PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[English]

CRIMINAL CODE

She said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ontario.

For the second time this year I present a bill which offers Parliament the opportunity to correct one of our justice system's most jagged obscenities. This bill, now called Bill C-321, asks that Canada stop giving volume discounts to its rapists and murders through concurrent sentencing. My bill is about reasonable and required change that every major victims group in the country is demanding with the support of most Canadians.

Bill C-321 has as its purpose three objectives: to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims, to restore some truth in sentencing, and to stop gambling away lives on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator will not attack again.

This debate is about competing interests. It is about the interests of the families of victims who need the peace only time can offer to salvage the remnants of their shattered lives. It is about the interests of victims who have every reason to fear the release of a predator and who can never escape the endless parole process that annually threatens to unleash the chained savagery of their assailants. These interests compete with the far more lucrative interests of the predator protection industry which regards each predator as a perpetual revenue generating opportunity.

Since I reintroduced this bill I have sadly been visited by too many victims of crime who have now come to realize that they are also victims of Parliament. Some had lost children, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses, but all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in parole boards and, most of all, lost faith in Parliament. They all went through trials where the focus of the defence was to weaken their resolve, to humiliate them, to wear them down in an effort to reduce the number of charges or perhaps provoke a plea bargain. Every survivor endured months, even years at the hands of our courts only to find that the predator convicted of the murder of their child, spouse or parent would serve not a single day in jail for that crime. Concurrent sentencing always applies. Judges have no flexibility. The lowest price is the law every day.

Victims come to court with a naive sense that they will find justice there but leave with the reality that their family's tragedy is of virtually no consequence in the sentencing equation. They carry on their lives in helpless outrage, left to pick up the pieces of their dismembered future. But their suffering is far from over. Every parole hearing, every 745 hearing will confiscate any peace of mind they may have regained. Some victims cannot cope, they cannot work, they cannot sleep. The strain tears apart what is left of their families.

Seventy four per cent of parents of murdered children separate; 100 per cent of these families have been sentenced to life imprisoned by injustice, revictimized by the inhumanity inflicted by a justice system driven by billable hours.

But some victims do muster courage and draw purpose from their personal horror by trying to change the system which treated them with such cruelty and disregard. They journey to Ottawa thinking that MPs in Parliament will listen and spare future victims from the barbed face of Canadian justice. However, they soon realize that victims are widely regarded here as a meddlesome nuisance to the lucrative business of justice and watch how their every effort and initiative is stifled by process or hidden opposition.

(1755)

Victims know that some members of this House mock them as the walking wounded or try to trivialize their efforts by branding them as a victims industry. They endure the contempt of those in this place who think themselves far too sophisticated, far too educated to be swayed by any tragedy caused by their own resistance to change.

The casualties of our inaction continue to mount. Earlier this summer not one but two multiple murderers were free on parole in Mississauga. Concurrent sentencing had given these repeat killers volume discounts for their crimes.

For John Lyman Kehoe, the second child he murdered did not affect his sentence so he was free in time to create yet a third victim. On July 2, just five months ago, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer ambushed a real estate agent, Wendy Carroll, slashed her throat and left her for dead. She survived, but no thanks to the justice system or the parole board which opened the cages of her assailants.

Wendy Carroll's life was nearly erased because our sentencing system erases victims. Had John Kehoe served a consecutive term of parole ineligibility for the second child he murdered, as Bill C-321 prescribes, he would not have been free to prey on Wendy Carroll or anyone else.

Wendy Carroll writes: ``Both of these two animals murdered twice before yet only served one 12 year sentence each. This is justice? Where is the justice for the two dead children, the two dead adults and me? I would like someone to explain to me how rehabilitated they both are. I have many scars and permanent injuries to show otherwise''.

The only answer we have for Wendy Carroll is that she was part of the annual sacrifice of victims that is necessary to sustain our parole system and all the fees it generates. On average a person a month is murdered by a paroled criminal-a person a month. If a children's toy had that record it would be banned.

The National Parole Board considers its record, its annual slaughter, to be a success story. I did not have to do any research to find a case where a multiple murderer was paroled early and attacked another victim. The place where it happened was a five minute drive from my house and it happened just two weeks after I resubmitted this bill.

