JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Today we're dealing first of all with Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children). This is a private member's bill.

Before we get to that, let me just announce that we have with us today 16 students from the fourth-year crime and justice and criminal justice courses at the University of Ottawa. These students are visiting with their professor, John Kiedrowski, who is a sessional lecturer at the University of Ottawa.

I want to welcome you. In between sessions this morning, we'll take a break just to switch witnesses and that sort of thing, and at that time, if you have any questions, I know that all of my colleagues who are here will be happy to spend some time with you. You shouldn't be shy about approaching them. Part of their salary requires that they be accessible, so today I'll ask them to be especially accessible to students from the University of Ottawa.

• 0910

So that everybody is clear on how this operates, this is the only committee I'm aware of that has a process for dealing with private members' business. This process has been in place since the last Parliament, and we adopted it again at the beginning of this Parliament.

Today we've invited Mr. Lowther to come to outline his bill and brief us on it.

Mr. Lowther, we'll hear from you. We'll see how it goes, but we have roughly an hour. I think you said your presentation is about 25 minutes, is it? So we'll hear from you, and I'm sure all my colleagues have some questions for you.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I have a point of clarification. Within the process, is there the ability to call witnesses on private members' business?

The Chair: Not today. There will be, but this committee decides who the witnesses will be, not the proponent of the private member's bill. We have a list that we will consider, in steering committee and in regular committee, of who we will call. They will be called at the committee's expense, and we'll make that decision collectively.

Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I know it's not required that we have a quorum to hear witnesses, but I would like to express the fact that there is not a quorum, and that says something about the interest of some parties or members in what we're discussing today.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Of course commenting on absence or presence of members is not—

Mr. Ivan Grose: I was only talking about quorum, not about absence.

The Chair: All right, but we do have a quorum. For the purpose of hearing evidence, our quorum is three.

So go ahead, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther, M.P. (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the members around the committee table, a handout has been provided to you, which is a backgrounder on the bill, with some of the points I will be going through this morning, as well as positions that have been taken regarding some concerns that were expressed to my office around the bill and how we've addressed those concerns.

You'll also see on page 3 of the handout some details about how pardons and how many pardons are issued in Canada today and over the last seven or so years. Attached to that are a number of letters of support from various groups, including Sheldon Kennedy, Victims of Violence, etc.

At the very end of the handout there are a number of reports that I will be quoting from. They are reports done within the Solicitor General's department and by Correctional Service Canada. Rather than reading out the titles of each of these reports every time, I thought it would be more expeditious to provide you with the bibliography of some of the references we'll be drawing from here this morning.

With that, I'll move into my comments.

It's a privilege to appear before the justice committee to brief you on Bill C-284. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to sexual offences against children. Many in our society are concerned about the safety of children, and these are the concerns that Bill C-284 intends to address.

Let me provide you with some background this morning. In October 1996 a number of petitions were tabled in the House of Commons, including one that had 26,000 names on it, which called for changes similar to those proposed in Bill C-284. This expression and others from Canadian parents were what drove Bill C-284.

This bill would enable those responsible for children to make the best possible informed decision about who they hire. Bill C-284 would give parents with children in third-party care the assurance that those responsible for looking after their children have not abused this position of authority in the past.

Bill C-284 is specific in its intent, and I emphasize the word “specific” there. Its intent is to protect our children from those who have abused or who have been abusive towards children in the past.

Bill C-284 proposes to allow for the limited disclosure—limited disclosure—of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a position of trust with respect to children. The unique part of the bill is that such a disclosure would include an individual's criminal record for a previous sexual offence against a child or children, even if the person had served their sentence and later received a pardon, which had removed the notice of conviction from the individual's criminal record.

• 0915

What exactly is a pardon? Well, the Criminal Records Act allows the National Parole Board to issue, grant, deny, or revoke pardons for a conviction under federal acts or regulations of Canada. I want to make clear the kind of pardon we're talking about here. This is a pardon that allows people who were convicted—rightly convicted—of a criminal offence to have their criminal record sealed.

Once a pardon is awarded, any federal agency or department that has record of this conviction must keep this record separate. However, let us be clear that, in the words of the National Parole Board, “A pardon does not erase the fact that you were convicted of an offence.”

