Albina Guarnieri

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-251, in the title, be amended by restoring the title thereof as follows:

“An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences)”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-251, in Clause 1, be amended by restoring Clause 1 thereof as follows:

“1. Section 271 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(2) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1).”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-251, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2 thereof as follows:

“2. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) The portion of a sentence of imprisonment for life that a person who has been convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder must serve before the person may be released on full parole is, subject to subsection (2.2), that provided for in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and, in addition, where the person is under another sentence of imprisonment in respect of another offence arising out of the same event or series of events or under any other sentence at the time the sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on the person, the lesser of one third of any other sentence of imprisonment and seven years.

(2.2) Where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life for first degree murder or second degree murder after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of another first degree murder or second degree murder not arising out of the same event or series of events, the portion of the sentence that the person must serve before the person may be released on full parole is that provided for in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and shall be added to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve under that section in respect of the other conviction for first degree murder or second degree murder.”

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to restore a private member's bill that seeks consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.

For months and years I have been working with colleagues from all parties to demonstrate to parliament and to the public at large exactly how our rampant system of concurrent sentencing deprives Canadians of justice.

We know that 90% of Canadians polled by Pollara last year agreed that multiple murderers and multiple rapists should receive consecutive rather than concurrent sentencing. I believe that Canadians support consecutive sentencing because Canadians think that every victim should receive some measure of justice and that every victim should count in the sentencing equation where rape or murder is involved.

It is because of those victims and the many, many families of victims I have met over three years that I have chosen not to accept the dismissal of Bill C-251 by any committee or subcommittee without a final vote in the House of Commons.

I have also been encouraged by the continuous support of so many members who have shown that they care most about the impact of laws on victims and families. They have proven that it is possible for members from all sides of the House to put partisanship aside and work together to achieve a real improvement in our justice system.

I must also thank the many members of my own party who have gone to great lengths to support this initiative in the House and in caucus. Without their efforts this bill would have died long ago.

I have listened carefully to the advice of my colleagues who support the bill but I have also listened just as carefully to colleagues who do not support my bill. I have listened and I have learned that there is indeed a virtual consensus among MPs on one point, that being that the current system of automatic concurrent sentences for murder and virtually automatic concurrent sentencing for rape is wrong and must be changed.

What remains is a debate on the extent of judicial discretion. I have heard colleagues say that they are not against consecutive sentencing but they are against mandatory consecutive sentencing, that they want to let judges decide what sentence should be imposed.

As all members well know, judges have no discretion to impose consecutive sentencing for murder. A concurrent sentence must always apply no matter what the circumstance. So we have no judicial discretion in the courts today on this point. The law is that the second murder victim does not count regardless of what a judge may think.

I believe that the second murder or sexual assault victim should always count. We should not continue to send a message to multiple murderers and rapists that the number of victims does not matter. That is wrong and dangerous.

However, in my estimation, our priority must be to change the current system and its mandatory bulk rate for murder to provide at least for a judge to be able to impose consecutive sentencing for murder, something that they cannot do right now. I have agreed to support an amendment to my bill to provide the judicial discretion sought by my colleagues.

The amendment submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville will provide full judicial discretion as to whether a concurrent or consecutive sentence should apply for murder. This will give a judge the latitude to give the next Paul Bernardo a sentence that denies him parole for 25 years for the first murder and up to 25 years for the second murder.

The alternative is to maintain the current system where multiple murderers face not even the possibility of an incremental sentence for additional murders. The status quo is not acceptable to the majority of Canadians

In terms of sexual assault, even the most prolific multiple rapist of the 1990s received concurrent sentences. These discounts were given because concurrent sentencing has become the norm from which judges are shy to deviate. A second amendment to my bill also submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville proposes to maintain judicial discretion but present consecutive sentencing as the standard.

Under this provision judges must provide oral and written reasons based on a set of criteria as to why they offered concurrent rather than consecutive sentences in a particular case. I believe this is a significant and positive change from the current law and one which will provide more justice for women and children who fall victim to sexual predators in this country.

With these amendments, Bill C-251 boils down to one single question. Do members of this House support the status quo of automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple murderers and virtually automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple sex offenders?

I ask members to end the hopelessness of that injustice and the anguish it causes to the victims and the families of victims. I ask members to look on the amended Bill C-251 as a measured advance toward fairness and proportionality in sentencing with all the safeguards that complete judicial discretion can offer.

