PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

CRIMINAL CODE

She said: Mr. Speaker, volume discounts for rapists and murders is the law in Canada today. It is called concurrent sentencing. It means that serial predators can serve penalties for multiple crimes at the same time and be out on the streets in only a fraction of the total sentencing.

Concurrent sentencing cheapens life. The lives of individual victims are erased from the sentencing equation. The suffering, the pain and the death of the second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the courts. The minimum penalty always applies for even the most prolific killers.

Canadians cannot forget the spectacle of Denis Lortie after he machine gunned three people to death in Quebec City. It would have been hard to imagine at the time that he could be back on the street today after serving only three and a half years for each person he killed. That is the bargain basement price of life in our courts and parole system.

Denis Lortie is an unusual case, not because he is a multiple murderer or because he was released after a wrist slap of a prison term. Denis Lortie's case is unusual because the public is aware of it.

The majority of murderers and serial sex offenders are returned to neighbourhoods without publicity or warning. Trials and convictions do attract publicity and attention and the public is always lulled by the hoax of a life sentence they read in the morning paper. But 10 years later they really hear the truth. The parole board has short changed justice, written off the victims as yesterday's news and freed up a bunk bed for the next killer.

But Canadians are gradually catching on to the deception of life imprisonment. Half of all those convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life are released after less than 12 years. For first degree murder the median has historically been 14 years. Life only means life for the murder victim who is not there to protest his or her sentence and is never eligible for parole.

The predator has also dealt a life sentence to the victim's family. For them the comforting illusion of safety in our society has been shattered. They have to live with the stark truth that the only law that protects them is the law of averages, the chance that none of the predators roaming our communities will get around to you today.

(1805 )

Sharon Rosenfeldt had the courage to recall her personal tragedy in support of my bill. She writes:

Concurrent sentencing is appalling. My son was one of the eleven children murdered by serial child killer Clifford Olson. The fact that he is serving eleven concurrent life sentences is ludicrous. As the mother of one of Olson's victims, I have difficulty in dealing with the reality that he is serving the equivalent of one life sentence instead of the eleven life sentences he should be serving.

My bill would have spared them the revictimization of having even the slightest concern that Clifford Olson would be paroled as his combined parole ineligibility would have and should have been 275 years, not the 25-year bargain given by our current system. How can a civilized society be so tolerant and generous toward the savagery of a Clifford Olson and be so dismissive of the death sentences forever served by his victims.

The justice minister not long ago observed that victims have been the orphans of the justice system and how right he was. That is why so many victims groups exist. Among those who support my bill are Debbie Mahaffy's Taking Action for Victims, CAVEAT, Victims of Violence, Citizens United for Safety and Justice, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and the Canadian Police Association.

But our institutions are mostly responsive to lawyers, lobbyists, inmate advocates. Criminals can rely on the system that orphaned their victims. The murder victim has no representative, no lobbyist and no lawyer because the victim is dead. The only argument we will hear about the victim's lost rights will come from family and from people who recognize the injustice and obscenity of the current system.

Let us face it, the predator protection industry is part of our modern economy. Justice cannot compete with currency. But the victims of Canadian justice, though unpaid, refuse to be unheard.

Priscilla de Villiers writes:

It is an absolute insult to victims of violent crime that each murder, subsequent to the first murder of an offender is considered to be free.

But columnists advocating inmates' rights will argue that nothing is served by revenge, that we should have to prove that each predator is a continuing risk to society and not waste the lives of reformed carnivores.

It has become groupthink these days that we should be generous to murderers who only killed an abusive husband or smothered an infant child in a domestic dispute. My bill is not focused on these much pitied murderers. It deals only with multiple killers and rapists, criminals like Clifford Olson, people who plan, stalk and destroy young lives.

There are no mitigating circumstances for a predator. There is no need to rehabilitate a predator. No predator is a safe addition to any neighbourhood no matter what his therapist might say.

One of my constituents is a teacher in Brampton. One day some years ago the rehabilitation poster boy, Joseph Fredericks, was invited to his school, a shining example of a reformed sex offender. This devastating product of rehabilitation went on to attack and kill Christopher Stephenson.

