Pierrette Venne

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-45, in Clause 45, be amended in the French version, by replacing line 25, on page 27, with the following:

"pertinents dans leur évaluation du risque que le délinquant".

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-45, in Clause 34, be amended in the French version by replacing lines 15 to 19, on page 13, with the following:

"n'est pas admissible à la libération conditionnelle totale avant d'avoir purgé, à la fois, depuis le jour où il s'est vu infliger cette peine supplémentaire: a ) le reste du temps d'épreuve relatif à la peine que le délinquant purgeait déjà lorsqu'il s'est vu imposer la peine supplémentaire; b ) le temps d'épreuve relatif à cette peine supplémentaire.''

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Vancouver moved a non-votable motion urging the government to hold a referendum on capital punishment concurrently with the next federal election. Reform members have outdone themselves once again. Since they realize they may be swept off the electoral map in the next election, they are trying to exercise their mandate as legislators beyond the term for which they were elected to this House.

If Reform members think we will not take this seriously, they are wrong. Their publicity-hungry leader took advantage of the summer recess to try to revive the debate on capital punishment. Once the debate on gun control had subsided, he had to find something else to keep him in front of the tv cameras. Burned by the debate on gun control where they finally showed their true colours, Reform members have completely lost their sense of reality, trapped in neanderthal attitudes where repression is the rule and rehabilitation and presumption of innocence are vague concepts thought up by criminologists.

The legitimacy of the penal system is largely based on its effectiveness and fairness. Its underlying principle is the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of law which says that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty following a trial.

Wrongful convictions undermine this fundamental principle. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said earlier, David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Morin are three names we too often forget. Nevertheless, these individuals each paid an enormous debt to society, a debt they did not owe.

In Manitoba, David Milgaard spent 23 years of his life behind bars before his release. He was unjustly convicted of murder. The Crown's principal witness perjured himself at the trial.

In Nova Scotia, Donald Marshall served 11 years in the penitentiary for a murder he did not commit. Another inmate finally confessed. Thirty-five years old today, Guy Paul Morin paid a high price for a judicial error. He was falsely accused of the murder of young Christine Jessup. He was found guilty at his first trial. After nearly ten years in the penitentiary, Morin was acquitted thanks to considerable advances in science and DNA research.

These three men would have been dead and buried years ago if capital punishment was still the law in this country. Three innocent men sent to the gallows, murders ordered by the government. For all the Clifford Olsons and Paul Bernados that roam our streets, there will be innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit.

In the United States, according to the Criminal Justice Research Centre, every year 6,000 people are wrongfully convicted of a serious crime. To my knowledge, there has been no similar study in Canada.

The trouble with capital punishment is that it is irreversible. I realize I am stating the obvious, but we must admit that once the injection has been administered, that is it. No appeal, no new evidence that would reverse the conviction and no opportunity to review an erroneous judicial decision.

If the conviction is, as in most cases, based on circumstantial evidence or even if the police manages to get an eye witness, the fact remains that mistakes are always possible and that a human life is at stake. And we cannot change our minds after the execution. I can see the headlines: "Posthumously acquitted".

But do not, above all, conclude that I am forgetting the victim in all of this. His or her life has also been taken. I want to see these murderers tracked down and sentenced severely, made an example of. I am thinking of cases like that of little Melissa Deley, barely ten years old, who was taken away from her home in Surrey, British Columbia, raped and murdered.

Calling for a referendum on the issue of the death penalty is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Following the same logic, why not ask for a referendum on the budget or social reform?

Since they do not form the government nor are they the official opposition, the Reform members are trying in every possible way to usurp power by sneaky moves.

The Reform Party, especially the member for North Vancouver, wants to govern without being in power. Not content with representing a minority of the far right, for whom coercion is the solution for every ill, they now want to impose upon us their form of gang rule government. They want to pass statutes indirectly for which they have never received a mandate. Their hunger for power is equalled only by their cheap opportunism. You have to have a really colossal nerve to make political hay at the expense of victims and their families. In my opinion, calling for a referendum on all issues is not the way to fulfill the role of member of Parliament. Is this the only way the Reform Party has been able to find to divert attention from the only true referendum which will be held on October 30?

In 1994, 596 homicides were reported in Canada, 34 fewer than in 1993. This was the third year in a row that the number had gone down. The homicide rate was 6 per cent lower than the rate in 1993, the lowest rate recorded in Canada in the past 25 years.

Since we started gathering statistics nationally on homicides in 1961, two trends have emerged. Between 1961 and 1975, the rate of homicides rose consistently. Between 1975 and 1994, the rate decreased regularly, despite yearly fluctuations.

