Peter Milliken

[Question On The Order Paper, September 17th, 1996]

What was the total cost of the Sound and Light Show on Parliament Hill in 1995, broken down by: ( a ) development costs, ( b ) production costs, ( c ) any other costs; how many performances took place over the summer season, and how many persons attended the performances?

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

The hon. member says that everybody does not know it. They should know it because the application cannot be made until after 15 years have expired on a sentence. Then there is a waiting period while the jury trial takes place. After the jury trial is over and the jury has permitted a reduction, the inmate must then apply to the National Parole Board and have a hearing. All of that takes months. Therefore the minimum sentence is in fact more than 15 years in every case. It extends into the 10-year period before release can be achieved even in the most favoured case.

To keep people locked up in prison at great public expense when they do not pose a risk to the public-at least in the opinion of the National Parole Board-when they are genuinely sorry for their misdeeds, have indicated that they are sorry and are trying to improve their lot, and when they are most unlikely to reoffend as is the case with most of the persons in this particular class, then I suggest that the Canadian taxpayer is being taken for a ride. Hon. members opposite who are so opposed to misspending of public funds ought to be on their hind legs objecting to this kind of over expenditure. However, I do not need to argue solely on that basis. We need to approach this case with compassion. We must regret profoundly the loss of a victim and of course we do.

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my speech, I would like to say that I support the

motion moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I prefer his amendment to my own and will support it when it comes to a vote. I hope he will vote for mine if his amendment is not passed by the House.

I want to make it very clear that my opposition to this whole bill, which I indicated by my vote at second reading, is because I oppose changes to section 745. My own preference would be to get rid of section 745, not in accordance with the proposals from hon. members opposite, but to get rid of minimum sentences for murder and substitute a sentence of life imprisonment and allow the National Parole Board to allow for release in the normal course of events, as used to be the case in this country before the adoption of section 745.

I recognize that would be a perfect world, which is unlikely to come. Therefore I am having to satisfy myself with proposing some pretty modest amendments to this bill which I hope my hon. friends opposite will consider voting for. I know that may be asking a little much, but it is still worth a try.

Bill C-45 has three main points. It takes away the right of multiple murders to apply for early release. I can live with that change in the law. It provides for a screening process for all applications before a judge alone. With reluctance I can accommodate that change in the law. It also removes from the current law the provision that a jury must recommend early release by having eight of the 12 members agree. It now requires that all 12 members agree. That is a change in the law which in my view will in most parts of Canada, as the hon. member for Bellechasse has said, result in no releases under this section. In my view this is unduly punitive and unnecessary for the proper administration of justice in this country.

I would like to look at what our system should be aiming for when it seeks to punish offenders or when it applies a sentence following a trial on a serious charge such as a murder charge, the most serious of all charges.

It seems the goals of sentencing should be first and foremost the protection of the public. Second, there should be rehabilitation for the offender. Third, there should be punishment for the offender. One thing there is not in our law, nor should there be in our law, is revenge. That is what I suggest is the basis for this amendment.

The law is there to protect the public. I put this question rhetorically to the House. How is the public protected by the long sentences that are imposed for these offences, the 25-year minimum will become the standard sentence if this bill is adopted, in my opinion?

From 1968 to 1974 the average time served by a person whose sentence had been commuted to a life sentence for murder from the death penalty, which was then in force, was 13.2 years. Every sentence was commuted during those years. How is it that if 13.2 years was satisfactory then we now have to look at doubling that to 25 years in order to mete out a suitable sentence? I suggest it is quite inappropriate.

During the years that there were commutations taking place, and I am sorry I do not have the exact figures today, I understand that approximately 200 persons were released under the auspices of the National Parole Board, in most cases with the consent of the governor in council. Of those approximately 200, my recollection is that there were only one or two who reoffended and who were subsequently arrested for various offences and brought into prison.

In other words, in terms of the safety of the public, the risk of releasing persons serving long sentences, murderers in particular, is minimal. I know members of the public tend to be fearful thinking that if a person has murdered once he is likely to murder again. However, the statistics and facts all indicate the opposite is true. Usually murderers do not re-offend.

These very onerous sentences, the minimum 15-year sentence with the provision for application to a jury for early release, was put in place when the death penalty was abolished. In my view it was put in solely to appease the persons who were in favour of hanging. It was to convince them that a long sentence would make up for the abolition of the death penalty.

