I would like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the hon. member for St. Albert for their comments in this matter.
[English]
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley claimed that on the morning of March 21 officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration refused to allow her to attend a briefing on changes to the immigration investor program. The hon. member argued that, by making this information available to the media before members of Parliament, the department acted in a way which constituted a contempt of Parliament as well as a breach of her parliamentary privileges.
I have reviewed the facts surrounding the incident, and after further consultations, my understanding of the matter is as follows: a notice was issued to the media by the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announcing that the minister would be holding a press conference regarding the immigrant investor program in the National Press Gallery theatre at 10.15 a.m. on Friday, March 21. The notice further specified that the press conference would be preceded by a technical briefing by departmental officials at 9 a.m.
It was also confirmed to me that the National Press Gallery applies certain restrictions on the number of people permitted to attend a press conference in the theatre. Yet no such restrictions exist for briefings which, I am told, are frequently held in the theatre by government departments. Finally, the Chair was informed that the briefing in question was ``off the record,'' which meant that it would not be televised in the closed circuit system of the House of Commons and, consequently, could not be viewed by members of Parliament.
[Translation]
In the case which is presently before us, the Chair must address two issues. I will first deal with the issue of whether or not there has been a breach of privilege insofar as the member was denied access to information by departmental officials. I will then examine the claim that the actions of the department constituted a contempt of Parliament.
[English]
On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the media had been given information by the government concerning financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same information was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser ruled page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege. He also reminded the House that:
Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a member of this House.On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied access to the information. Speaker Fraser's ruling which can be found at page 11788 of the Debates, stated that this was not a prima facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the member's ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament.
In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after question period.
On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser. In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said:
``Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons''.
(1010 )
Does the fact that the media was given information before it was going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated:
The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was, after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House, making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the authority and dignity of the House.
For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima facie case of privilege.
The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley may have a valid grievance which she may wish to pursue elsewhere; however, procedurally the matter has been settled in that it does not amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege, nor does it constitute a contempt of Parliament.
I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made April 10, the question is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is deemed to have been deferred.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to a justice bill. It is nice to see a plethora of justice bills coming in here at the last minute because of the cacophony of noise that has been raised out in the field. That is for the benefit of the minister who, I am sure, is attempting now to fix some of the things that somehow slipped through in his department with loopholes that have had some very negative results.
I think the minister knows about those and is aware that there has been a botch-up in the drafting. We brought in a couple of amendments to try to fix some bills last week after we were well into the process. Somebody in the department was not doing the work and we have been trying to fix things up.
We are, as we get closer to the election, trying to deal with issues such as victims rights. That has suddenly become a priority item. We are trying to deal with fixing the conditional sentencing provisions of some bills now. We have always realized that conditional sentencing should not be an option for a judge who is considering a serious violent offence. It is still an option, which is unfortunate.
However, the minister is bringing in all these bills: C-17 now, C-27 likely on Monday, debating the victims bill of rights in committee this week, and dealing with all the issues that have been on the table for two or three years. Finally, on the cusp of the election, the epiphany has struck. The conversion is a bit on the road, not of Damascus, but perhaps to the next election. I think we
are going to see quite a bit of this discussion about the justice system, how to fix it, what should it entail and so on.
We have been trying to emphasize in these debates on the justice system the need for some guiding principles. Whether it is called the charter of rights for victims, it should be a guiding set of principles that would direct judges, parole boards, people drafting legislation, on what should be considered as they draft legislation or directives for their employees. The justice system should make sure that victims have the standing they require and make sure they do not fall through the cracks.
(1015 )
In my riding a lady beaten unconsciousness and her body was further beaten for a couple of hours. It was actually the noise of the beating that got the police involved. Thankfully the woman survived. Her eyes were swollen shut for a couple of weeks. She was black and blue. It was a wonder she survived.
The fellow was charged with attempted murder but then charge was dropped because it is so difficult to prove. It was a sad case. The guy got off with nine months in jail.
The woman felt her rights had been compromised. I sent a letter to the minister about the need to do something about the part of the code dealing with attempted murder. I also wrote to the attorney general of British Columbia who agreed with me and asked to have the issue put on the agenda of the joint meeting between the attorneys general and the minister to see if there was some way the charge of attempted murder can be proven. It almost never successfully prosecuted. It is very disturbing.