The transition period was therefore between 1975 and 1976. It was in 1976 that the death penalty was abolished in Canada. So much for those who contend that the death penalty is the way to reduce the number of homicides. Since the death penalty was abolished, murders in this country have decreased by 33 per cent.

The wind of the far right blowing over the United States is sending breezes of repression our way. Let us have a closer look. Many states already have legislation making it possible for a jury to condemn an individual found guilty of premeditated murder to death.

New York state has just joined the club and enacted legislation providing for the death penalty in cases of murder. Despite the fact that the United States has the death penalty, the homicide rate there has generally been three times the rate in Canada. The FBI reported more than 23,330 homicides last year, a rate of nine murders per 100,000 inhabitants. To give you an idea of what theses figures mean, 18,390 homicides have been committed in Canada in the past 33 years.

Let us be wary of handing over our criminal justice system to the Reformers. The Reform Party will put us back 1,000 years into the middle ages, when anarchy was the rule.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are back to where we were a few minutes ago, that is speaking of Bill C-45 in general and not at all of Motion No. 1 which we have before us and which actually deals with inmates' income and the percentage that victims should receive.

This is not at all what the hon. member is in the process of speaking to us about. He is speaking of the bill in general. This is

not the stage to be doing that, I believe. That is why I wished to draw your attention to this matter.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I point out that the hon. member is not speaking on Motion No. 1 at this time. He is giving us a general speech on gun control and everything under the sun except Motion No. 1.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have decided not to speak on this issue quite simply because the parliamentary secretary has just spoken in exactly the same vein and I too find this motion inappropriate. To put it bluntly, we are against it.

[Point Of Order, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask, you would certainly find unanimous consent to withdraw Motion M-208 standing in my name from the order of precedence of Private Members' Business.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to conclude my comments on Bill C-72 right away.

I was speaking about the preamble and the relationship of the preamble to the third paragraph of the new clause. The preamble provides that it is necessary to legislate a basis of criminal fault in relation to general intent offences involving violence.

However, subclause 33.1(3) of the bill provides that the section applies to offences including violence or threat of violence under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament. Does this not mean that the section would also apply to specific intent offences with violence? This however is not the case.

In fact, an individual charged will still be able to claim self-induced intoxication as a defence against such serious charges as murder, theft, robbery, extortion, breaking and entering and torture.

As the preamble to the bill indicates, we clearly recognize the close association between violence and intoxication. The urgency of the situation requires immediate intervention. Every day women are battered by their drunken spouse.

The results of a national survey on assaults against female spouses, in which more than 12,300 women participated, were released in March 1994. As I said previously, this survey establishes beyond the shadow of a doubt the relationship between alcohol and violence. It reveals that alcohol is a prime factor in spousal assaults. The aggressor had been drinking in half of all the reported assaults.

More specifically, the rate of assault on woman living with a man who drinks regularly, that is at least four times a week, was three times higher than for abstinent husbands.

Women whose husbands drink often five drinks or more at one time were six times more exposed to assault than women whose spouse did not drink. In 1993, 55 per cent of the men who killed their partners had consumed alcohol.

That being said, Bill C-72 is only part of the solution when dealing with the violence issue. When sexual assault results in the death of the victim, what was common assault becomes culpable homicide. The offender will be able to use the intoxica-

tion defence, whereas he could not have presented such a defence if the victim had not died, since in that case he would have been charged with aggravated sexual assault.

Which leads to the following nonsense. If the aggressor hits his victim hard enough to cause her death, he can plead that he was too intoxicated to know what he was doing. On the other hand, if the victim recovers from her injuries, he will no longer be able to use this defence. Such nonsense ought to be remedied at once. The only way this can be done is by consolidating the Criminal Code and updating our law so that it reflects what society condones and what it will not tolerate.

Every form of violence should be exterminated like vermin. The Minister of Justice should not wait any longer to complete the reform of the general part of the Criminal Code. The rules of criminal law are archaic and many of its fundamental principles are not included in the general part, as they were developed by the courts.

Precedents shape the law. It is high time for roles to be reversed and for lawmakers to act responsibly. The Barreau du Québec quite rightly expressed serious concerns about Bill C-72.

In its brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, it suggests a global approach to penal law. Here is what it said in unequivocal terms. "The Barreau du Québec wishes to emphasize that, far from eliminating the confusion which surrounds the concepts applying to criminal law, the proposed legislation creates even greater confusion. The urgency is of a political nature and is the direct result of the treatment, by the media, of the Daviault case. This certainly confirms the need to look at the issue, but we must do so in the appropriate general context".

