Brent Rathgeber

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh was in the process of asking me a question. May I answer?

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak to Bill S-6, the most serious time for the most serious crime act, now that it has been reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member.

This bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to repeal the so-called faint hope clause or the faint hope regime for all future murderers and to tighten up the application procedure for those who have committed their crimes prior to this bill becoming law. Bill S-6 would achieve these goals in a balanced way, something that was recognized in the other place, where this bill was thoroughly and strongly examined and sent to the House without any amendments. However, I regret to say that the amendments adopted in the justice committee threaten to undermine the most important elements of Bill S-6 by reintroducing the very uncertainty that the bill was designed to overcome.

Before going on, I note that the punishment for high treason and murder is life imprisonment without parole eligibility, set in accordance with section 745 of the Criminal Code. Thankfully, as there is no one serving time in Canada for treason, I will confine the remainder of my remarks to the offence of murder.

As we know, there is an automatic 25-year parole ineligibility for first degree murder and for two categories of second degree murder. The period of ineligibility for parole for other categories of second degree murder is between 10 and 25 years, as determined by a sentencing judge and in accordance with section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Despite these clear provisions, the faint hope regime in section 745.6 and the related provisions permits convicted murderers to seek an earlier parole eligibility date than the one to which they were originally sentenced. Since its inception in 1976, the faint hope clause has been a continuing source of controversy and has certainly been the object of derision by many victim groups in this country.

The families and loved ones of murder victims are particularly affected as they often live in dread and uncertainty as to whether an offender will be bringing a faint hope application that will then force them to relive the tragic pain of their losses yet again. In recognition of such concerns, amendments were brought forward by a previous government in 1997 and 1999 to render post-1997 multiple murderers ineligible to apply for faint hope and to toughen the application procedures for all other murderers.

Bill S-6 would build on these earlier initiatives by effectively repealing the right of all future murderers to apply for faint hope and by further toughening the application procedure. This is important. Barring future murderers from applying for faint hope would not only benefit the families and loved ones of victims but also protect society by keeping offenders in prison for the full time to which they are sentenced. What could be more reasonable than that?

As all hon. members will recall from past debates, the current application process has three stages: first, judicial screening to determine if an applicant has a reasonable prospect of success; second, a unanimous decision by a jury to reduce the applicant's parole ineligibility period; and three, an application for parole to the Parole Board of Canada. Allow me to highlight the key changes proposed by Bill S-6.

First, applicants would have to meet a stricter test at stage one by showing a “substantial likelihood” of success. This would screen out all less-meritorious applications. There would also be a longer statutory waiting period for re-application after unsuccessful applications, five years instead of the two at present.

The House will undoubtedly know of the high profile case of Clifford Olson, who has been making repeated faint hope applications virtually every two years. In fact, one was just last week. All this has accomplished is to make the families of the victims of Mr. Olson relive the horror and terror every two years.

Most important, Bill S-6 would impose a new 90-day window for offenders to apply, or reapply, under the faint hope regime once they have served 15 years.

Failure to make an application within that application window would bar any further applications for five years, at which time another 90-day application window would open.

These time limits are explicitly designed to shelter victims' families and loved ones by requiring offenders to make their intentions clear at the earliest opportunity and by restricting the number of applications that can be made over the course of an offender's sentence.

The amendments made at the committee stage undermined virtually all of these worthwhile goals.

The government is committed to protecting the rights of victims of crime. We want to see an end to faint hope reviews so that victims' families would not need to suffer the anguish of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and relive their losses over and over again.

I think it is mindful that the House be advised of what one of the spokespersons for victims of crime said at committee regarding repeal of the faint hope close.

Ms. Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is the mother of one of Clifford Olson's many victims, said:

We at Victims of Violence believe this process is heavily weighted in favour of the offender. The emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than on the crime itself, the victim, or the impact of the crime on the family and communities. We believe that when Mr. Warren Allmand, the member of Parliament responsible for this clause, talked about the waste of the life of the offender who is kept in prison for 25 years, he seemed not to take into consideration the innocent life the offender wasted when he or she made the decision to commit murder. There is no parole or judicial review for murder victims and their families. They have no faint hope clause or legal loophole to shorten their sentence. Victims of Violence also believes the offender is not sent to prison to be punished, but rather the sentence itself is the punishment, according to the Criminal Code of Canada. Thus we continue to ask a very simple question: Is the sentence 25 years, or is it 15 years? It cannot continue to be both.

That ends Ms. Rosenfeldt's testimony before the justice committee.

As was demonstrated at the committee, the Liberals, on the other hand, are more interested in playing politics instead of listening to the victims of crime.

As a result of the several unnecessary Liberal amendments to Bill S-6, such as removing the name of the bill, this important legislation will now have to return to the other place, unless of course this House decides to agree with the proposed amendments put forward today and reverse the amendments at committee.