By being convicted, serial predators have identified themselves as threats to society. No term in prison, no therapy, no treatment can make a predator an acceptable risk. Yet parole boards will continue to gamble with the lives of children and others by letting predators loose on the buffet of victims in Canadian communities.

(1810)

Why is it that parole boards can take such risks so liberally? There is no risk to the parole board. For every 100 sex offenders released, 30 women and children are victimized. That is not just a stat. It is a guarantee. Parole does save a few dollars admittedly, but it ruins many lives.

The Metro Toronto Zoo is currently suffering budgetary difficulties. One might ask why it does not save money by emptying its cages and letting its untamed animals loose on the streets of Toronto. Why not? They are not the parole board and they can be sued for recklessly endangering citizens.

Prisons represent less than 1 per cent of federal spending. Protecting the public from predators would hardly bankrupt the nation. We can afford a little more justice.

Collette writes in support my bill:

This issue is very dear to me and my family. In 1991, four members of our family, Maurice, Susan, Islay and Janello Mandin were murdered by young offender Gavin Mandin. He was tried in adult court, and received a sentence of life with parole eligibility at ten years. One sentence, one parole eligibility.

As with all other victims, and victims groups who support my bill, Collette Mandin-Kossowan asked to know the result of my vote.

But Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of Leslie Mahaffy, who died at the hands of Paul Bernardo, was more cautious, having had more experience with how justice can be obstructed, how justice is too rarely a votable item. She is used to the lip service, the feigned support, the photo ops and then the secret opposition that thwarts it all. Mrs. Mahaffy writes:

I fear there will be too much opposition because consecutive sentencing is so sensible, so no-nonsense, so uncomplicated, it may be too simple for some to understand.

The committee offered not a single question about Bill C-274. They rendered no opposing comments, no objections, no rationale for the bill not being votable. At the time, I recalled the words of the Minister of Justice who said in the House that ``too often, through insensitivity the interests and personal stake of the victim are overlooked''.

How each of the four members of this committee voted is not a closely guarded secret. Only the public and the victims groups are denied the truth. They are used to that. Victims groups once again have reason to conclude that Parliament is not a trustworthy ally in their pursuit of justice.

Consecutive sentencing is uncomplicated. It would restore a degree of truth in sentencing. It recognizes that each sentence applies to a specific crime, an individual victim, a personal horror. It insists that the price for rape and murder must not be marked down.

Under my bill, Denis Lortie would have had to serve 10 years for each life he took and Debbie Mahaffy would never have to plead with any parole board to keep Paul Bernardo in jail where he belongs.

As life sentences are a hoax, the only meaningful part of a sentence is the period of parole ineligibility, the period for which the murderer is guaranteed to be behind bars, the period before the victim's family must relive a nightmare. That is the only sentence that is remotely real, remotely believable.

(1815)

For Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson that is 15 years. The rest of their sentences are just an option, an option our system allows to revictimize the parents of the victims, potentially to force them to join countless other victims in having to dredge up some gruesome memories just to provide victim impact statements and petitions to keep a cage between the predator and the prey.

However, the quality of mercy is not strained. Parliament still has an opportunity to narrow the gap between the justice system and justice. Does any member here stand in support of volume discounts for serial rapists and murderers? I would like those who think a second murder victim does not count to stand up and be counted. I would like to restore Mrs. Mahaffy's faith in this institution by asking for unanimous consent in the House to make Bill C-274 a votable motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the terms of the motion from the hon. member for Mississauga East. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-274 put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga East.

[English]

Mr. McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not hear any objection to the unanimous consent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of respect, I put the motion to the floor. I heard some naysayers, and so I can resume debate, which is what I intend to do.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of consistency, I shall take it from the top. I am pleased to speak on Bill C-274 put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga East. If I may, I would like to start by setting the record straight because the hon. member, acting in all good faith I am sure, has questioned the procedure currently used by the sub-committee on private members' business.

Along with the hon. members for Mississauga West, Edmonton North and Okanagan-Shuswap, I sit on this committee, which, for obvious reasons, meets in camera to hold proceedings and only under these circumstances. That is because the House has seen fit for the committee responsible for looking into private members' business to be sheltered from outside pressure. What better way to elude pressure than to sit in camera, where we can discuss freely and frankly, without having people watching over our shoulders as we draw our conclusions.