This lady came to see me in my office pointing out that something needed to be done. The guy got nine months in jail for beating on an unconscious body. What tipped off the police was the blood stains on the ceilings and walls when they got to the door. That is how much he beat on her. Attempted murder could not be proven even though he used every conceivable object to beat her.
I raise that case because it is a horrible one. I had to deal with it. The guy was sent to prison and a red tag was put on his file saying that the victim should know where he is at all times. I guess the red sticker fell off the file and the guy was transferred to a minimum security prison 20 miles from the lady's home in the Chilliwack Valley in my riding. It is about a three or four hour walk to the lady's home from that jail. She found out about it only because a guard tipped her off. She immediately went into hiding. There are no fences. It is a minimum security institution, not a federal institution, that I am talking about.
The woman has been in hiding, has changed her name and done everything she could to try to protect herself. She says that every time she asks for assurances from the justice system that the man will not have access to her, or at least she will know where he is incarcerated, she is assured it will happen and then it does not happen. He phones her from jail.
The woman needs some protection. When we talk about the guiding principle of protecting the rights of the victims that is what we are talking about. She needs that assurance. She should not have to come to see me. She should know that her rights are being protected so that she is not endangered and not in fear.
She is in absolute, hopeless fear for her life. I need to assure her that we are working on it and that we will push forward with some sort of bill of rights for victims which tells them that we more worried about them than anything else and they do not have to live in fear. When she comes to me for that assurance and I cannot give it to her she is very discouraged.
Another case which was raised in question period in the last while was again in my area, in Abbotsford. The Ursel case has been well thrashed out here. It was about someone who was abused sexually and the justice system did not seem to provide a straight punishment clause for that guy. We are not worried about rehabilitation here. We want that guy punished and society protected. It did not happen in that case.
The justice minister should know there are approximately 10,000 signatures of people who are upset about that rapist and are now lobbying day and night with petitions and letters to editors and so on trying to have that judge removed from the bench. Now they are attacking our justice system. That again is a very negative trend. We need to deal with issues that protect our judges. We have to give them the tools and restrict them from using the freedom they have been given to so misjudge a case that the whole justice system has fallen into disrepute. I like to think I could protect our judges, leave them with their autonomy and not get into that fray.
(1020)
What do I say? That lady has been in my office too. She is distributing the petition. She has a very active group of people. Thousands and thousands of people have signed the petition saying that the judge has to go. That is not the right way to do it. We do not want to start petitioning against judges and kicking this one out because we did not like his ruling. The judge needs his autonomy. We cannot give him the degree of freedom we have under conditional sentencing which allows him to do that.
There is another case in the Peace River area. A fellow threatened to kill his wife. He was estranged from her. They had lived common law for some time and had a couple of children. They separated. He moved away, got together with another lady and had some more children. They were well separated.
He was not paying his child support and there was some acrimony about that. Finally he got disgusted and drove 300 or 400 kilometres to her home. He broke down her door, raped her, beat her and left her unconscious on the floor in her kitchen. Of course they caught him. They knew who had done it because they had a history of squabbles. The judge ruled under conditional sentencing-and Bill C-41 gave him the right-no time in jail for that crime because he might miss a child support payment.
What are we supposed to say to that? What would the parliamentary secretary have me tell the woman? The man drove 300 miles with malice aforethought to kick in her door, rape her, beat her and leave her on the kitchen floor. Then the judge said that if he put him in jail he would miss child support payments. He was given no time in jail, a conditional release. There is something wrong with a system that does not put the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the guy who is making child support payments. There is something wrong in our system that it does not provide for some sort of protection, a victims bill of rights or something to allow people to know that when some heinous violent sexual assault happens they can be sure minimum time will be served.
What about community protection? That lady is part of the community. The guy beat her, raped her and left. He is 300 kilometres away, exactly where he was the night he got drunk and did it to her the last time.