The Liberal caucus claims to share Canadians' and victims' concerns about crime, but when the cameras are off, it uses every opportunity to gut, derail or delay our important government law and order, safe street and safe community bills.

These unnecessary amendments were clearly used as a political tactic to delay our justice legislation. It is inconceivable to me that such an important matter as the protection of the families and loved ones of murder victims be delayed by a dispute over semantics.

We are really getting to the bottom of the intellectual barrel when we start wasting time in committee debating the names of bills. That really, I think, brings a disservice to the intellectual debate that these bills require and that Canadians want and demand that we pass.

For all these reasons, I urge all hon. members to reflect on what I have just said today and to vote in favour of the government's report stage amendments that would reverse the unnecessary changes introduced by the Liberals at committee and allow this bill to quickly become law to the benefit of the victims of crime in this country.

Victims of crime have spoken loudly and unequivocally that they want this legislation passed and that they want it passed expeditiously. I urge all hon. members of the House to give deference to the victims of crime.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indicated he supported dissent as long as it was peaceful, but then he went on to criticize some individuals who perhaps said negative things toward the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am curious to know how he reconciles that. Is he alleging that the criticism toward the charter has not been peaceful, or does he acknowledge there is some inconsistency in his thesis?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for that wonderful speech on the history and chronology of the charter. Supplemental to my friend from Vancouver Kingsway, the hon. member, who chairs the justice committee, talked about balancing the rights of society to protect itself versus the rights of individuals who want to protest peacefully.

I wonder if the member might comment on section 1 of the charter, the reasonable limits on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and how that might interplay in this debate between the rights of protesters versus the necessities of police action.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP justice critic knows that I am a supporter of the charter as is he. He also knows, as my friend from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe pointed out, that occasionally members on this side of the House do disagree with certain decisions, certain interpretations of the charter. I guess that is one of the benefits of living in a free country. We do not always have to agree on everything.

However, I have a question for him. Yesterday, in the House, a bill passed on concurrence, extending human rights protection to certain groups that perhaps were not contemplated in 1982 when the charter came into existence. Would he not agree that in those types of instances, given the challenge of opening up the Constitution and amending it, which has been tried twice and failed miserably both times, it would be better to have those types of protections in legislation, such as the Diefenbaker Canadian Bill of Rights 1960, which is easier to amend and expand when needed?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, the opposition members seem to be talking about everything except the bill before the House. I would ask that you caveat the member to talk about Bill S-2, which is the bill before the House.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech although I am not sure how much of it has to do with Bill S-2, which is the bill before the House.

He commented that he is opposed to throwing people into what he described as overcrowded prisons. If he truly believes that, I am curious as to why he constantly speaks against the government's initiative to build and expand the prison system. Would he prefer that the prisons remain overcrowded, or is his suggestion that we let criminals out and put them back on the streets?

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am curious as to whether the member for Ajax—Pickering is ever going to talk about the sex offender registry.

[Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when will the NDP public safety critic stop manipulating the agenda of the committee for his own political objectives?

Yesterday, in a rare break from the opposition coalition agenda, the committee heard from the Minister of Public Safety and officials from his department on our important legislation that would prohibit sex offenders who prey upon children the right to ever get a pardon. Instead of allowing the committee to hear from the technical experts on this important piece of legislation, the member for Vancouver Kingsway spent a quarter of the committee's time playing partisan political games.

Canadians expect the opposition to give legislation due time and consideration and not hijack these meetings for partisan gain. This is legislation that law-abiding Canadians, victims and law enforcement have all told us is important, timely and necessary.

For us, the choice is clear. Keeping our communities, streets and families safe from crime is the priority and should be the committee's priority. I call upon the member for Vancouver Kingsway and his coalition partners to make it their priority.

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we should all be concerned and sympathetic about children being smuggled. This legislation takes direct aim at those involved in smuggling. There is often an overlap between human smuggling and trafficking in individuals. We have all heard the horror stories about individuals ending up in the sex industry.

I do not agree with the premise of my hon. colleague's question. Refugee claimants or people on the boats cannot be characterized in one category. The member said that he did not think that people would put themselves in that position unless they believed themselves to be legitimate refugees. Although that is true in some circumstances, it is not universally true. We have heard anecdotes that individuals pay large sums of money to board these ships, and one becomes suspicious about how dire a person's plight can be who is able to pay $50,000. Some individuals are not as bad off as others.

The point is that individuals have to be individually assessed. Some are legitimate refugee claimants, and some are queue-jumpers who are trying to enter our great country without going through the normal process. Detaining them for an appropriate time would allow immigration officials to determine who is legally admissible as a refugee and who is not.

We have to send out the message, to potential refugee claimants as well as those who smuggle them, that Canada will not tolerate this type of activity.