[Committees Of The House, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a unanimous report, namely the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I would like to express special thanks to our committee clerk, Danielle Parent-Bélisle, and researchers Sandra Harder and Bill Young for diligently meeting all committee deadlines. I wish to personally thank all members of the committee for their tremendous collaboration and co-operation on the modernization of Canada's social insurance number system.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

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

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

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

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

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

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

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

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

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that fish stocks is a crucial issue and is pertinent to the lives of fishermen.

I thank the initiative of the Reform Party and my colleagues opposite in the Tory party who have chosen to highlight one of the obscenities in the Canadian justice system.

I remind the hon. member that despite the witness list he cites, I commissioned a Pollara poll which indicated nine out of ten Canadians agree with this position.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I know he has a particular sensitivity to this issue.

It is my fervent hope that the wisdom of the House will prevail and that legislation, whether it emanates from the department or whether it is translated by my bill, will come forward to ensure that the bulk rate for murder and volume discounts for rapists do not prevail. Currently that is the law in Canada today.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first introduced my private member's bill on consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers and rapists.

It was blocked once by the subcommittee on private members' business. It was blocked again by the same committee six months later when I reintroduced the bill. Then again after the election it was finally permitted to be made votable and was voted at second reading and referred to the justice committee which did hear from many witnesses. Yesterday the bill's three year journey ended in three minutes.

The bill has the unfettered support of the attorney general and the solicitor general of Ontario, the justice minister of Alberta and the justice minister of Manitoba.

Bill C-251 passed second reading, as I mentioned, 81 to 3. The bill has the support of the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian police chiefs, the police services board and every major victims organization in the country. Bill C-251 has the support of both NAC and REAL Women. The bill has the support of the national Union of Solicitor General Employees.

The bill is the second of three key legislative requests made by the Canadian Police Association during its 1999 annual legislative conference and lobby day.

As this will likely be the last time in this parliament that concurrent sentences for multiple murderers and rapists are challenged, I would like to read into the record some of the arguments that were presented in opposition to the bill and respond to them.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association asked the question: Why does this particular offence, referring to sexual assault, have to attract consecutive sentences? Why is it centred out? Why do we not pick robbery, break and enters, car jackings, or home invasions? A convicted murderer who also presented to the justice committee had a similar problem distinguishing between rape and going through someone's drawers during a break and enter.

Sexual assault I would maintain is different from break and enter in that sexual assaults cause permanent, often catastrophic harm to the victim. From the perspective of the assailant or his legal representatives, this impact on the victim may not be of great importance. But again I remind the House that not long ago this House both supported consecutive sentences and mandatory minimums for offences involving firearms, including imitation firearms. Is a conviction for sexual assault any less important than a conviction for the use of an imitation firearm?

The myth that life is life was also perpetuated. The Criminal Lawyers' Association, the John Howard Society and Lifeline, a society of paroled murderers, all protested that a life sentence actually means life imprisonment: “The punishment for murder, regardless of whether it is first or second degree is imprisonment. There can be no greater term of imprisonment”.

Multiple murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada using its own statistics, serve an average of only 18.8 years in prison. That was the evidence of a witness from the Department of the Solicitor General who presented data to the committee showing that the largest group of multiple murderers in the system, 292 multiple murderers in total, can expect to spend only that long in prison.

I remind the House that Denis Lortie was luckier. He was released on full parole after 11 years after committing three murders. Three and one-half years for each murder. That is the reality of today's justice system. Once parole is granted, a life sentence can mean as little as one visit to a parole officer every three months. It usually means one visit a month according to one witness.

Even in the current law there is a degree of differentiation within a life sentence. The minimum parole ineligibility for first degree murder is 25 years, while the minimum for second degree is 10. Hence there is already ample precedent for applying different parole and eligibility periods for different crimes within a life sentence, as is called for in Bill C-251.

The assertion that a life sentence results in imprisonment for life is an Orwellian deception that serves to mislead Canadians.

The justice committee heard evidence of the extent of volume discounts in the current system. The committee was told that 321 multiple murderers had received concurrent sentences, and according to statistics, an average volume discount of 58%. That means the average multiple murderer will actually serve less than half his cumulative sentence in jail.

The committee also heard that 60% of all sex offenders admitted to federal prisons were multiple sex offenders who received concurrent sentences. The average volume discount was 68%. Time served under concurrent sentences was shown to be less than one-third of the time that would have been served under a consecutive sentence.