Without compromising the secrecy of in camera meetings, I was able to assure the hon. member that no vote was taken on his bill in our committee. In fact, the sub-committee on private members' business very seldom takes votes. We usually report to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs after reaching a consensus. I would say that, in 95 per cent of cases, we unanimously agree on the bills referred to us.

That is why I was taken aback, to some extent, by the remarks made by the hon. member for Mississauga East, as reported in the Hill Times. This is probably due to a lack of knowledge of the system, a system which has shown that we can have good bills and good motions in this House, provided there is an appropriate process and it is complied with.

This being said, even though the bill before us is not a votable item, it raises important issues including, of course, the whole matter of cumulative sentences. Under our system, when a judge

imposes sentences for various offences, he has a duty to state whether these sentences are cumulative or concurrent.

(1820)

According to our tradition, a judge usually imposes a sentence for the most serious offence and includes in it the other sentences for lesser offences. So, generally speaking, sentences are concurrent.

The fact is that, under our criminal laws, including the Criminal code, judges already have the power to impose consecutive sentences when they deem appropriate to do so. It might be a good idea, during a debate on a motion to this effect, to look at the issue of sentencing. Do we want judges to make greater use of their power to impose consecutive sentences? Perhaps.

Perhaps the judiciary itself could deal with the fact that, in some cases, the imposition of consecutive sentences is justified. However, imposing consecutive sentences does not settle all the situations better than if it was ordered by legislation.

Inevitably, we will find ourselves in a situation where the compulsory imposition of consecutive sentences would become inappropriate. What can a judge do if he has no discretion? He will have to impose sentences that will prove to be an excessive burden for the individual who has been found guilty or has admitted his guilt.

The hon. member for Mississauga East also mentioned some people, notorious criminals, who were sentenced to one life sentence only. Contrary to the U.S. system, we do not have in our system convicted people sentenced to 200 or 300 years of imprisonment. Generally, one life sentence is enough.

In the case in question, as in the Bernardo case, since a charge was laid, the judge had no other choice but to pass sentence. It is up to the crown to follow up on the other charges or to lay new charges on additional offenses to try to get additional sentences for the criminal. But fortunately enough, according to a tradition we have here, in our country, an individual cannot be convicted before he or she has been tried.

If Ontario crown attorneys think it would be appropriate to prosecute an individual already convicted for first degree murder, it is up to them to decide what to do. The accounts we have heard are in fact very unsettling. That a person who has committed such crimes as those reported in the media-and I am thinking in particular of the Bernardo trial-can be released after serving only 15 years in prison, pursuant to section 745 of the Criminal Code, is quite disgusting.

The same thing goes for all the cases mentioned by the hon. member. It would be easy to jump to a general conclusion, but that is something we should not do before carrying out a more detailed study.

This bill also raises the issue of the victim's rights. I must say that the hon. member did a better job of getting my attention on that issue, because it is true that our system tends to forget about the victims. Their voice is not heard at sentencing hearings. When the parole board makes a decision, their statements are hardly, if at all, taken into consideration. These people are just left out of the process.

Attorneys are generally overburdened, and when a Crown attorney is put in charge of a case, he must do his work as quickly as possible, and he does not get all the resources he needs. Obviously, it is important that justice be done, but not always expeditiously. These are two points I wanted to deal with, the rights of the victims, consecutive sentencing and the right of society to protect itself.

Just because I do not approve of all the provisions in Bill C-274 does not mean I do not recognize that the society has a right to protect itself. It is a fundamental right for Canadians to see people who pose a threat to society forced to reflect in isolation on what they did. If this is not enough, they will be given longer sentences and they will not be eligible for parole.

When we heard from members of the Parole Board, I realized that there has been a very big improvement lately in the way the board deals with releases.

(1825)

There is still much to be done but progress was made. Obviously, we do not now have cases as worrisome as some we had a few years ago. The watchfulness of parliamentarians surely has something to do with it as it is our duty to point out, on occasion, flaws in the system.