What are we supposed to say? I say the justice system needs to give a guiding set of principles to the whole mishmash of the justice system, whether it is the code, the legislation, the regulations, the parole board or whatever. The guiding principle should be that the rights of the victim have to be protected. It is not happening yet. It has been talked about. I am tantalized by the talk just before the election, but I have not seen it in 3.5 years. It has not received the emphasis we need. We will be on the campaign trail soon. It will be raised at those meetings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 agreed to.)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1025 )
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rock moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just spoke on report stage and was happy to detail some of the broad concerns I have with the justice system and some of the emphasis I would like to see changed within the whole application of justice in Canada.
All too often I am hearing a very disturbing trend in coffee shop talk that they are going to take matters into their own hands. It is our job as parliamentarians to make sure that does not happen. Vigilante justice is not the answer to injustice in the land. A proper justice system is the answer.
I have been a member of a party that has raised the mantra of victims rights to a new level in Parliament. We have talked about the need for that change in emphasis. The emphasis should not be on the rehabilitation of criminals. It should be on the rights of victims.
I find myself time and again having to calm people down. I could inflame the situation easily in my riding. I could go over the deep end. It is easy to do. It is easy to get angry. There are any number of cases in which I can do that. I find myself trying to calm people by saying vigilante justice is not the answer. They will get themselves in trouble. This is not the wild west. We have to move past that. However they are right to be annoyed with the system.
The other day Clifford Olson was asking for some changes to his situation. He wanted more access to the media and so on. The ruling of the judge in denying the application was that he felt it was in the best interest of Mr. Olson's rehabilitation that the right not be extended. That was his concern in the ruling. He said it was best for the rehabilitation of Mr. Olson that he not have access to the media because it gets him into a kind of demagoguery situation and all that.
The rehabilitation emphasis in the system has gone a bit overboard. Clifford Olson will never see the light of day. He is in there forever. He will die in jail. He will not get out. That is not the concern. The concern of the judge, because of the guiding principles that have come through the justice system in the last 20 years or so, was rehabilitation of the guy: what kind of education he needed, what kind of courses he could take and so on.
Mr. Olson will not get away with it. He will not be able to manipulate his way out of jail. We all have seen cases of people who go to their case workers and ask what hoops they have to jump through to get out. They are not concerned about rehabilitation. They are concerned about their access to the outside. They will work down the list. They will go to peer counselling. They will join AA. Many people in jail say they will become religious-and I am of the Christian faith-if it means a red star or a green star. They do not care much what religion it is. Sometimes they are very insincere, but they will do what they can to jump through the hoops.
It is very sad to watch, when we are hoping for true change and true rehabilitation not only of their actions but of their hearts, them manipulating the system to see if they can please enough parole officers and enough boards to get themselves out the Pearly Gates or through the Pearly Gates depending on their stage of life. The emphasis has to change because society demands it.
(1030)
Recently I saw a documentary on a South American country about the middle class suburbs. Every single one had bars on the windows, a wall around the house, the broken shards of glass embedded in the concrete on the top, spools of wire and so on.
In my community there are alarm systems, there is a community watch, people are putting extra locks on their windows and so. It is now incremental at an incredible rate what people are doing to protect themselves.
In North America private police and private security firms now outnumber government paid police officers. There are more people paying privately for protection than we can provide to them through the federal provincial systems. They are saying they cannot trust the government to do the job anymore. When they protect themselves charges will be pressed against them.
Three or four weeks ago in British Columbia there was a case where an elderly Kelowna man was in his house with his wife and a young man in his twenties came to the door and proceeded to try to kick the door in. The elderly couple in their seventies were about to become the victims of a house invasion. Do we tell the man to dial 911 and put his chin strap on his bike helmet and sit there and get ready to take it? That is what the justice system says.
This man stepped out and said ``I am not going to take it. My wife is here, she cannot run. I am 72 years old''. He got the baseball bat out and he took it to this guy. We all say let the police do it, try not to be alarmed and sit in your easy chair and hope he does not kill you in your retirement. Enjoy your retirement years.
He did not do that. This 72-year old man said he was not going to take because this guy was coming in to his house in broad daylight to beat the ever lovin' snot out of him and his wife. And so he took a baseball bat to the guy, and good for him. I do not encourage vigilante justice but what are we suppose to tell people when their lives are in danger?
