say that the hon. Geoffrey Kelley is a separatist? Are Saul Polo and Kathleen Weil also separatists?

It is disgraceful to see a man whom I respect and hold in esteem, a seasoned lawyer, resort to such unfortunate demagoguery. Quebeckers are fed up with the member for Mount Royal's fearmongering. He claims that if an individual supports the single tax return, he or she is a separatist. That is completely false, ludicrous and grotesque.

Worse still, the people claiming that jobs will be lost are wrong. This is not the first time we have seen such scare tactics. Let me remind the House of the timeline I laid out. On May 12, we, the Conservatives, adopted a motion for a single tax return. At the time, the byelection campaign for the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was in full swing. Chicoutimi is on the other side of the river from Jonquière. Jonquière is where the CRA tax centre is located. The people across the aisle were attacking the NDP. Need I remind anyone that the NDP was in favour of the motion at the time?

They came after us with all guns blazing, saying our proposal made no sense. They used scare tactics in the hope of frightening people into thinking they would lose their jobs. That is what we have been hearing all day. They kept repeating all this for weeks in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I have bad news for the pigmongers—fearmongers, I mean. Pigs have nothing to do with this. That is a whole other debate, which we will discuss when the topic of agriculture comes up.

What is the reality? The Liberals tried to scare the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, but the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord are proud people who understand and believe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the leader of the official opposition, when he says there will be no job losses. That is why 53% of voters in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord voted for the Conservative Party candidate.

I would like to close by quoting the statement from Quebec's former finance minister, a diehard federalist if ever there was one.

He said that he was “extremely disappointed” with the Prime Minister's position “because this was something that was in the public interest” of Quebeckers.

The Conservatives—

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I apologize, but the member is out of time. I am sure that what he did not manage to say in the last few seconds can be said during the period for questions, for which we do not have much time.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent quite well. We served on a committee together.

We seem to be losing sight of why Quebeckers now have to fill out two tax returns. At some point, Quebec, as a distinct society that wanted to have control over its own development, wanted to give itself some flexibility to create tax credits and tax measures to meet its own economic and social objectives. The intention was not to cause problems for Quebeckers. There is a reason behind this Quebec form.

Why do members now want to eliminate this flexibility and maybe even adapt Quebec's tax system to the rest of Canada's tax system? Do they really want to take away Quebec's flexibility?

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Because they are Canadians, too.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am certain that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is quite capable of answering the question and does not need help.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, allow me to commend my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who gave an absolutely exceptional speech today. When someone has been working in the House for three years, it shows. Kudos to my colleague.

To answer the question posed by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, whom I respect and hold in high esteem, I would say that the problem is that the Liberals believe that we want to ruin everything, while the opposite is true. We simply want to make life easier for people. The province of Quebec will be able to make all the laws it wants. Ottawa will be able to make all the laws it wants. One will not interfere with the other.

I will quote the current Quebec finance minister, Éric Girard, who the member knows very well because he ran against him in the last election. He said: “It goes without saying that implementing a single tax return takes political will. There would be certain administrative hurdles, but nothing that cannot be overcome.” That is a fine challenge for Quebeckers.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 5:32 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

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

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

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

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Madam Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 6, at the end of the time provided for Government Orders.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:45 p.m. so that we could begin private members' hour.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:47 p.m., to be exact?

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Oppostion Motion—Single tax return in QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

moved that Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-266, an act respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons. This bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This bill has been before the House before. To quote one of my previous speeches in the House, from 2014, in this bill I want to empower our courts “with the ability to increase parole ineligibility when sentencing individuals who have abducted, sexually assaulted and killed our innocent and often most vulnerable Canadians from the current 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years.”

The bill is not about creating stiffer penalties for sadistic murderers. These depraved convicts do not qualify for parole. My bill is about saving the families of the victims from having to go through the agony of attending unnecessary and traumatic parole hearings.

Let us be perfectly clear. Bill C-266 is not about mandatory minimum sentencing. The bill is in compliance with section 12 of the Charter of Rights. It is based on the discretion of the presiding judge through a recommendation to the jury. A judge could set parole ineligibility of between 25 and 40 years. It would not be prescribed where in there it would fall. The judge would have the discretionary power to make it anywhere from 25 years of parole ineligibility to 40 years.