Bill C-274, which is before us today, warrants more reflection than a gut reaction. All the issues raised by the hon. member for Mississauga East are emotional, and give rise to such gut reactions. If we were to let our emotions colour our judgment, we would always pass stricter sentences and forget about the guidelines that insure a good administration of justice.

Since this is not a votable bill, I do not have to indicate whether I will vote for or against it, but the issues raised by the hon. member certainly give us food for thought.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find the bill quite unique in that it is coming from the government side.

I would like to review Bill C-274. The bill provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences on a person who commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same event or where a person already serving another sentence commits sexual assault.

The bill also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until that person has served, in addition to the portion of sentence the person must serve for murder, one third or a maximum of seven

years of any other sentence imposed in respect of an offence arising out of the same event or that the person is already serving.

If I were to present a bill it would go a lot further than this bill does. However, this appears to be too much for the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, who voted no to the motion put forward by the member who presented the bill.

The government through cabinet and the parliamentary secretaries refuses to deal effectively with crime. The member, a backbencher, has experienced it firsthand with the introduction of this bill which went through committee to have it made votable. The member presenting the bill made comments to that effect.

I will read some of the comments by the member for Mississauga East: ``We supposedly have open government, but we have secret committees. I guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I am not suggesting it is a kangaroo court. It is more like a cockroach court. You cannot see them at work, but they run''.

The hon. member is also quoted in the Hill Times: ``If I had a bill on lawn care, I bet I would 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 I have a bill that wants to side with victims or correct an obscene injustice in our justice system, you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate''. This member is experiencing firsthand what the cabinet, the justice minister, the solicitor general and the parliamentary secretaries across the way are doing in reference to criminal justice

The member who introduced the bill wants to see consecutive sentences. I find that totally acceptable, as do most people in the country. They do not want to see criminals running around lose after serving a portion of their sentence, recommitting an offence and then serving another portion of the sentence. It goes on and on; it is a revolving door.

(1830)

I would respectfully submit that the member has made a very simple request to the House. Yet one member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, voted down her motion to make it a votable motion.

Let us look at some facts. An offender in Canada who has served one-third or seven years, whichever is less, of his or her sentence of incarceration for a violent or serious offence becomes eligible for full parole. Inmates who have not been released on parole after serving two-thirds of their sentence are released by law to serve the final one-third of their sentence in the community. My suggestion is that if required they should be serving 90 per cent of their sentences, especially for violent and serious offenders.

The National Parole Board confirmed that even the most violent and serious offenders serve on average only one-half of their prison sentence. Attempted murderers, for example, serve an average of 48 months where the court has ordered the sentence to be 94 months. They have served only one-half of their sentence, even for attempted murderer. In the case of manslaughter the actual time served by an offender averaged 44 months when the original sentence was 84 months.

The member across the way clearly understands the problem of violent crime. The justice minister, the solicitor general and the parliamentary secretary who voted against her motion do not. They are not concerned about violent criminals repeating their offences.

What exactly is the economic impact of crime on our society? A recent study by the Fraser Institute identifies some of the economic factors of crime. It mentions victimization, policing, private security, court and legal proceedings, corrections and shattered lives. The price tag placed on this type of criminal activity is $37 billion and much of that cost is for repeat offenders.

I realize that the member across the way has only targeted two particular crimes: rape or sexual assault and first and second degree murder. The cost of shattered lives because of murder and repeat offenders in those two violent areas is very significant and would certainly make up a portion of this $37 billion annually.

Reform's position in its operation crime strike discussion paper is that it would like to see truth in sentencing. That is what the member is talking about. She wants to move toward truth in sentencing. Truth in sentencing is clear and simple. If a rapist is handed a sentence of 12 years then the rapist must serve 12 years. If a murderer or attempted murderer is handed a sentence of 25 years then he or she serves 25 years. It is a very simple concept.

The member across the way, even though she is in agreement with parole, states that if a second violent offence is committed then that sentence should be served consecutive to the sentence that has already been served.

Reform would carry that one step further. Reform would say that once persons have committed a second violent strike they are out of the picture completely. They had their chance after the first time. After the second time they would do life, and life would mean life.

In support of the member across the way who introduced this private member's bill, I too submit a motion asking for unanimous consent to make this a votable motion.