The victim cannot understand how two predators who have been convicted of killing four people between them could have been set free to attack again. Their cages were flung open by volume discounts applied to their sentences which disregarded all but the first victim and left them eligible for parole in half the time. Their parole was not denied for long by the National Parole Board.

Why did each of these savages deserve to have his second victim reduced to a mention not worthy of an additional sentence? Why were these predators considered safe to be placed in our communities?

I see your signal, Mr. Speaker. I am going past ten minutes. I am taking the remaining time.

We do not bother with investigations anymore. It is simply a matter of routine for dangerous criminals to be released and for new victims to be savaged. Bill C-321 does not ask the parole board to be any less irresponsible. It does not increase the penalty for any crime. What it asks for is penalties that currently apply to each murder or rape conviction to be served and not be written off as part of the bulk rate for carnage.

(1800)

A little truth in sentencing, a small measure of public safety, is all that is asked. Perhaps it may also gently reverse the cheapening of life that continues in our courts.

It is the height of irony this week that we will commemorate the slaughter of 14 women by Marc Lépine seven years ago. The irony is that if Marc Lépine had not killed himself he would have been eligible for parole in perhaps as few as three years from now.

Denis Lortie was released in just 11 years for machine-gunning three people to death. How much longer would Lépine have served and why is it that some MPs who rail against such tragedy also support volume discounts for the cause?

Wendy Carroll wrote: ``For some reason our politicians have decided to grant rights to violent criminals who have taken every right away from their victims. What are they thinking? How many people must endure the horrific and extremely painful experience I did in fighting criminals like these for my life? How many more innocent people must die before Parliament decides to make some changes?''

Perhaps the subcommittee on Private Members' Business holds that wisdom or perhaps can issue Wendy Carroll with a medal, with a clasp for surviving Parliament's negligence.

I suspect no fact can illustrate the need for Bill C-321 better than the tragic murders of Arnold and Donna Edwards. They were murdered when George Lovie was released immediately after assaulting their daughter. Today the family can look forward to parole and 745 hearings to start in just 10 years. After that time they will have to be constantly on guard in case Lovie is released and hunts down the rest of their family. They are in that situation for one reason. Lovie got a volume discount, sentenced as if he had killed only once and committed no other crimes. Had Bill C-321 been in place at that time, he would have received at least 50 years of parole ineligibility, giving the surviving members of the Edwards family the freedom to rebuild their lives without parole hearings, without fear.

After the trial and the sentence the Edwards family were naive enough to think that Parliament would change the system just because of a few more casualties. Don Edwards, the son of the victims, wrote in a published article: ``Letters by family and friends demanding change to the justice system have been sent to three Prime Ministers, cabinet ministers, MPs, MPPs, police, the Ontario Complaints Commissioner. Some have responded and

others have not. In follow up letters some MPs could not even spell my parents' name correctly. Sad,'' Edwards said.

He continues: ``Family and friends now realize politicians and their aides have mastered the games of pass the responsibility, don't look to me for change, let's talk around the issue and who cares, convicted murders I'll protect''.

Edwards' effort spawned a 100,000 name petition supporting a private member's bill, Bill C-330, presented by the member for Hamilton West. Edwards was in the visitor's gallery as one MP denied unanimous consent to have that bill made votable. History repeats as the tragedies mount. Today another MP is here waiting to deny unanimous consent. It is part of the system, part of the strategy to forever frustrate every effort for change.

Debbie Mahaffy spoke for all victims when she wrote to all of us: ``Shame on you all for adding to our pain and for your lack of humanity, your lack of will to act appropriately and your lack of wisdom to make a difference''. Debbie Mahaffy is here in the gallery today with other victims to see for themselves which MP will defend obscenity and uphold volume discounts for the next Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo. They have come in the faint hope that the contempt victims now expect from their MPs will not rise again to protect the predators who destroyed their lives.

(1805)

I ask again for the unanimous consent to declare Bill C-321 a votable item.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there consent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not consent.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to share my frustration with the hon. member that several members, including the member from Erie, did not see fit to make this a unanimous issue.

Politics aside, at the end of the day we must begin to try to assess the impact that the judicial system and the parliamentary system seems to be working toward. It is one of forgetting those who have suffered at the hands of those who do harm to many others. The process only allows me some four and a half minutes to speak is one that I would reserve for a later time to comment on.