The committee also heard of the threat to society posed by paroled murderers. Various organizations claimed that released murderers posed no great threat to society but sadly, statistics tell a very different story. Paroled murderers, according to Correctional Service Canada, using its own statistics, are 100 times more likely to commit a future murder than the average Canadian.

Most Canadians would believe that a rehabilitated person should be no more likely to commit another murder than their neighbour. That is not the case. Paroled murderers remain a high risk group, 100 times more risky than any other Canadian. We were told in committee that five Canadians have been murdered because of the early release of murderers who were not genuinely rehabilitated.

The argument of constitutionality was raised. Various groups attempted to give the impression that Bill C-251 would not survive a charter challenge. But what the supreme court has actually said, and I cite Steel v Mountain:

It will only be on rare and unique occasions that a court will find a sentence so grossly disproportionate that it violates the provisions of section 12 of the charter which deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

And I cite Queen v Smith:

The test for review under section 12 is one of gross disproportionality because it is aimed at punishments that are more than merely excessive. We should be careful not to stigmatize every disproportionate or excessive sentence as being a constitutional violation.

The above cases and others demonstrate that there is no basis whatsoever to assume that consecutive sentences will fail a charter challenge. The only constitutional lawyer who testified before the committee expressed his legal opinion that there is no charter vulnerability.

There is no precedent anywhere in the world that would directly support a charter challenge. It is telling that no witness who spoke against the bill provided a legal opinion on the constitutional matter, choosing instead in large part to focus on matters of policy.

I would like to remind the House that Bill C-68, imposed by the same justice committee, imposed consecutive minimum prison terms for the use of a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of a crime. These consecutive minimums actually exceed the median time served for sexual assault.

Judicial discretion was raised. For multiple sexual offenders witnesses opposed to the bill could not agree among themselves as to the impact that the bill would have on the total sentence received by a multiple sex offender. Some said that it would cause a substantial increase. Others suggested that judges might adjust sentences for each offence to reach the same overall sentence.

Witnesses obviously have different views as to the impact of the bill on sentencing because they cannot predict the reaction of judges. Witnesses cannot predict the reaction of judges because judges will continue to maintain judicial discretion as to the overall sentences in these cases.

At present, in the case of multiple murderers there is no judicial discretion in sentences for first degree murder. Bill C-251 does not change that. A mandatory period of parole ineligibility will still apply but must be of a length that is proportional to the number of victims. Is that so unjust?

The question of costs was raised. Various organizations referred to cost and resource issues potentially associated with Bill C-251 in relation to multiple murderers. One presented a misleading figure that totalled the annual cost for the next 69 years. Bill C-251 can have no cost impact whatsoever for at least 10 years. The bill is not retroactive and can only have an impact on resources when future murderers come up for parole not less than 10 years from now.

Delayed parole for multiple murderers will cause an annual increase in prison population of about .1% per year for about 20 years beginning in the year 2010. This is derived from information provided to the justice committee by Mary Campbell of the Department of the Solicitor General.

With respect to the position of women's groups one witness claimed that the women's movement and NAC in particular were opposed to separate penalties for male offenders who victimized women and children. She said:

They have stopped short of calling for stiffer penalties or for longer periods of incarceration.

This statement is clearly intended to give the impression that NAC opposed the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter of support for Bill C-225. It supported the principle of my bill. REAL women also sent a letter of support.

Those were the arguments. The bill is supported by three provinces, police associations, women's groups and victims' groups. I leave it to the House as to whether it wishes to have a vote to provide Canadians with the view of parliamentarians on volume discounts for murderers and rapists.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since I first introduced my private member's bill.

[Literacy, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is literacy action day and parliamentarians of all parties are welcoming activists and adult learners into their offices to discuss the daunting challenge we face of improving literacy in the country.

Sadly some 22% of adult Canadians have difficulty reading ordinary material and another 26% have limited reading skills. For thousands of Canadians the smallest, most ordinary activity from ordering a meal, to opening a bank account, to getting to work, to buying groceries, to following their prescription and to reading to a child can be difficult if not impossible.

As in so many things just realizing the problem is the first step toward a solution. I urge all my colleagues to take an active role in helping to promote the cause of literacy in parliament and in their own constituencies.

I encourage all Canadians to learn more about this issue and to learn more about how they can help to build a Canada where every Canadian can—