An hon. member: Then he is charged with assault.
Mr. Strahl: That is right. Then he is run through the wringer of the justice system and people say ``maybe this guy is a bad apple and we have to prosecute the guy who is protecting his home and his wife from a 20-year old home invader''.
I have another case in my riding, and I am sure all members deal with these. A lady and her father came in to see me. She is about 30 years old. An ex-husband, common law relationship, stalked this lady for two years after the break-up of their relationship. For two years he sent threatening letters. He said: ``I'm going to get you. I'm going to kill you. You'll never see the light of day''. He kidnapped her once, took her down to the river to shoot with a gun he had in his hands and he took the rifle butt to her. She wrestled the gun out of his hands and flung the gun into the Fraser River. So he just beat on her for a while. I am sure he was going to shoot her and throw her corpse in the river. He was convicted and he is doing time and he may be getting out next month.
While he was stalking this lady he phoned her, threatened to kill her and followed her around from work. That is terrifying to any person and especially to a single woman. At night he would come to her home with a butcher knife and tap on her plate glass window. She opens the drapes and there is this guy tapping on the window with a butcher knife, smiling at her.
(1035)
This went on for two years. She reported every incident to the police. Nothing happened. The police said that until he actually assaulted her they could not do anything. The police tried. I will give them credit, but the laws are so weak that they could not do anything about the situation.
After the assault, the man got out and caught her again going to work. Thankfully her children were at their grandparents' home. He chased her around and around the car, in front of 50 witnesses. She was screaming for her life. He caught her and he stabbed her repeatedly. The onlookers did not know what was going on. He
stabbed her until her body went limp. The onlookers finally jumped the guy and wrestled him to the ground.
He was charged with attempted murder. The charges were dropped. They could not prove that he had tried to kill her because he only stabbed her seven times. She lived through the attack. I do not know how she lived. He must have missed all of the vital organs.
Imagine this. The woman and her father came to see me in my office. She had her act together surprisingly well. She could talk about the incident. She told me the story. I did not know what to say. I was without words. The justice system had not protected the woman. Worse than that, I did not know what to say to her father. He was a regular guy. He was about 55. He was a regular Joe. He was a nice guy off the street. He sat across from me and he said: ``Mr. Strahl, in July this guy is going to get out. When he gets out he is probably going to assault my daughter again. When he gets out and taps on my daughter's window with a butcher knife, I will kill him''. I said: ``Sir, if you do that you will spend 25 years in jail. It is malice aforethought. You have threatened him. You said you would do it. You will go to jail for 25 years''. He said: ``That is fine. What am I supposed to do, Mr. Strahl? He is going to kill my daughter''. I said: ``I would do the same thing''.
The system has to change. Victims rights should be more predominant. It has to change. I have to be able to go back to that lady and say ``we are going to change it and we are going to fight in this place until it is changed''.
They might issue press releases from the other side which say there is not a problem, but I am not going to change my mind. I am going to attempt to help that lady and too many others like her.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-17 for the last time. It is unfortunate that there are two amendments which are completely unrelated to Bill C-17 which have been piggybacked on to the bill. That was done with the unanimous consent of the House because all members of the House supported the amendments which were brought forward. Bill C-17 was the medium through which those amendments were put forward, but the amendments are totally unrelated to the bill. I am going to direct most of my comments to the original bill.
Bill C-17 contains a significant number of updates and improvements to the administration of law which are long overdue and which we support. The efficiency of our police officers and our courts will be aided through a number of the amendments contained within Bill C-17.
(1040)
Sections 4(6) and 4(7) of Bill C-17 will allow a peace officer to provide a statement of service without having to seek out a justice of the peace or notary to have the service sworn.
This change will improve police efficiency, reduce the workload of justices of the peace and redirect their expertise to where it is needed.
Similarly, section 145(5) and a number of subsequent sections of Bill C-17 will permit any peace officer to release an accused on a reconnaissance. Currently only the officer in charge can do so.
This amendment improves police efficiency by negating the necessity to bring in the officer in charge for a mere procedural action.
We fully support the changes in this bill that would enhance the way police would be able to conduct their business. We also support the portion of the bill which strengthens the proceeds of crime legislation by ensuring that criminals do not retain the profits of their crime.