I begin by saying how important it is that the House hear this message of not giving volume discounts to serial murderers. I can assure the House that as long as I am a member I will continue to work with the hon. member for Mississauga East to make sure that whether this is a votable item or not, the House will have to consider this matter sooner or later.

Many of us on the government side do not believe in capital punishment. I am one that certainly believes in that. I do not believe in capital punishment for a number of reasons and I campaigned on such. Everything else must be considered in the name and the sake of the victim if we are to give any consideration to the pain which he or she has suffered. The pain which their relatives, friends and loved ones will continue to have to endure for the rest of their lives is everything compared to the punishment of putting these people in a correctional facility where they belong, where the punishment for the crimes they have committed are actually served in a way that is consonant with the seriousness and the gravity of those crimes.

In the short time that is given to me and to those Canadians who are tonight watching this debate, I say to them very solemnly that this Parliament will not end this evening mistreating this issue. As members of Parliament from right across the country we believe that the victim is important in the system. What the hon. member for Mississauga East has said before and said again this evening, notwithstanding the fact that the committee has not made this a votable item, is something that I think squares with even the most decent of Canadians who does not believe in capital punishment.

Let us not categorize this as a right or left issue. Let us categorize this as a matter of fundamental justice, of justice that deals with the equity, the weight of someone's crime, and the need to ensure that crime is met with sufficient retribution.

When I say retribution, it is not meant in a sense of saying forever and ever and that the person who is in jail should not count. But it is laughable when 10 people can be murdered and that individual only serves one life sentence. If I were to go to a grocery store to purchase 12 items I would have to pay for 12 items, not one item. What the hon. member has spoken to very eloquently is the need to honour the victims of violence, not those who have hate in their heart and would manifest that by the outward destruction of another life. We must ensure that there is effective punishment.

Yes, we can talk about theories of deterrence. We can talk about theories of recidivism or retribution, but I do not want to get confounded in some ideological argument. I want to deal with the crisis that exists in the country today. It is a crisis based on the recognition that those who commit serious crimes in far too many instances get away with proverbial murder.

I want to acknowledge the presence today in our gallery of Debbie Mahaffy, only one example. This House has an obligation to respect those who carry the burden of their loved ones.

(1810 )

The hon. member's attempt to have Bill C-321 passed today may not have succeeded. However, as a young member of Parliament and one who believes he has a good chance of coming back after the next election, God willing, although I see some members shaking their heads over there, let me assure the House that the issue will come back again and again. Why? Because Canadians want it and because we should honour the memory of the victims of senseless crimes.

Bravo to the member for Mississauga East.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too will begin by congratulating the member for Mississauga East on this bill. It is evidence of her concern.

However, I think that we must not ignore existing jurisprudence and legislation. There is no doubt that this sort of discourse sells extremely well. When particularly notorious cases are cited and we hear someone say: ``I, as a member of Parliament, am going to try to amend the act, so that an individual serves a longer sentence'', this goes over very well, particularly when the examples given have been in the headlines for weeks, if not months or years.

While I have a great deal of compassion, I think it is necessary to at least look at what actually exists, both in the Criminal Code, and in case law. We must not pass a bill because it sells well politically, in order to score political points. We must do more than that, particularly when it comes to parole.

I do not mean to say that the parole system is fully meeting the general public's expectations right now. What I am saying is that there should perhaps be a very serious examination of the parole system. Should this be done by a royal commission, or in committee? I really do not know, but there should certainly not be a piecemeal reform of the parole system.

Although the member's intentions are good, I think that her bill is a piecemeal approach to reforming a system that needs a complete overhaul, a very close examination.

It is a bill that is very brief, and very easy to understand. Clause 1 of Bill C-321 states that a sentence imposed for sexual assault-which comes under section 271 of the Criminal Code-shall be served consecutively to any punishment imposed for an offence committed at the same time, and consecutively to any other sentence already being served by the person at the time of sentencing.

This clause may seem rather simple at first sight. It may seem rather simple when first read, but its interpretation might modify the objectives set by the hon. member. For example, a judge already has powers and can, at his discretion, impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. Sentencing judges already have the power the hon. member would like to include in the Criminal Code.