This law has been in operation for some 20 years, as the hon. member for Bellechasse has pointed out. Of course no applications could take place for an extended period but then they started. As of December 31 last year 63 cases have been heard for consent to reduce the term of the sentence. Fifty of the 63 were successful in one way or another. Some of them were minimal reductions while others were significant reductions. However, of those 50, two are in difficulty with the law. One is unlawfully at large and one has re-offended. I note that it is not a murder.

There is absolutely not a tittle of evidence to indicate that the current law is not working as it was planned to work and as it should work. The risks to the public in the operation of the current law are minimal and the hon. member for Wild Rose knows that. He just buries his head in the sand and ignores the facts.

This bill before the House today, C-45, does not enhance the safety of the public. It simply proposes more draconian prison sentences on those who already have received a life sentence. It will ensure that they stay in for a longer period of time.

Let us turn to the second part, the rehabilitation of offenders. Do we rehabilitate these offenders by keeping them in prison for longer sentences? The answer from experts in penology is "no we do not". Longer sentences do not assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. Rehabilitation can usually, not always, be accomplished in a shorter time and usually the person can be released safely.

There will always be cases where a release is not safe, it is not in the interests of the public and rehabilitation has not occurred.

However, we have a National Parole Board which has had some extremely capable people appointed to it by this most capable minister, the Solicitor General of Canada, with the assistance of our most capable Minister of Justice. These two ministers have set an example of quality appointments to our National Parole Board, I am pleased to say. The National Parole Board is doing an excellent job in reviewing parole possibilities for inmates.

I suggest the punishment of 25 years without any hope of release is excessive. Even murderers in the United States are not sentenced to such long sentences. They are given a life sentence but the normal release period is less than 25 years. It is excessive and high by any standard. In fact I would suggest it is one of the highest in the world for murderers.

I am appalled that the government would propose such an amendment when I consider the cost of keeping inmates in prison and more appalled when members of the Reform Party, who profess to be budget conscious, are supporting this kind of measure. We know from the figures released by Corrections Canada that it costs between $60,000 and $70,000 a year to keep an inmate in maximum security. These lifers are being kept far longer than they used to be kept, and quite needlessly in many cases because the law states they must be kept for 15 years plus. Everyone knows they are spending more than 15 years in prison. The average has gone from 13.2 up to-

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 13, and lines 1 to 5, on page 14, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 31, on page 9, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-45, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 4, and lines 1 to 5, on page 5, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[Financial Administration Act, June 19th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-270, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (session of Parliament), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is fairly straightforward. It is to prevent the kind of abuse that the House suffered under the former government in 1989 when Governor General's special warrants were used and the regular supply proceedings available to the government were avoided.

I believe this bill finds support in all parties. I am delighted that is the case. It is one which I introduced in the previous Parliament, following the unfortunate events that I am about to describe. I understand from one of my colleagues from Edmonton this circumstance also took place in the early sixties when another Conservative government was in office.

This is an unusual bill. Perhaps I could explain it briefly.

Governor General's special warrants are available to a government to use during election time. That part is fairly clear. It has always been the case. When Parliament is dissolved and is unable to be called together to vote supply to enable the government to defray expenses of the public service, it is normal to have a mechanism in place whereby a government may access public funds from the treasury for the purpose of paying the bills. The method by which this money is made available is by Governor General's special warrant. It has been commonplace to make those warrants available between sessions of Parliament.

Members will recall there was an election on November 21, 1988. Parliament was convened on December 12 of that year. The session lasted for about two weeks. Aside from the speech from the throne and a brief debate on it, which was never completed, no supply was voted during the two-week session. The free trade bill was introduced and passed in all stages with the multiple use of closure.

The passage of that bill ended the session. The Commons adjourned for Christmas to a fixed date in February. Parliament was then prorogued immediately before the fixed date in February until a date in April. Since no supply had been voted, no final supplementary estimates had been approved and, indeed, no mid-term supplementary estimates had been approved, the government

chose to help itself to the funds in the treasury by way of Governor General's special warrants.

Three special warrants were granted. The first was for $80 million in January 1989. The second was for $500 million and change in February 1989. Then, on April 1, since Parliament was sitting on April 3 and interim supply was urgent and required, a third warrant was issued for $6.2 billion. When the House got together, supply was finally voted, although a special order was adopted in the House delaying the approval of main supply.