This legislation is modelled after a bill brought forward in a previous Parliament, Bill C-48, the protecting Canadians by ending sentence discounts for multiple murders act, which we are seeing in use today at the McArthur trial as well as for the murderer who committed the mosque massacre in Quebec. That piece of legislation affords judges the opportunity to make the parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers consecutive rather than concurrent. Most of those convicted of these multiple murders or these heinous crimes of abducting, sexually assaulting and murdering our loved ones never get parole. Therefore, why do we continue to put families through unnecessary Parole Board hearings? There is absolutely no need to re-victimize those families.

As I mentioned, I brought the bill forward in a previous Parliament. It was introduced on February 27, 2013, as Bill C-478. The bill made it as far as the committee stage, when I was appointed parliamentary secretary, so I had to withdraw the bill. Colin Mayes, our former colleague from B.C., then picked it up as Bill C-587. That bill made it through committee and came back to the House at report stage and third reading on June 2, 2015. Of course, it never made it to the final vote before the House recessed and the election took place.

This legislation would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, as I have previously said. Increasing parole ineligibility from 25 years to 40 years would save families from having to go through the process of attending unnecessary Parole Board hearings and making victim impact statements, which are traumatic, to say the least, and heart-wrenching for those families. The bill would eliminate eight unnecessary Parole Board hearings families would have to attend.

Sadistic murderers often apply for parole every two years, starting at year 23, for the sole purpose of toying with the families, of revictimizing them and making them relive the gruesome killings that were committed.

The bill would change a number of subsections under section 745. It would be based upon the recommendation of a jury. The bill says that a judge would ask a jury at the time of sentencing if it wished “to make any recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release on parole”. When the jury was passing judgment, it could also recommend what the parole ineligibility could be. The judge would have discretion as to whether to accept that, and he or she could set it at a level he or she found appropriate. Judges on the board, when determining parole ineligibility, must have regard for “the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission”.

Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with a number of people on the legislation, along with Colin Mayes, the former member of Parliament from B.C. In the other place, Senator Boisvenu was a big help on this over the years. He founded an organization called Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association. This is something that he is incredibly passionate about.

Sharon Rosenfeldt's son Daryn was murdered by the notorious Clifford Olson and her organization is Victims of Violence. Susan Ashley is the sister of Linda Bright, who was killed by Donald Armstrong. Terri Prioriello's sister Darlene, also called Dolly, was murdered by David James Dobson. The organization Canadian Parents of Murdered Children has provided input over the years. This goes back some time.

I was interested in doing something for families. At the end of 2009-10, members will remember the terrible abduction, rape and murder of Tori Stafford. Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and prosecuted in 2010 and Michael Rafferty in 2012. During that time, while my heart was breaking listening to the Tori Stafford story, Clifford Olson was dying from cancer in prison and Sharon Rosenfeldt talked on the radio about how this killer had impacted her family over the years. He sent letters describing how he murdered her son Daryn. Because of that type of sadistic behaviour, tormenting families and using Parole Board hearings to feed his own sick appetite, it became clear to me that we needed to do something for families.

I knew full well that both murderers of Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic, will be applying for parole in the year 2023 after the murder in 2009. I think all Canadians would consider it unacceptable that families have to go through this ongoing saga of Parole Board hearing after Parole Board hearing.

We need to make sure the legislation targets the most depraved of society, the sadistic murderers out there who often prey on children and the most vulnerable, those who abduct, sexually assault and murder, often in a very gruesome manner. We are talking about people like Robert Pickton, Russell Williams, Michael Rafferty, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, David James Dobson, Donald Armstrong, Luka Magnotta and we are watching the McArthur case unfold now in Toronto. This would apply to those individuals, particularly those who do not get consecutive life sentences. They could be given a 40-year sentence before they could apply for parole.

It is important that we talk about some of these families, like the family of Linda Bright, who was just 16 when she was abducted by Donald Armstrong in Kingston back in 1978. He has applied for parole numerous times. I have been talking to Susan Ashley, Linda's sister, and she said about the Parole Board hearings in the past, “My heart breaks having to live through this again. My heart breaks having to watch my Mom and Dad drag up their thoughts and pain from that deep place inside them where they tuck their hurt away”.