There is discretion. Certainly, it is not very attractive to defend a murderer, but we must not go overboard here, either. Another member said: ``If I go to the store and buy ten items, I have to pay for all ten items'', and went on to compare that situation to that of a person committing ten murders and being sentenced for just one. That argument is spurious. It is a gratuitous statement which does nothing to help the cause of the hon. member for Mississauga East, because it deflects the real debate, it exaggerates, and it is inappropriate in a debate of this kind.

Let us say that someone has committed 10 murders. The judge has a head on his shoulders and, in sentencing a multiple murderer, he will take everything into account.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me that making such statements in this House only deflects the real debate and undermines any credibility they may have. At the present time, judges have the discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences.

(1815)

Between you and me, even if a prisoner is sentenced to 255 years in prison, it will not make much difference in the end, because he will not live any longer just because he is in prison.

Similarly, I wonder what impact this bill would have on the Young Offenders Act. Will the same system be used? I think Bill C-321 would not be applicable under the Young Offenders Act. And I think that may indirectly be what the hon. member wanted to achieve.

Regarding clause 2, the hon. member is well intentioned, and I understand her position. However, her own government has adopted legislation along similar lines that sets similar conditions and is intended to extend the period of eligibility for parole. This is a recent bill. The official opposition even applauded the advantages of this bill, although we did think it was a little too much to the right, that it tended to respond more to demands made by the Reform Party than to public demand.

As the official opposition, we nevertheless supported major elements of this bill. We wanted to introduce amendments, amendments were made, and in the end the bill was passed. But I do not think the government should adopt further legislation in this respect.

Sure, anyone can see there are problems with the parole system. There are problems. Some day, the official opposition will demand that the government appoint a royal commission of inquiry on the entire parole system, especially since the Auditor General of Canada has raised serious doubts about public security. I think we could conclude that the parole system should be investigated by a

royal commission of inquiry, because the public's security is at stake.

I hope that the members who support the hon. member's bill will try to convince the government when the official opposition makes its formal request. I hope the hon. member will rise in caucus to say that the Bloc Quebecois is right to ask for a royal commission of inquiry on the subject. A long term solution should be considered. We must try and find a solution today, but not in a piecemeal fashion, not just to respond to lobbying by people who had a very traumatic experience.

I do not want to give the impression I have no compassion for these people. I do. I understand it must be very painful for them. However, we cannot base a bill on particular cases, put faces to victims and names to criminals. This legislation does not stand up in this case. There is more heart than head in it. Lawmakers must speak with their heads, even though I sometimes wonder where certain laws come from. In essence, this is the way they should be made.

Yes, I understand the member's desire to have a bill passed. It is a cause she believes in, and I congratulate her on it. However, as legislation and jurisprudence currently stand, it would mean duplication.

This sort of thing also raises a lot of questions, affects other laws, including, among others, the Young Offenders Act. What are the consequences for young people? We are currently looking in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at the approach to take on the whole matter of young offenders. Where would Bill C-321 fit if it were passed?

Sincerely, I understand the member, and I can understand wanting to make a little political hay-we are in politics-but the subject matter is not appropriate to making political hay. We should look instead at reforming the entire parole system to some extent. We must not forget that there are also cases where parents have been closely affected by this, where someone on parole for two or three days comes and kills their child.

There is the case of the Bolduc girl in Quebec. Her father is not advocating putting them in prison for 250 years or whatever. Quite the opposite. The public has to get involved. It has to come from the community. People do not just criticize, they want to make significant changes to the parole system.

(1820)

Since the government whip seems very interested, I will conclude by expressing my hope that, when the Bloc Quebecois calls on the government to appoint a royal commission on the parole system to settle the whole issue, it will look into this very seriously. I also hope the government will support the Bloc's request.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to support the private member's bill by the hon. member for Mississauga East. This is a good bill. It is therefore regrettable that it has not been deemed votable.

The member who moved this bill has given one of the most eloquent speeches I have ever heard made in this House. It so clearly described the control that the bleeding heart mentality has had upon the justice system for the past 25 years.

The Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in this government through added private members' bills. By the admission of the member for Mississauga East, one of the Liberal's own backbenchers, this promise has been broken. The government backbencher accused the Liberal dominated four member committee that determines which private members' bills will be votable of short circuiting controversial bills such as this bill.

The Mississauga East MP said: ``We supposedly have open government but we have secret committees and I would 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 and they run''.