Other groups showed less tolerance toward Bill C-72. The Criminal Lawyers Association called the legislation "premature". These criminal lawyers feel that the bill violates the charter of rights and freedoms. They deplore the attitude of the Minister of Justice, who is providing a political solution to a legal issue. These criminal lawyers also feel that the premises of the preamble are flawed and are too open to interpretation.

Without necessarily agreeing with these groups, I do see a common denominator, namely the need to reform our criminal law, particularly the Criminal Code. Using a piecemeal approach or merely patching things up only leads to inconsistent legislation and absurd precedents.

We need a comprehensive review, as Superior Court Justice Réjean Paul said:

"It has already been quite a while since the Law Reform Commission of Canada suggested to Parliament that it should undertake major changes regarding substantive law and criminal procedure, so as to be able to deal with contemporary issues. It is necessary to adopt a new Criminal Code, as well as a new Code of procedure. In Canada, we are still using a working tool that dates back to the previous century, was reworked in 1927 and 1952, and patched up several times since to deal with new political, economic or social realities".

The chaotic situation prevailing in our criminal law system could not be better summed up. Therefore, I exhort the Minister of Justice to stop grandstanding and to propose an overhaul in September. Criminal law needs a steady hand at the helm, someone capable of keeping on course, not someone who will be dragged along in the wake of the courts.

In closing, I would like to wish all of my colleagues a pleasant end of session; we all know that the last sprint is difficult. I wish you all a good summer and above all, a happy national holiday, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, to all Quebecers. May we proudly celebrate the joy that comes with belonging to a people who will soon, very soon, take charge of their own affairs and create a country of their own.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would need 8 or 9 minutes more.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have passed these past few days two controversial and divisive bills. The most eclectic views were put forward, and the emotional intensity of the debate on bills C-68 and C-41 was reflected by some members' virulent outbursts.

Unlike these bills, Bill C-72 is not intended to cause controversy and debate, but rather to bring them to a close. The Supreme Court decision in the Daviault affair has outraged the general public. Henri Daviault was charged with sexual assault on a hemiplegic woman while intoxicated.

He was acquitted by the trial judge who was not absolutely certain that Daviault was sufficiently aware of what he was doing to form a criminal intent, that is to say the intent to sexually assault.

The Quebec Appeal Court quashed this decision two years ago and convicted Daviault. But on September 30, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that pleading intoxication could be admissible in some specific cases and ordered a retrial.

Reactions to the decision rendered by the highest court of the land were quick to follow. While a plea based on the Daviault decision was expected to be used only very exceptionally, the interpretation given to this decision by lower courts lead to three acquittals within two months.

All these cases involved women who had allegedly been assaulted, sexually or otherwise. In the Blair case, in Alberta, an alcoholic was charged with assaulting his wife. He was acquitted on the basis of the Daviault decision. In the Compton case, in Prince Edward Island, the accused, who only vaguely remembered what happened at a social gathering because he was drinking, was acquitted of charges of sexual assault. The judge said that he could not make a ruling and that he was not

convinced that the Crown had established the criminal intend required to convict the accused.

Closer to home, in the district of Hull, in the Thériault case, a Court of Quebec judge acquitted a man charged with assaulting and threatening his spouse on the grounds that he was too high on cocaine to realize what he was doing.

Three cases of women who were victims of assault and all three resulted in acquittals. This is more then the public could take. Canadians have had enough of the aberrant decisions made by our judicial system. Following the Supreme Court decision, the Minister of Justice decided to take action. In fact, the general outcry provoked by the Daviault case and the subsequent decisions made by lower courts was such that the minister had to respond immediately. This is of course a political decision; it is only a short term solution, before the Criminal Code undergoes a comprehensive review. This is what we call a piecemeal approach.

The problem with this approach is that it inevitably results in a legislative mosaic which lacks cohesion. Although the justice minister has done some pretty good patchwork, it is still incomplete and inadequate. We wonder whatever happened to the judicial and legislative powers. Simple logic tells us that Parliament should legislate and then let the courts interpret the intent of the legislation. However, this is not the case. The courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, seem to be telling Parliament how to legislate. The world has gone crazy.

It is up to the Minister of Justice to initiate reforms. The Supreme Court should not have to lead him by the hand. It is not up to the highest court in the country to take the initiative, the minister should do it. Enough of stopgap measures. Let us get on with it. The Daviault case was not the only opportunity used by the Supreme Court to send a message to the Minister of Justice.

