Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga East who has just spoken, not only for bringing forward this bill for a second time, but for the words she has given this House to consider as well as all Canadians who are struggling to understand why we have a justice system that allows this kind of thing to go on and on.
Surely it is fair and just that we take a look at what our courts are doing in terms of sentencing individuals like the Clifford Olsons of this country to terms of imprisonment that are in fact a bargain price for criminality.
I rise in support of this private member's bill. This is a good bill. It was a good bill when it was introduced last parliament as private member's Bill C-321, a bill that may have been law today if our Liberal colleagues had deemed it votable.
In 1993 the Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in this government through added private members' bills. For those members new to this House, in the last parliament the member for Mississauga East accused the Liberal dominated, four-member committee that determines which private members' bills will be votable of short-circuiting controversial bills.
The Mississauga East MP, and I hope she does not mind me quoting her comments since they are on the record, said:
We supposedly have open government, but we have secret committees and I'd guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I'm not suggesting it's a kangaroo court; it's more like a cockroach court. You can't see them at work and they run.
In 1996 the hon. member was also quoted in the Hill Times as saying:
If I had a bill on lawn care, I bet I'd have success in getting it through the committee—. If I had a bill that offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the place in a week, but if you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct an obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate.
The member made these comments in reference to her private member's bill on consecutive sentencing, Bill C-321, which was rejected by her colleagues.
I commend the member for having the fortitude to once again bring this most important bill forward.
Harsher comments appeared in the Hill Times in reference to private members' business. These words, which I would like to reiterate, were from Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of murder victim Leslie Mahaffy. Mrs. Mahaffy said:
I am disgusted but not surprised by the heartless comments on the issue of consecutive sentencing that came out of the flapping mouths of government Liberal members as reported in your paper on November 11, “MPs Slag Private Members' Business.”
Mrs. Mahaffy went on to state:
—the Secretary of State for the Status of Women says she was not familiar with this serious issue for victims' families because she had not attended caucus that week and as a result had nothing to say. Could it be that the issue of consecutive sentencing has been at more caucus meetings than she? Or perhaps she simply doesn't read newspapers about serious issues of crime. Another cruel remark dealing with sentencing of serial predators made by another bright light, Liberal—. chair of the women's caucus is equally inane. Her diatribe that she might support consecutive sentencing if [the member from Mississauga East] brings the issue to the forefront again, is mindless and absurd to say the least.
Well, if the floor is hers again we will see what that member has to say.
Mrs. Mahaffy went to state:
The fact that she made this comment after consulting with [the] Justice Minister and the Liberal [member from Mississauga East] adds to the obscenity. With this calibre of consultants, I suggest it is time for [the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore] to seek better advisors.
I have omitted a small portion of Mrs. Mahaffy's letter to the Hill Times , but I would like to read her last paragraph:
Shame on all of you for adding to our pain and for your lack of humanity, and the lack of wisdom to make a difference.
When we talk about our justice system and those in this House who are responsible for amending our laws and bringing forth new initiatives I cannot help but be reminded of an article in yesterday's newspaper by Jeffrey Simpson. It is headed “A Justice Minister with a Lower Profile than a Groundhog in Winter”. That is not very flattering, but I think it strikes very close to the truth. The reason for that is because our justice minister has really done very little, if anything, during almost a year of holding one of the strongest portfolios in government. It is certainly one of the two portfolios that has the mandate and the responsibility to look into things like ending concurrent sentencing and moving toward more just and applicable pieces of legislation.
I would also like to read from an article which appeared on November 27, 1996 in a B.C. newspaper regarding the standing committee on justice's national forum on youth justice, which occurred at the end of the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act. For the record, I could not support the expenditure of $60,000 to host this meeting. That was what the estimate was. I do not know what the actual cost was, but that is what we were asked to support. I could not do that because I felt we would be going over old ground by hearing from a number of witnesses who had already appeared before our committee. My opposition to this wasteful use of taxpayers' money caused me to endure a bit of a berating from the chair of that committee, which is hard for me to forget, although I have forgiven that member for that type of an attitude toward me because of the feelings the member experienced at the time. Nevertheless, it did happen. That displays an attitude that is all too prevalent in those who are responsible for the direction that our justice system has been taking, certainly during the last five years since I have been a member of this House.
I quote from that article:
Ottawa was a bust for [the member for Surrey North]. [The member for Surrey North], whose teenage son Jesse was stabbed to death by another teen four years ago, was invited to speak before the federal standing committee of justice affairs last weekend in Canada's capital city. But the Guildford dad, who founded the victims' rights group Crime, Responsibility and Youth (CRY) after his son was murdered, says the trip was a waste of time. “I spoke maybe five minutes total,” he said. “It was a joke. I shouldn't have even bothered going.” The meeting was poorly chaired, he charged.
Of 33 participants, [the member for Surrey North] said, only himself and a representative of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT), another victims' rights group, spoke from the victims' perspective. The other participations were lawyers, criminologists and members of groups like the John Howard Society, a group advocating convicts' rights. Everything else was geared to the rights of offenders [the member for Surrey North] said. “I was the only person in the whole damn bunch who took the victims' side to anything,” he said, “and someone from CAVEAT.” He said he appreciated being asked to attend, but added, “it was so obviously one-sided.”
It is certainly not the first time a witness or an observer has called the committee a bust or a sham. The mayor of Cornwall walked out on the committee, called it a complete waste of time and accused the committee of being predisposed. I was and remain a member of that committee and I cannot disagree with the observations of the member for Surrey North and the mayor of Cornwall.
By December 1996, three years after the 1993 election, 16 private members' bills were introduced to reform Canada's criminal justice system. None have become law. It is unfortunate that despite the hard work and effort of many parliamentarians from all sides of the House, a similar pattern is emerging in this parliament.
Included in those bills that died was one introduced by the member for York—South Weston, Bill C-234. This very necessary bill did not become law. It did not even come back to the floor of the House of Commons because the Liberal members of the justice standing committee killed it. They did this despite the fact that Bill C-234 had the overwhelming support of the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence. Bill C-234 most certainly had the support of the Reform Party because this private members' bill would have repealed section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would have quashed the killer's glimmer of hope for being released before serving his full sentence.
I commend my colleague from Mississauga East for her courage in standing in a caucus where there is not much support for what many people across this country are asking for. I assure her that she has my support on this bill and the support of my caucus.