Initially we opposed Bill C-17 because, as most Canadians are aware, Reform is vehemently opposed to measures that lessen rather than strengthen penalties for serious offences.
Today, however, we are reluctantly providing our support because we have confidence in the provinces that support these measures and confidence, as it has so indicated, that the crown will in the most serious of cases proceed by way of indictment by following a sentencing protocol.
We believe the justice minister was less than forthright with Canadians about the full impact of Bill C-17. The minister has touted the merits of this bill in that it modernizes the law and streamlines court proceedings but he has been noticeably silent about the reduction in penalties for certain very serious offences.
Although Reform supports the administrative changes contained within Bill C-17 I mentioned earlier, I would be remiss if I did not say this bill is a nebulous inconsequential piece of legislation which will be of little significance to the enhancement of the safety of Canadians, their children and their property.
Canadians are very concerned about their personal security and that of their families. These administrative changes will do nothing to protect Canadians from murderers, rapists and other sadistic criminals who roam our streets and enter our homes.
Bill C-17 cannot prevent serial child killer Clifford Olson from playing out his charade. Bill C-17 does not deny killers the right to early release.
Only a bill repealing section 745 from the Criminal Code can deny Clifford Olson and others from seeking early release, but the minister did not bring in a bill of this nature. Instead, he brought in Bill C-45 which still grants Clifford Olson and other first degree murderers an avenue for early release.
By doing so, the justice minister with the support of his Liberal colleagues, has forced the families of murder victims to relive their terror over and over again.
Bill C-17 will not stop Robert Noyes from sexually molesting another child. The former Ashcroft teacher admitted to abusing more than 60 children. As a dangerous offender, he was sentenced to an indefinite period of incarceration on 19 sex related charges.
Now the justice system has turned him loose. In June the National Parole Board granted Noyes escorted temporary leave and if that went well, Noyes was to be eligible for unescorted leave with day parole in February 1997. To date I have not heard whether he has been successful.
Only a bill like the one proposed by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley requiring the examination of sex offenders by two psychiatrists will keep Noyes locked up where he belongs.
Bill C-17 will not alleviate the fear of Canadian parents that their children could be abducted, sexually molested or killed in any of our communities or on our streets.
The justice minister's news release at the time of the introduction of this bill stated that these amendments illustrate further progress on the government's safe homes, safe streets agenda. This is absolute nonsense. It is simply not true.
How does someone make safer streets and safer homes by reducing the penalties for crimes such as the forcible confinement of individuals and being unlawfully in their homes?
Canadians want substantive change within the justice system. They want pieces of legislation that effectively enhance public safety. They want legislation that sends a clear message to criminals that if they do the crime they must do the time. Canadians want legislation in the hope that it will deter ruthless thieves from entering and destroying the sanctity of their homes.
(1045)
Canadians want a bill which repeals section 745 of the Criminal Code. They want the justice minister to vote in favour of victims and victims rights. They do not want a minister that upholds and protects the rights of criminals to the detriment of the law-abiding, peace-loving citizen.
In 1995 the minister voted against private member's Bill C-226, which would have extinguished the right of first degree murderers to a parole ineligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of a life sentence. Canadians do not want the minister giving killers a glimmer of hope. They want killers behind bars and they want them there for a minimum of 25 years: not 15 years, not 20 years. Canadians overwhelmingly want murderers behind bars for the full length of their sentences.
What is the value of a human life to the justice minister, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government? Is it just 15 years? That is what they are telling the people of Canada. They are telling Canadians their laws are enhancing public safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On August 12, Clifford Olson was eligible to apply for a parole ineligibility hearing and in March, thanks to this government, this multiple child killer gets his day in court at the expense of taxpayers. The minister saw on the day that Olson once again made the national news how Canadians truly feel about his tough on justice amendments to section 745. The justice minister just recently witnessed the horror all Canadians experienced on March 11 when Clifford Olson once again was granted, courtesy of the Liberals, the opportunity to flaunt his sadistic crimes.