The hon. member was also quoted in the Hill Times a couple of months ago as saying: ``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 you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct an obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate''.

I could not agree with a member more. The member made these comments in reference to her private member's bill on consecutive sentencing, Bill C-321, which was rejected by her colleagues.

Harsher comments appeared in the Hill Times yesterday in reference to Private Members' Business. These words, which I would like to reiterate, are from Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of murder victim Leslie Mahaffy:

I am disgusted but not surprised by the heartless comments on the issue of consecutive sentencing that came out of the flapping mouths of government Liberal members as recorded in your paper on November 11, ``MPs Slag Private Members' Business''.

-the Secretary of State for the Status of Women says she was not familiar with this serious issue for victims' families because she had not attended caucus that week and as a result had nothing to say. Could it be that the issue of consecutive sentencing has been at more caucus meetings than she? Or perhaps she simply doesn't read newspapers about serious issues of crime.

Another cruel remark dealing with sentencing of serial predators made by another bright light Liberal-

-chair of the women's caucus is equally inane. Her diatribe that she might support consecutive sentencing if (the member for Mississauga East) brings the issue to the forefront again is mindless and absurd to say the least. The fact that she made this comment after consulting with the justice minister and the Liberal (member for Mississauga West) adds to the obscenity. With this calibre of consultants, I suggest it is time for (the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore) to seek better advisers.

(1825)

I will also read from an article which appeared on November 27 in a B.C. newspaper regarding the justice committee's national forum on youth justice. For the record, I did not support the expenditure of $60,000 to host this meeting because I felt we would be going over old ground by hearing from a number of witnesses who had already appeared before the committee. My opposition to this wasteful use of taxpayers' money caused me to endure a berating and to have obscenities thrown at me by the chair of the committee.

Nevertheless I quote from that article:

Ottawa was a bust for Chuck Cadman. Cadman, whose teenage son Jesse was stabbed to death by another teen four years ago, was invited to speak before the federal standing committee on justice affairs last weekend in Canada's capital city. But the Guildford dad who founded the victims rights group Crime, Responsibility and Youth (CRY) after his son was murdered, says the trip was a waste of time. ``I spoke maybe five minutes total'', he said. ``It was a joke. I shouldn't have even bothered going. The meeting was poorly chaired'', he charged.

Of 33 participants, Cadman said, only himself and a representative of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT), another victims' rights group, spoke from the victims' perspective. The other participants were lawyers, criminologists and members of groups like the John Howard society, a group advocating convicts' rights. Everything else was geared to the rights of offenders Cadman said. ``I was the only person in the whole bunch who took the victims' side to anything'', he said, ``and someone from CAVEAT''. He said he appreciated being asked to attend, but added, ``it was so obviously one-sided''.

So far in this Parliament, 16 private members' bills have been introduced to reform Canada's criminal justice system. What has happened to the vast majority of these bills? Absolutely nothing.

This includes Bill C-234 of the member for York South-Weston. This very necessary bill has not become law. It did not even come back to the floor of the House of Commons because the Liberal members of the justice committee killed it. They did this despite the fact that Bill C-234 has the overwhelming support of the Canadian Police Association, Victims of Violence, and tens of thousands of Canadians who have written letters and signed petitions.

Bill C-234 most certainly has the support of the Reform Party because this private member's bill would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would extinguish a killer's glimmer of hope for being released before serving his full life sentence. It is an injustice that members of this House who gave life to Bill C-234 were denied the opportunity to dispense with or pass this most important private member's bill.

It is also an injustice that the bill of the member for Mississauga East has not been deemed votable. This bill should become law.

Bill C-321 provides for truth in sentencing, a true Reform principle. Bill C-321 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 the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

Bill C-321 should be expanded to include all offences. No one should get a free crime ride but that is precisely what we do in this country. We permit sexual offenders and other offenders to commit two, three or more offences and serve only one sentence as the other sentences are served concurrently. This is absolutely absurd.

It is also absurd that we permit multiple murderers such as Clifford Olson who killed 11 children to serve only one life sentence when he should be serving 11 sentences. Each of the innocent lives he stole should be validated. Each life is worth at the very least a life sentence. Likewise a person who commits multiple crimes should be given an appropriate sentence for each and every crime. Bill C-321 would end this absurdity. It would put an end to freebie crimes in this country. Therefore I support the member and her bill. I support truth in sentencing.