(1835)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member for Mississauga East had the intestinal fortitude and courage to listen to her constituents, her heart and her mind on a matter of fundamental importance which I believe is at the base of what we should be doing in the House of Commons.

Previous speakers have alluded to the fact that the process by which we determine whether an item is votable is fair. The place where we ought to make that decision is in the House of Commons. We should do it in an open fashion as transparency is extremely important.

[Translation]

I am perfectly comfortable with the presentation made by the hon. member who moved the motion and by the hon. member who seconded it, and who is the other member for Mississauga.

[English]

It is unfortunate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice would not provide concurrence to make this a votable item. That being the case, it is important for us to understand what the bill is about. If the bill is not allowed to proceed today, I can assure the House that the bill and bills like it will come again before the House of Commons and we will have a day where openness will once again prevail.

A person who commits a crime must serve the full time. Too much evidence in the past has supported the excuse that serial rapists or serial murderers should only serve one sentence for all their crimes. Justice does not fit the crime. For that reason it is extremely imperative that we try, at the very least as an open Parliament, to provide justice not for those who have been accused and tried before a fair court of law but for those who are the victims. We owe it to them. We owe it to their families. We owe it to safe streets and safe communities, a commitment in our red book of 1993.

That is why as a Liberal I am proud to say that the bill speaks to the heart of the Liberal Party as I understand it and as many Canadians understood it when they voted Liberal in the last election.

Canada's criminal justice system has to be transformed. Convicted multiple murderers and serial rapists must know they will not get away from serving the full time for all their actions and will not have their sentencing behind bars reduced by concurrent sentencing. Concurrent sentencing for murder and sexual assault serves no purpose but to let convicted individuals escape the full weight of society's repulsion for their acts.

Our government is committed to safe homes and safe streets. It is my belief and the belief of most ordinary Canadians that consecutive sentencing falls within the commitment stated in our red book in terms of the safety and security of all Canadians.

The hon. member alluded to the fact that the bill acknowledges what is a debate and what is currently acceptable discourse in the homes and among many people in the learned societies of the country. Far from being stifled it is my view that the bill should be allowed to see the open and fresh air of debate.

It is unfortunate that the legislation only reached second reading. I can assure the member who had the courage of her convictions to bring forward Bill C-274 that her words today will not be forgotten in her constituency or in mine. As a member representing one of the larger ridings not just in metro Toronto but in all of Canada, I know the member has the support of thousands of Canadians for her courage to do this in the face of adversity.

(1840)

[Translation]

It is easy for me to explain the different ideologies of the criminal justice system, but one must understand that, in the end, the victims must benefit from a good justice system. The forms of justice we have today do not work. The bill is legitimized by what people said and also by the emotions created by people like Clifford Olson and Bernardo.

[English]

The bill is important in and of itself. It is important for the Parliament of Canada to be able to debate a matter of substantial importance to all Canadians. We cannot wait until another election to hem and haw about what we will do.

While it is important to bring in all sorts of theories and ideologies on how to get to the question of the root causes of severe criminal behaviour, we owe an obligation to Canadians to mete out important, significant and fundamental justice to those who commit serious crimes against ordinary honest victims who happen to be our constituents.

I do not believe I should shirk or cower from the notion that the House must consider the bill in a much more serious manner. There was an overwhelming desire to ram through Bill C-33 in record time. It took nine days. It took us longer to join the second world war in the fight against the Nazis than it did to get that bill through the House of Commons. Perhaps a bit of levity today might allow us to reconfirm the importance of the bill.

I seek unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, to have it made a votable item.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent to make this item votable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I add my comments to those of the hon. member for Mississauga East who introduced this private member's bill dealing with consecutive sentences.

For some time now Canadians have been very concerned about what they see as a lack of justice in Canada. They are concerned that individuals who commit one, two or three crimes end up getting a sentence that is compacted in a concurrent sentence rather than getting three different sentences.

I am not saying everything is perfect south of the border but we see sentences that are consecutive. Individuals get sentences added to the first sentence. In Canada we see sentences packed into one sentence so that individuals who may have committed three or four serious sexual assaults end up getting a three or six year sentence as opposed to a three or six year sentence for each and every victim.