Olson is not the only eligible murderer. On July 10, Ralph Ernest Malcolm Power applied for early parole on his first degree murder conviction. In 1981, the 28-year-old Power, an ex-con out on mandatory supervision beat 20-year-old Sheryl Gardner's face to a bloody pulp with a hammer. He confessed he was attempting to stun her just a little so he could rape her. Power was caught and arrested for the murder of Sheryl after attempting to kill another woman.
The Minister of Justice should have brought in a bill that would keep Clifford Olson, Ralph Ernest Malcolm Power and many others behind bars. Why is the Minister of Justice not listening to the victims of violence and the Canadian Police Association? Why has the minister not repealed section 745? The Minister of Justice should be dealing with crime first and then administrative matters, not vice versa.
In the wake of the horrific crimes against Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, capital punishment is resurfacing as a major issue with Canadians. The evidence is growing that if Canadians were given the opportunity to vote in a binding referendum on capital punishment, an initiative the Reform Party supports, Canadians would choose to sentence our most ruthless and sadistic killers like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson to death. The Liberal government refuses to give Canadians this opportunity.
Canadians welcome Bill C-55, the dangerous offender legislation, but they want it strengthened and they want the minister to end statutory release. They want to end the automatic release of prisoners after serving only two-thirds of their sentence, even when science indicates these people will commit further crimes. Malanie Carpenter who was kidnapped, raped and murdered is one of the latest victims of this kind of Liberal mentality.
The minister promised to bring in an omnibus bill encompassing these two initiatives which would significantly enhance public safety. Instead we got Bill C-55, which falls short of Canadians' expectations. All Canadians have been given in the last year are half measures or bills like Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 which amend the Judges Act, Bill C-9 which re-instituted the law commission and now Bill C-17. Bill C-27, which we do support because it deals with child prostitution and stalking should have pre-empted all of
these bills. All Bills C-2, C-42, C-9 and C-17 do is make life a little easier for those involved in the justice system. They do not and will not make Canadians safer.
In fact Bill C-17 may give Canadians more reason to be concerned about home invasions because the Liberal government through Bill C-17 has lessened the punishment for this Criminal Code offence. That is why we give our support reluctantly to this bill.
(1050 )
Bill C-17 reduces maximum sentences and changes strictly indictable offences to dual procedure offences. The redesignation of offences from indictable to dual procedure permits and encourages judges to consider those offences as less serious and therefore permissive of a lesser punishment to include mere financial penalties.
While most of these offences are non-violent, with the exception of forcible confinement, they do involve intrusion into the sanctity of our homes and forgery which may deprive our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, of valuable financial assets.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1994 break and enter accounted for 15 per cent of all Criminal Code offences while 25 per cent of all Criminal Code offences were for property offences. Eighty-one percent of break and enters involved forced entry. Property was damaged in 71 per cent of the cases and property stolen in 81 per cent of the cases.
Instead of expressing concern and outrage over these figures, the Liberal government is now saying these offences deserve a lesser penalty. These offences, which infringe on the financial and mental security of Canadian citizens, are going to be dealt with more leniency because of Bill C-17.
Unbeknownst to Canadians, the Liberal government has been slowly moving in this direction over the course of its mandate, a direction we are opposed to because not only has it not been sanctioned by Canadians, it may very well lead to an increase in crime, not a reduction, which is what we in this party seek as do most Canadians.
A shift of this magnitude in how we punish or-should I say in a politically correct manner-how we hold criminals accountable for their actions should be reviewed and then approved by the public.
Bill C-41, which has now been in force for a number of months, introduced alternative measures: alternatives to incarceration, alternatives in fact to a court hearing. This portion of Bill C-41 was overshadowed by the hate crime part of the bill which gave added protection under the law to a category of citizens including those classified by sexual orientation, an undefined term.
If asked today, I am confident very few Canadians know that the Liberal government has provided the means for a whole host of criminals, including sex and other violent offenders, to do community work rather than spend time in jail.
It is most unfortunate Canadians were not aware of the full scope of Bill C-41 which was described by the Canadian Police Association in the following manner: ``Bill C-41, with few exceptions, is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse, all of it completely unnecessary for anyone of any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada''.