(1830)

At this time I would ask for unanimous consent one more time from this House that this motion become a votable motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous consent for the proposition of the hon. member for Crowfoot?

An hon. member: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not unanimous consent.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to take part in this debate on Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, cumulative sentences.

I congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga East for initiative and persistence in bringing this important question to the attention of the House once again.

The previous bill, Bill C-274, was debated in this Chamber on June 4 of this year. The subject bill has two clauses. The first would require judges to impose a consecutive sentence on a person convicted of sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same event or series of events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.

The second clause would amend section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by requiring offenders sentenced for first and second degree murder to serve their full parole ineligibility period on that sentence plus one-third or a maximum of seven years, whichever is less, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

For an offender already serving a sentence, when a sentence for murder is imposed he or she would serve one-third or seven years of that sentence. Offenders would be required to serve consecutively all of the parole ineligibility periods for sentences for multiple first and second degree murder convictions not arising out of the same series of events.

The area of concurrent and consecutive sentences can be a confusing one. The power to impose a consecutive sentence must be found in some federal enactment. Section 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code discusses the circumstances where judge may direct that terms of imprisonment be served one after the other, that is consecutively.

The code generally states that this may be done in the following circumstances: where a person already serving a sentence is convicted for a new offence and receives a sentence of imprisonment; where both a fine and imprisonment are imposed, any default time for non-payment may be consecutive; where a person is convicted of more than one offence in the same court at the same sitting and terms of imprisonment for more than one fine are specified, terms of imprisonment for the respective offences are imposed, or a combination of imprisonment and fines for separate offences.

Over the years jurisprudence has developed in this area and some principles have become clear. Where there is no relationship between the separate commissions of criminal offences the court should, bearing in mind the total term, impose consecutive sentences. A second crime while in flight from a first crime should be punished with a consecutive sentence. Where there are a number of different offences committed within a short period of time, the offences should be grouped in categories and concurrent sentences imposed in respect of each offence in the same category, but consecutive to those imposed in respect of the other categories, again bearing in mind that the total term should not be excessive.

Section 149.1 of the code provides that sentences for escape from custody shall be served concurrently with time being served or, if the court so orders, consecutively. Consecutive sentences are usually imposed as a deterrent, special and general to escape.

Perhaps the distinction between concurrent and consecutive sentences is best summarized in the words of the 1987 report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission: ``Concurrent sentences imposed for multiple offences serve two principal functions. First, they permit the court to give proportionate sentences for related offences without disturbing the overall length of the total sentences imposed. Thus they counter any need to reduce sentencing dispositions for individual offences in order to achieve an overall just result. Second, concurrent sentences all serve a denunciatory function since their use denounces criminal conduct without increasing the overall sentence''.

Generally concurrent sentences are imposed for multiple offences which arise out of one continuous criminal act or single transgression. These specific examples respecting the use of concurrent sentences cited by the commission are as follows: where an accused is convicted both of conspiracy to commit an offence and the substantive offence, concurrent sentences should be given; where goods from one theft are found in the accused's possession at different times, only one transaction is really involved and concurrent sentences should be imposed; while a sentence consecutive to a life term cannot be imposed because it is an absurdity, there is no prohibition against imposing several concurrent life sentences or other sentences concurrent to life.

The sentencing commission also pointed out that the use of consecutive sentences has been justified on the basis of a number of sentencing principles. One such principle is deterrence; that is, consecutive sentences should be used to discourage criminal activity in certain circumstances, for example, for an offender who commits an offence while out on bail. Consecutive sentences have also been justified on the basis of their denunciatory effect and their contribution to the overall protection of the public.

(1835)

As a general rule, consecutive sentences are imposed for multiple offences which arise out of separate criminal transactions. They thus would be imposed for a string of offence, situations where, again in the words of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, several offences arising out of separate transactions are disposed of before the same court at the same time. For example, the court may decide to impose consecutive sentences where the offender is being sentenced at one time for breaking and entering a dwelling house, robbery and assault, all of which were committed on different days.

Parliament has recently dealt with the issue of consecutive sentences in chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, formerly Bill C-41, which came into force on September 3 of this year. Section 718.3(4)(a) confirms that a consecutive sentence may be imposed where the accused is convicted while under sentence for another offence. This deals with the second part of the first clause of Bill C-321.