Indeed, in the McIntosh decision, brought down on February 23, the court gave a rather surprising interpretation of the notion of self-defence. The judges concluded that an aggressor responsible for a dispute could avail himself of the principle of self-defence in a murder case. Chief Justice Lamer made a very telling comment when he wrote, and I quote: "It is clear that legislative action is required to clarify the Criminal Code's self-defence regime". He added: "It is, in my opinion, anomalous that an accused who commits the most serious act has the broadest defence. Parliament, after all, has the right to legislate illogically".

The message is rather clear. Yet, it remains unanswered. With all due respect, the judges of the Supreme Court were not elected by the people and it is not their duty to indicate the direction the criminal law should take. Jurisprudence has an important role to play in the development of the law, but it is not a substitute for the decisions we as legislators are supposed to make.

As for the bill before us today, the substantive amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-72 are preceded by a preamble setting out the circumstances and considerations justifying this new legislative measure. The preamble will appear in the texts as an integral part of the amending legislation, but it will not be included in the Criminal Code. In fact, the preamble is longer than clause 33.1, which will be added to the Code. It is therefore difficult to ignore.

Generally speaking, the preamble gives the background to the bill. Among other things, mention is made of the serious concern with violence in society, the close association between violence and intoxication and the recognized potential effects of alcohol on human behaviour. In this same vein, reference is made to the moral view that people who, while in a state of self-induced intoxication, violate the physical integrity of others are blameworthy and must therefore be held criminally accountable for their conduct, whence the need to incorporate in the law a standard of care, departure from which would entail criminal fault.

A minor amendment has been suggested by the justice committee concerning paragraph 4 of the preamble, which points out logically enough that the consumption of intoxicants may not necessarily cause a person to act involuntarily.

It is difficult to argue with virtue. On the other hand, the preamble raises a number of questions and comments. What is meant by saying that violence has a particularly disadvantaging impact on the equal participation of women and children in society. Are we afraid to say what we mean? Why does the preamble emphasize violence against women and children? Why are we still and always compared with children? It has really started to bug me that women are being equated with children, when it comes to victimization.

Let me make this clear. I am not saying that children do not deserve special attention. What bothers me is the condescending and paternalistic attitude of the lawmaker. Whenever women need protection of any importance, we protect them as if they were children. It would seem to me that several people still consider us the weaker sex, actually, as weak as a child.

Therefore, society should give us women the same protection, according to the lawmakers, perhaps; that is a male way of thinking. A woman does not need to be taken by the hand. A woman does not need to be told to look twice before crossing the street. A woman is a mature and responsible being. A woman is a mother who raises a child. A woman is not a child.

Stop thinking of us in this way. If, in general, women need special protection, that protection should be different from the protection given to children. And children certainly do not encounter the same obstacles as women do, when they try to take an active role in society. So, why suggest that they are similar? Otherwise, we would have to reclassify all human beings in our society. We would have to start talking about adults, on the one hand, and, on the other, women and children. There was a time

when people used to think this way. It would seem that the lawmaker is now heading back in that direction.

The summary gives an insight into the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-72. However, this litany of excuses has no other purpose than to eventually refer the issue to the Supreme Court, for an opinion on the approach taken in the amendments made in Bill C-72.

The Minister of Justice is consistent as he again considers the option of a referral asking the Supreme Court to examine the amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-72, as soon as the legislation is passed by Parliament but before the legislation comes into force.

He would seek a non-binding advisory opinion from the Supreme Court, as if Parliament needed the seal of approval of the courts! And if the Supreme Court felt that the provisions were unconstitutional, we would have to go through the whole process again. We would be back to square one, and the time spent in the House and in committee would have been wasted.

If the Minister of Justice is so sure that his bill would pass the test of a constitutional challenge, why bother seeking the approval of the Supreme Court?

Immediate implementation of these amendments is both necessary and crucial. As long as we keep postponing the coming into force of this legislation, the number of these sad and sordid cases will continue to increase. Courts across the country are waiting for the Minister of Justice to act. This time they are seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Aside from the preamble, the bill is very brief. Just one clause. Bill C-72 proposes to add a new section 33.1 to the Criminal Code, which consists of three subsections. The first one removes the defence of self-induced intoxication, the second subsection defines the standard of fault and the third specifies the type of offence to which the provision applies.

Section 33.1 of the bill will be added to the general part of the Criminal Code under the heading Self-induced intoxication . However, the section in question provides no definition of this term and does not list specific circumstances to which the section does not apply. It seems to me that the Minister of Justice, who wants to correct a judicial decision, is still leaving a lot of room for interpretation. The connection between the preamble and subsection three of the article seems somewhat ambiguous.