Basically that says to Canadians that only the first victim has any worth or value, that each consecutive victim has no value or worth, and that there is not a price to pay for having been a victim. I think Canadians have difficulty with that.

The attempt of the hon. member for Mississauga East to bring in consecutive sentences recognizes that Canadians want to see from their justice system that an individual who has committed a series of crimes is penalized for committing a series of crimes and not just for one crime.

The hon. member has good intentions. Her amendments add sections 2.1 and 2.2 to first and second degree murder. Canadians are concerned when they see people who have been given life sentences for committing either first or second degree murder ending up on parole. In some cases it is relatively early in their sentences, be it seven years or ten years.

When an individual in the circumstance commits a crime, whether aggravated assault or in very serious cases a second murder, they fail to understand the way the courts calculate the time spent before eligibility for parole. It does not seem to recognize the seriousness of the crimes committed.

(1845 )

Canadians are asking themselves how somebody can go out and murder an individual, get a life sentence without eligibility for parole after 10 years or 25 years, get out on parole, go out and murder again and not be given a life sentence that means life without parole.

I agree with my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast that Canadians want certainty of sentence. They want to know specifically what the judge is talking about. They want to know that when somebody is given a sentence of five years they will spend five years of incarceration.

If judges were to say to Canadians that in certainty of sentencing they will incarcerate an individual for five years for having committed this crime, then they will give them two or three years of parole, and if need be in some situations they might even tack on a period of community supervision outside of parole, people would understand clearly what the penalty is of the crime.

However, when a judge gives a five year sentence and Canadians see this individual wandering the streets in two years or in eighteen months, they fail to see where justice is being served. If we are to have confidence in, faith in and support for our justice system, justice must be seen to be served. We do not have that today.

The hon. member for Mississauga East is trying to make some amendments to the conditional release act that show a certainty in sentencing, that do not leave it to some obscure calculation to determine when a person will be eligible for parole, that when a person is given a sentence for more than one conviction there is more than one sentence, that sentences are consecutive, that they are added on. The member for Mississauga East has attempted a very honourable thing. I commend her for her attempts to amend the conditional release act.

I ask that this private member's bill be given unanimous consent to become a votable bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the request from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley with regard to making this motion a votable item. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous consent. Resuming debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her efforts in tackling these criminal justice issues that are of concern to us and indeed to all Canadians. My comments will be directed to those provisions in this bill aimed at changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The proposals would alter section 120 of that act, which in large part sets out the current sentence calculation scheme. Specifically, the proposed amendments relating to section 120 would provide two things. First, that offenders sentenced for first or second degree murder would serve the full parole ineligibility period on that sentence, which is a maximum of 25 years, plus one-third or a maximum of seven years of a sentence, whichever is less, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

For an offender already serving a sentence when the sentence for murder is imposed, he or she would serve one-third or seven years of that sentence, again whichever is less.

[English]

The second point is that offenders would serve consecutively all the full parole ineligibility periods for sentences for multiple first or second degree murder convictions not arising of the same event or series of events.

The thrust of the hon. member's proposals is to deal more stringently with repeat offenders, especially those convicted of first or second degree murder.

(1850 )

Who could not agree with the notion that a new sentence for first or second degree murder and for offences arising out of the same event or series of events committed by an offender, including an offender who is already under sentence, should result in a clear, meaningful consequence? The government agrees with the intent of these proposals. That is why we have already moved to provide an effective and balanced remedy to this problem.

Last January Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes, came into force. The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were devout with the intent of ensuring that offenders who get new sentences feel the effect of those sentences.

It is important at this point to outline the main elements of the reforms which will help restore confidence in the sentence calculation process.

[Translation]

In the case of a consecutive sentence, the offender will have to serve the parole ineligibility portion of the new sentence before becoming eligible again for parole. This means a third of the new sentence, or one-half of the sentence in cases where the court has made an order that this would have to be served. However, except in cases of murder, an offender's parole eligibility date cannot be later than 15 years from the date the last sentence was imposed.

In addition, the sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 include the principle of adding parole ineligibility periods, where a lifer receives an additional definite sentence.