Section 718.3(4)(c)(ii) allows a court to impose a consecutive sentence where an accused is convicted of more than one offence by that court. This would deal with the situation contemplated in the first part of clause 1 of the bill.

I realize that the exercise of this power is discretionary and not mandatory, as would be the case were this bill to be approved. The approach in Canada to date is not to fetter that discretion but to allow judges to balance all the factors before them.

I would also draw the attention of the House to section 7l8.2(c) of the Criminal Code which confirms the totality principle developed in the case law that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh.

With respect to clause 2 of the bill, I am informed that the case law is clear that a fixed sentence cannot be made consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment and that any sentence imposed after a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed can only be concurrent to it. The authority for that is the Crown v. Sinclair for a 1972 report on Canadian criminal cases.

A life sentence is just that, a life sentence. The convicted person may get parole but will continue to be subject to the life sentence literally for the rest of his life and may be reincarcerated after having been released on parole if the person does not comply with the conditions of release.

Accordingly, having consecutive life sentences is, to some extent, a contradiction in terms. However, the fact that numerous life sentences have been imposed on someone is taken into account in the decision to grant parole or not; a very important consideration.

Let me conclude my remarks by mentioning some non-legal considerations of interest. Few Canadians realize that we incarcerate offenders in this country at a rate far higher than most countries in the western world.

According to international statistics compiled by the Council of Europe, Canada's incarceration rate of 130 inmates per 100,000 total population is fourth in the democratic world after the United States, Russia and South Africa. We are well ahead of our European and Australian trading partners. Let me give the House a few examples. The United Kingdom rate is 92 per 100,000; Australia, 85; Germany, 81; Norway, 60; Holland, 51.

When federal, provincial and territorial ministers met in Victoria in January 1995 an item for discussion was the rapid and relentless growth of correctional workloads, particularly prison populations, that all jurisdictions are experiencing.

From 1989 to 1994-95 the federal penitentiary population grew by 22 per cent and provincial prison populations grew by 12 per cent on average.

Notwithstanding a decline in the reported crime rate over the past three years, there are indications that federally there have been fewer conditional releases granted and more revocations of conditional release resulting in more time being served by more offenders. In addition, there has been significant growth in the proportion of offenders serving sentences for violent offences, including homicide.

At the provincial and territorial levels of the system more custodial sentences are being given and for longer periods of time. There has been significant growth in charges for sexual and other assaults.

Among the reasons for the increased offender population are more challenging offenders, such as sex offenders and violent offenders, growing accumulation of lifers in the inmate population, growing use of Corrections and Conditional Release Act detention provisions, fewer offenders on conditional release, new and harsher measures for more serious offences such as the four year minimum sentences for use of firearms.

Correctional Services Canada now double bunks approximately 25 per cent of inmates, and concern about the high rate of incarceration and double bunking has been expressed by the correctional investigator, the auditor general and other interested parties.

Both the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have spoken publicly about the need to continue to work with the provinces and territories to develop strategies to contain the rate of growth of the inmate population. We must do this but we must also balance this with the protection of the public.

I do have concerns that Bill C-321 would contribute further to this correctional overpopulation. I question whether we wish to follow the American example of building more prisons, often at the cost of underfunding health, education and social programs. This is

a sincere concern. The record shows that all levels of government are cutting back where the need is most: health, education and social programs.

(1840)

The American experience suggests that a more punitive approach to criminal behaviour does not, of itself, increase public protection or reduce levels of crime. Between 1984 and 1989 the American crime rate rose by 14 per cent but the prison population increased by 58 per cent. Today more than 1.5 million Americans are incarcerated. In fact, there are more Americans under criminal justice system supervision than there are U.S. college students.

With respect, I do not think we have much that is useful to learn from criminal justice policy in the United States and, in particular, from its use of consecutive life sentences.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-321. I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga East, for introducing this legislation.

I support the legislation. I know the people of Guelph-Wellington do as well.

On April 9 of this year I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and asked that they consider allowing consecutive sentencing for violent crimes. I believe that consecutive sentencing is an important step in our efforts to give a strong message that we as a government and we as a society will not tolerate violent crimes.