We would not have objected so vehemently to the alternative measures section of Bill C-41 if the government had specified which offences may be applicable to alternative measures. We could support the use of alternative measures for specific non-violent offences, to reduce expensive court procedures and incarceration. However, no such specifications appeared in Bill C-41.
The Reform Party submitted an amendment to Bill C-41 that would have exempted violent offenders from alternative measures. However, the Liberals on the justice committee killed that amendment.
Since the proclamation of Bill C-41, which also encouraged the courts to use conditional sentencing, at least two convicted rapists and others are walking free on conditional sentencing while their female victims are afraid to leave their homes. That is unacceptable. I hope the minister will bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code that will restrict conditional sentencing to non-violent offences so that rapists do not walk free like the two in British Columbia.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House the sections of Bill C-17 which concern us. The present law dealing with forcible confinement of a human being makes this offence an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years which classifies this as a very serious offence.
Under Bill C-17 the severity of this offence will be lowered significantly. The maximum penalty will still be 10 years but it will become a dual procedure offence which may be processed by either indictment or summary conviction. This means that under a summary conviction procedure, this offence can be reduced to a maximum sentence of 18 months or only a fine of up to $2,000.
Section 348.1(e) of the Criminal Code regarding breaking and entering for places other than a dwelling house is also changed to a dual procedure offence and the maximum sentence will be reduced from 14 years to 10 years under indictment. Not only that, but it can be tried by summary conviction with a maximum penalty of 18 months or simply a fine. What does this say to society? What does it say to the criminal?
(1055)
The offence of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, Criminal Code section 349(1) has also been changed to dual procedure with imprisonment of up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction. Currently, unlawfully being in a dwelling house is an indictable offence with a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Similarly, section 367 of the Criminal Code regarding forgery and section 368(1), uttering forged documents, will be amended to dual procedure offences with imprisonment of up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction, whereas the current punishment is indictable only with imprisonment of up to 14 years.
It is these sections which initially had us opposed to Bill C-17. As stated earlier, we remain concerned that these Criminal Code amendments will signal to the courts that these types offences are to be treated in a less severe manner than is currently the case. As we know, the decision on whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction is made by the crown. It is with this fact in mind, and following consultations with some provinces which provided us with the assurance that in most of these cases the crown will still proceed by way of indictment, that we reluctantly provide our support today for Bill C-17.
Canada is facing rising crime rates, particularly violent crime, raising fears regarding personal safety, escalating costs to administer justice and to house prisoners and to top it all off a growing debt which severely limits spending.
The task of the federal Minister of Justice to deal with these problems in unison will be difficult but not insurmountable. Bill C-17 is not at this time part of the answer. It does not address the increase in crime in Canada and it does absolutely nothing to confront the causes of crime.
Therefore, we will support Bill C-17, an inconsequential piece of Liberal legislation, but we do so regrettably for the reasons given.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-17. I am encouraged by the statements that my colleague from Crowfoot has made in reference to this bill concerning its shortcomings and the fact that we will be supporting it reluctantly. I too have very deep concerns about some of the provisions of the bill.
I have paid some attention to the shortcomings in the area of the reduction in maximum sentences. That really concerns me. As as a police officer for 20 some years in the city of Calgary police department I have experienced what reductions of sentences actually do in the courts. There seems to be a trivializing of sentences that are delivered when parliamentarians start tinkering around and reducing the maximum terms allotted to some offenders.
I look in particular at section 279(2) which deals with forcible confinement. When is the section on forcible confinement often
used? What kind of offender is charged with such an offence? For the most part it deals with the rapist, the sexual abuser, the person who has intent to kidnap or to hold against his or her will someone. It is most often a female or a child that the offender has attacked or is attacking.
(1100 )
In Bill C-17 the government introduced a reduced sentence lowering an indictable offence which had a provision of 14 years to one of 18 months and making it a dual procedure. A minimum sentence of 18 months can be delivered if the courts proceed by way of summary conviction.
Rape or sexual assault is a very serious offence. Yet the government has trivialized a good portion of the number of charges of forcible confinement laid in sexual assault offences.
Another provision in Bill C-17 comes under section 348(1). Breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house is now considered a dual procedure offence with a maximum of 10 years. Again it has been decreased.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor immediately after question period when we resume debate on this matter.