A pardon for summary offences is issued three years after one completes one's sentence. One can apply to receive a pardon for an indictable offence five years after the completion of a sentence, and have their record completely wiped clean. You'll see, on page 3 of the handout I provided today, the number of pardons that are issued in Canada. Thus, if a background check is performed on a sexual offender who applies for a position of authority over children after receiving a pardon, the record of a previous sexual offence against a child or of the fact that a pardon has been granted is not disclosed.

Given the troubling recidivism rate for sex offenders, which I'll speak more of in a moment, this is not good. We need to ensure that our children are better protected and that our parents are given peace of mind. Those who have suffered from sexual abuse characterize it as a life sentence. Bill C-284 can be seen as a common-sense measure to better protect our children from sexual predators.

More specifically, what does Bill C-284 propose to do? First, Bill C-284 proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act. The bill would allow a more complete disclosure of an individual's criminal record to include pardoned convictions, if two conditions are met. What are those two conditions? First, that the record includes a sexual offence against a child for which a pardon has later been granted, and second, that the individual applies for a position of trust over children. Those two conditions must be met before there would be any limited disclosure of this pardoned criminal record. It's specific in intent, as I mentioned.

The second component to Bill C-284 proposes to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Essentially this bill seeks to allow children's organizations to take into account the fact that an individual has committed a sexual offence for which he was later pardoned. If a children's organization felt it would be inappropriate to hire an individual with such a criminal record, this would be deemed a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act as it is today. Under Bill C-284, it would not be deemed a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Let me also just touch on a third consideration that the bill has taken into account, and this deals with the security of the information once it's provided. Bill C-284 attempts to ensure that the disclosure of a pardoned offence is only used in connection with the review of an application for a position of trust over children and that such a disclosure will not be disclosed to any other person. This was one of the criticisms of the bill, but the bill has addressed it.

The bill proposes that anyone who violates the limited disclosure provisions could be liable for a fine or imprisonment. Not only would this strongly discourage leaks of an individual's criminal record; it actually goes beyond the current punishment set out in the existing Criminal Records Act.

Currently section 10 of the act states:

Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The recommendations in Bill C-284 even go beyond that.

Therefore we can see that Bill C-284 is even more concerned about the non-authorized disclosure of pardon records than currently is the case.

What does Bill C-284 not do? Let's be clear that Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children can never be pardoned, although I would submit that there is a lot of support for that, as I'm finding out.

• 0920

This bill does not propose that if one makes a mistake such as this, it should forever be on one's record. Rather, Bill C-284 proposes that if one does sexually abuse children, that person could effectively be prevented from holding a position of authority with children—again, that's all—as those responsible for children will be able to see that the job applicant has abused such a position in the past and be more judicious in their hiring practices.

Wouldn't the disclosure allowed in Bill C-284 violate one's privacy rights? Let's address that.

Bill C-284 recognizes that in certain cases the public interest in law enforcement and child protection overrides the privacy of one's criminal record. It proposes that those responsible for children should have access to certain records to assist in filling positions of trust regarding children.

The Privacy Commissioner himself explained in a May 1996 paper:

The Privacy Act does not prevent the release of personal information if it is in the public interest to release such information; in fact, the Act specifically permits the release of personal information in the public interest.

The controllable disclosure provisions of Bill C-284 fall well within the accepted protocol for the release of personal information of which one's criminal record is a part. This is not excessive, but rather, I suggest to the committee, common sense.

One of the key underlying concerns that has motivated Bill C-284 is the rate of recidivism for sexual offenders. Prior to all of this I could hardly pronounce the word “recidivism”. Now I have it down cold.

Again, in the last part of your handout, I have itemized a number of reports, which I'll be quoting from for the rest of my text. Rather than give you the name of each one, for expediency, I'll just give you the quotes.

In 1996 the Solicitor General stated in a research summary from his own office:

The initial follow-up of the child molesters found that 42% were reconvicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period. (—) The highest rate of recidivism (77%) was for those with previous sexual offences, who selected extrafamilial boy victims, and who were never married.

That's 77%.

A 1998 federal-provincial-territorial ministerial report that just came out indicates that there have been over 700 new sex crime victims from individuals who had received a pardon and later, after they had committed another crime, had their pardon revoked.

Another study, which dealt with a shorter timeframe, found that sexual recidivism rates in a shorter period of time were about 30%. This was a study done by Correctional Service Canada, and I'm quoting the study. It says:

The strongest predictor of sexual recidivism was, not surprisingly, a previous sex offence.