In my letter I said that we owe a service to the victims of violent crime and their families in considering amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act which will change concurrent sentences to consecutive.

While nothing we can do as a government, as individuals or as a society as a whole can change or alleviate the pain and suffering caused by violent crime, legislation like Bill C-321 can offer some support.

Victims are often, if not always, targeted because of nothing more than who they are. A victim may be attacked because she is a woman. A victim may be a young person. They may be a senior or a store clerk. Victims do not have the choice of whether or not to be targeted. They are chosen and they and their families must live with the results of the violent act for the rest of their lives.

For this reason I recently introduced Bill C-344, which would mean no early parole for those who murder a peace officer. Like the hon. member for Mississauga East, I am concerned about the use of section 745. I would prefer its repeal. However, in the absence of repealing section 745, I believe that bills such as mine and this one are important and necessary.

Discussion on legislation such as this is also a good time to look around our community, communities like mine of Guelph-Wellington, and find ways that we can help eliminate or reduce some of the causes of crime. These causes are not someone else's responsibility. We each owe ourselves, our families and our neighbours the opportunity to effect change.

The people of Guelph-Wellington are asking their federal government to do what it can to effect that change. I believe that passing Bill C-321 is one way to respond to their request.

Some have argued that consecutive sentencing does not make sense. They argue that giving someone a prison sentence of three life sentences or 400 years does not help to address the problems of crime and punishment. I disagree. I disagree for the sake of the victims and their families.

Currently people like Sharon Rosenfeldt and her husband, whose 16-year old son Daryn was killed in 1981 by Clifford Olson, must face the fact that he is eligible to apply for early parole under section 745. Victims and their families find some comfort in the knowledge that the offender will be serving 25 years before he or she is eligible for parole. We can only imagine their suffering and pain when they realize that 25 years means 15 years. For Sharon and her family, it means they are faced with reliving the pain, the sense of loss, the anger and all the other emotions because they were unaware that the offender could seek early parole.

Thankfully, people like Sharon have turned that dreadful event of her son's murder to some good. While Daryn's death can never be understood she and her husband have founded Victims of Violence, which continues to raise awareness on issues like section 745, and to help other families cope with the death of a loved one.

(1845)

All across Canada people cope with the effects of crime. Whether a house or an apartment has been vandalized by thieves, the family car stolen from the parking lot, or a young woman has been sexually assaulted, we know that crime must be punished.

There are individuals convicted of crimes that are rehabilitated. Many make a return to society and contribute to making Canada great. I welcome the opportunity to give these people a second chance. But there are certain crimes that we cannot tolerate, certain actions which must be punished to the full extent of the law and certain individuals who cannot return to live freely in our society. We can never allow crimes like murder, sexual assault and

attempted murder to be dismissed. It is because of them that Bill C-321 is necessary.

Every day in Guelph-Wellington heroes go about their work. These heroes include in a special way our police officers, but they also include those who answer the phone at a sexual assault hotline, volunteers at the Guelph Distress Centre, teachers, factory workers, executives and children who take the time to make a difference. These heroes make that difference by caring. They know that no matter what the government does, crime will still occur. They are not asking for the impossible but they need our help to continue their important work.

How can we help? We can help them by passing legislation that gives one clear message: "We do not accept what you have done and you will spend a very long time, possibly the rest of your life, in prison''.

Bill C-321 reminds all of us of our responsibility to fight crime. Whether it be as simple as making sure our neighbour does not walk alone to church or joining Block Parents, volunteering to coach baseball, helping someone who is illiterate, or watching out for a neighbour's house while that neighbour is away on vacation, we can and we must work together to help reduce crime in our communities.

We each have a responsibility to one another as citizens of the greatest country on earth to make our communities safer. Government continues to have an obligation to its citizens, to offer them a justice system that says no to crime and serves notice that those who commit crimes will be adequately and in some cases, yes, severely punished.

This is why Bill C-321 deserves the support of this House.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The House has a procedure whereby bills are deemed to be votable by committee and I respect that process. I will not make a motion to that effect.

However, I understand there is a precedent that the subject matter of a bill could be referred to committee with the unanimous consent of the House. In view of the interest of the House on the issue of concurrent versus consecutive sentencing, that this would be a worthy item.

Therefore, I would move that the subject matter of this bill be referred to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is not unanimous consent.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

_____________________________________________