For example, a lifer with 10 years of parole ineligibility who receives an additional 15 year sentence will have five years of ineligibility added on, for a total of 15 years.

As I said earlier, the exception to this 15 year rule are sentences imposed as a result of a first or second degree murder conviction. In such cases, the maximum parole ineligibility period is 25 years.

The sentence calculation reforms brought about by Bill C-45 were developed on the basis of extensive consultations with a broad range of groups and individuals. The reforms in Bill C-45 were developed after a long process of consultation and scrutiny by the standing committee during both the last and the current Parliaments. The standing committee heard from over 60 witnesses representing 32 different organizations. During its clause-by-clause review, the committee debated the sentence calculation reforms set out in Bill C-45, and endorsed them in their entirety.

The amendments in Bill C-45 strike a fair and reasonable balance between punishment, respect for the court-imposed sentence, and effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

Striking such a crucial balance is achieved through a combination of basic automatic features, such as the automatic return to custody of a parolee who receives a new sentence, and discretionary measures that allow individual circumstances to be taken into consideration so that once the punitive portion of the sentence has been served, the offender is not kept in custody beyond the point when he or she can be safely released under community supervision. This is what the current sentence calculation scheme is designed to do.

While I believe that the hon. member's proposals are well-intentioned, I am also concerned that they fall short of the impact intended by Bill C-45. The amendments proposed by the hon. member would maximize punishment, and no one disagrees with this objective. But they would also reduce the discretion of the courts and the Parole Board and make the system more arbitrary and no more effective in terms of public safety.

The proposals could introduce new anomalous situations that could lead to serious Charter challenges. For example, the proposals would have a retroactive effect on concurrent sentences an offender is serving when convicted of murder. For all intents and purposes, sentences that were initially concurrent would become consecutive because the ineligibility period on each and every sentence would be added.

(1855)

Not only would this rule undermine the role of the sentencing court and render sentence calculation uncertain and difficult to administer, but its impact on the amount of time to be served, and particularly its retroactive application, would certainly give rise to serious charter challenges.

Another difficulty posed by this bill is the rule regarding the addition of all of the full parole ineligibility periods sentences for additional first or second degree murder convictions not arising out of the same event or series of events.

Not only would this further reduce the scope of the National Parole Board's discretion, but it would also mean that offenders who could safely be released would remain in costly custody well beyond the point that is necessary or in society's interest, and this at great public expense.

Lengthy incarceration beyond the point that is necessary for public safety is not the answer. We cannot afford to lose sight of the other important objectives of the C-45 reforms, particularly with respect to the courts' and the National Parole Board's discretion and the offender's rehabilitation and safe reintegration into society.

This governement supports the principle that repeat criminal behavior should be dealt with more stringently, and that is precisely why the mandatory 25 year parole ineligibility period for additional murder conviction is provided for in the Criminal Code.

I would also point out to the members of this House that being eligible for parole does not mean that a lifer will automatically be released. It is up to the National Parole Board to grant parole only after careful consideration of all relevant information, including the level of risk to the community.

The reforms brought about by Bill C-45, which was passed in January of this year, provide a comprehensive response that is proportionate to the sentence handed down by the court in any individual case.

The government has brought in a tough, fair, and balanced sentence calculation scheme that makes sure offenders feel the effect of their repeat offences, respects the sentences imposed by the courts and limits but still allows for discretionary conditional release when safe to do so in the judgement of the National Parole Board.

I submit that the issue raised by the hon. member is a worthy one. The sentence calculation reforms recently introduced by the government address this and other concerns of Canadians in the most effective and efficient manner, particularly with respect to public safety.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having been the seconder of the bill I had hoped to speak. Since the hour is almost finished I would like to make a motion to the House.

I ask the parliamentary secretaries to the attorney general and the justice minister to confer with each other prior to making their vote.

We have heard many motions to have this deemed votable. We also know there is another option to keep the subject matter of Bill C-274 alive, referring it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I ask for unanimous consent to refer the subject matter of Bill C-274 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on behalf of all Canadians.

(1900 )

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for Mississauga South has asked that the subject matter of Bill C-274 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped from the Order Paper.

_____________________________________________