I raised a question of privilege on the legitimacy of special mandates on April 6, 1989. In ruling on May 2 of the same year, the Speaker's finding was that "-the government has respected all the procedures required by the House".

The question is whether this practice should be allowed to continue.

I drafted an amendment to the Financial Administration Act which defines the time when Parliament is deemed to be not in session. These are available when Parliament is not in session only. Therefore, the deeming section will say that Parliament is not in session from the date of dissolution until the day two weeks prior to the first day fixed by the proclamation summoning Parliament to meet for the dispatch of business.

In other words, up to two weeks before a new Parliament begins warrants will be available. Once that two-week period starts running, warrants will no longer be available. The date will be fixed at the time of dissolution. Every dissolution proclamation includes not just the date of the dissolution, which is the date it is issued, it specifies the date for the summoning of a new Parliament. That date will be the one on which the government must attend for the purpose of helping itself to supply during the election period.

Of course, a government would be free to vote supply for the full year before an election is called and obviate the necessity for further recourse to the House for additional assistance. However, the fear is that if we do not put in place such a procedure as this, we may find ourselves in a situation where a government could call Parliament together, have a speech from the throne and announce that it does not need any legislation from the House, adjourn the House of Commons and then one year later call the House back and spend the rest of the year thriving on Governor General's special warrants.

It would have to prorogue the House before it could do that under the current law, but prorogation could occur whenever the government ran out of money. From then on we could run on warrants until the House was called back into session.

In my view this would be a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and quite improper. Under the current law which is so open ended that is exactly what a government could do. Frankly it is the exact procedure followed by the previous government in the period between February and April 3, 1989 when Parliament reconvened.

In my view it was an abuse of the rules. It is something that we as defenders of parliamentary liberties ought to act on and bring to an end. The bill is designed to bring it to an end. It will prevent the situation that occurred in 1989 from recurring. It will also prevent a government from feeling that it has the right to step into a situation such as I have described and do without the House of Commons sitting for an extended period of time.

It is not in the interest of Canadians. It is certainly not in the interest of representative democracy. It is not in the interest of any opposition and not in the long term interests of any government.

I am pleased to propose the bill today. If the wording of bill causes any members concern, it is something that could be looked at, at committee stage of the bill where it can be studied thoroughly and the wording gone over with some care.

Some members have raised the issue of using these special warrants for borrowing purposes. It could also be examined if the draft bill impinges on that area. I am unaware that it does but it may. If so, I would be happy to have a full discussion of the issue in committee.

When the procedure was last used in 1989 there was some attempt by me and a few other members to raise the matter in committee and look at the way funds were used based on the reports tabled by the government following the use of the warrants. The questions were put before one of the standing committees of the House, but they were treated contemptuously by many members on the government side who regarded them as improper and as interfering in what they regarded as an unfettered right of the government to use this kind of discretion.

It is time a limit was placed on this kind of discretion. The limit proposed in the bill is fair and reasonable to government and to opposition. I hope it commends itself to all hon. members.

[Queen's University, June 19th, 1996]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Queen's University, June 19th, 1996]

moved that Bill S-8, an act respecting Queen's University at Kingston, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the committee of the whole.

Madam Speaker, I rise to give a very brief summary of the relevant provisions of this bill so that members may be aware of what is going on here.

This is a private bill that was introduced in the Senate to amend the charter of Queen's University. Queen's University was established by royal charter in 1841. As the result of a complicated series of interpretations of the British North America Act and various other acts of Parliament and legislatures, it is an act that is amendable by the federal Parliament and not by the province of Ontario, in which province the university is situate.

The charter has been amended from time to time by various acts of Parliament that have passed through this House. The current bill is the latest such amendment, and deals with various items. If members have questions about any of the items I would be pleased to review them during the committee of the whole if members wish to hear more about it.

Basically, the purpose of the changes is to permit students, staff and faculty of the university to participate in the board of trustees which is the principal governing body of the university. The changes have been adopted in the Senate already where they were reviewed in committee. I do not believe there is any particular difficulty. There was no opposition expressed. The changes are all ones requested by the university to its charter.

In my submission I think they are all ones that would commend themselves to all hon. members. I ask for the adoption of this bill today.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; bill reported; bill concurred in at report stage. Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.)

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I think if you sought it you might find unanimous consent that the House proceed to deal with Bill S-8, standing in my name on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business and deal with it in all stages today.