Linda's mother, Margaret, said during her victim impact statement, “This is not fair. We should not have to relive our tragedy. When I remember my daughter, let me remember her as a little girl. Don't make me think about the other awful time in 1978.... Let me tell you this has been the most difficult thing I have had to do in the last twenty years.”

Gary Rosenfeldt, who was Johnsrude's stepfather, has now passed away. His wife is Sharon Rosenfeldt. He said publicly, after going through a number of Parole Board hearings in 2006 and 2010, and even back in 1997, when there was still the faint hope clause, “What's really horrendous about this is this is only the beginning. We're going to have to do this every two years as long as Olson lives, and this is a very painful experience for myself, my family.”

It should be noted that Clifford Olson died in prison. He was never paroled. These individuals do not get parole.

Darlene Prioriello was abducted, raped, mutilated and murdered by David James Dobson in 1982. He is at the Bath Institution. Darlene's sister Terri has said this about having to go through these painful, repetitive and unnecessary Parole Board hearings: “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.” Unfortunately, that goes on.

We have had the Library of Parliament research how these murderers have been treated in prison and whether or not they have ever received parole. The best we can find is that some of them have been given day parole or temporary leave. They have never, ever been released back into the public on full parole. They are serving life sentences, and they will continue to do that.

A lot of people wonder how I came up with the 15 extra years in the 25 plus 15. Murder is 25 years without parole, abduction is a maximum of 10 years without parole, and sexual assault is a maximum of 4.6 years without parole. Added together, we get 40 years.

Let us be clear that I am not saying we are setting mandatory minimums, taking it up to 40 years. It is anywhere in between. The judge and the jury decide where the parole and eligibility should be set. It could be 25 years, 30 years, 35 years or 40 years. It is up to the judge and the jury to make those decisions. By respecting the independence of the court we are in compliance with chapter 12 of the charter.

We have seen this type of approach being taken with previous legislation. This judicial discretion is incredibly important, because the judge will take that recommendation, along with the regard he has to have for the character of the offender, the nature of the offences and the circumstances surrounding their commission. If the jury chooses, it can provide input as well.

I am looking forward to hearing the position of the government on this, as well as that of the NDP, but I am appealing to all members of the House to support the bill.

It should be noted that in the previous Parliament, all Liberals voted yes at second reading for this legislation. Many of them sit on the benches today, and are still here.

I want to make sure people understand that these depraved murderers, these brutal and sadistic members of society, will never be released back into society. They are not going to be released. The Parole Board of Canada continues to hold them in institutions, knowing they are dangerous offenders who potentially could reoffend, because so often they are psychopaths. Therefore, let us ensure we are not revictimizing those families by having them go to all these unnecessary Parole Board hearings and relive the murder and brutal details of how their loved ones were killed, all to the gratification of those incarcerated psychopaths.

I ask that everyone support this legislation. Let us get it to committee and let us hear from the victims organizations, the families who have been impacted and the families who are calling for this. Let us give them some peace. Let us respect their wishes and their lives so they do not have to go on and on living this nightmare.

As Yvonne Harvey of the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children said, “Although I have not personally faced the ordeal of a parole hearing, I have spoken to many individuals who have. I am certain that the primary intent of this bill, to spare the families of victims from having to attend unnecessary parole hearings, would be most welcomed.”

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work of my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for bringing forward this initiative.

The member indicated in his remarks that he did not think the bill transgressed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the point about presumed cruel and unusual punishment. He claims that there is this discretion available to judges or juries on sentencing, between 25 and 40 years in his scheme. Does the member have a formal legal opinion to that effect or is that simply his idea?

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, in the previous Parliament, I discussed this with the Department of Justice, along with the judicial team at the Library of Parliament, to ensure this was in compliance. It falls along the same suit of Bill C-48 from that Parliament, which is still in use today and is in compliance with the charter. This is not about anything that is considered cruel and unusual punishment. This legislation would provide full flexibility and independence to the courts to make those decisions.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, despite the fact that the bill might be in compliance, as the member has suggested, I am curious if he can explain the process of it coming through the House last time and being voted on. I understand that it sat on the Order Paper for a while. For some reason, it did not move forward from there. Why did the previous government not pick up on it? Is there any insight into why it was not moved along by the former Conservative government?