I'll quote another one of the studies I've itemized there for you:

Reconvictions underestimate the rate of reoffending— [as] only a fraction of the sexual offenses against children result in the offender being convicted.

So you can see that even these 700 who have committed new sex crimes after their pardon, as referenced by the Solicitor General's own study, likely represent only a fraction of what's actually going on.

Again, from the federal-provincial-territorial report:

Sex offenders with a prior history were more than twice as likely to commit further sexual offences— and much more likely to violate release conditions.

These are findings from the department's own studies.

From another report:

It appears likely that pedophiles, especially those men who offend against young boys, are at greater risk to recidivate sexually than are rapists.

I have many quotes, but for the sake of time, I won't go through them all. There are many along the same theme, and they underline the high rate of recidivism in this type of crime.

• 0925

I'll quote one or two additional quotes that are notable:

The pedophile group— had the highest rate of sexual recidivism relative to incest offenders or rapists. (—) This finding suggests that pedophiles may be more persistent with respect to committing sex crimes over time.

There is some debate about the treatment for pedophiles. Quoting from the Solicitor General's own report:

“Does sex offender treatment work?” We are still uncertain. There is disagreement even amongst the most prolific and knowledgeable researchers in the area.

I submit that to the committee as one of the driving factors for the specific intent of this particular bill.

If we're going to pardon individuals and provide that information to law enforcement agencies and groups that are hiring these same individuals to care for children, one of the questions is, where is the information once the pardon has been granted?

Let me quote from the recent October report produced for the Solicitor General's department, in conjunction with the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers:

The issuance of a pardon does not destroy or expunge the criminal record, but causes it to be sealed and set apart in all record systems under federal control, including CPIC. These records are maintained by CPIC in a separate confidential database at least until the pardon recipient reaches 80 years of age. While not binding on provincial jurisdictions, the reference in the Act to sealing “judicial records” is strong expression of the spirit of the Act with which virtually all police agencies, courts and Attorneys General comply. The stated purpose of sealing the record is so that it will no longer reflect adversely on the ex-offender. The most common reasons for requesting pardons are for purposes of employment and travel.

So the record is there. It is maintained on a database. We're just simply not allowed to have access to it, even in cases of sexual offenders with histories of strong recidivism rates.

A number of groups have come here today to show support for the intent of this bill, including the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime as well as Victims of Violence here in Ottawa. Both Steve Sullivan and Gary Rosenfeldt are here today to show support for the bill. I know the entire board of directors for the Canadian Police Association is here, with both the vice-president and the president of that group. Chief Fantino is also here, representing the police chiefs from Ontario as well as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. All of them are here.

I understand we're not allowed to present witnesses, but I know each of these groups have a brief comment they could submit to you in respect to this bill that may add clarification to the points I've already presented to you. I know they're prepared to be very brief, less than five minutes, and just quickly give you their perspective on it, if the committee would be inclined to hear their comments. May I submit that to the committee?

The Chair: Is that the end of your—

Mr. Eric Lowther: It's not.

The Chair: Why don't you carry on, and we'll deal with that at the end?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay. At the end, then, depending on the decision, I may elect to make some additional comments, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, we do have a process. The committee has to meet and make a decision as to what witnesses it's going to call.

• 0930

The committee has been very busy this fall. Since last June we've reported to the House on 17 different occasions, with respect to legislation and other reports. This matter, along with another private member's bill, is on our agenda for us to make some decisions about witnesses. It may very well be that all of the people you've suggested will be called, at the committee's expense, to be witnesses as some point, but it would be my view, in keeping with our past practices and the best way to organize this committee and its very heavy workload, that we'll have to make those decisions as a group. I don't know that we're prepared to do that today.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I appreciate that consideration, Madam Chair, and I understand the challenges you have. My only intent in bringing that forward was that many of these individuals work with this day to day and may be able to add a dimension to what I presented that would assist the committee in deciding what they want to do next with this bill. I wasn't really suggesting that they be called forward as witnesses, but only to embellish the presentation I'm giving the committee today so that there's a greater understanding of the thrust of the bill from their perspective as well.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, as a member of the committee, I'm fully aware of what you've just told us about the workload, but I'm wondering, given what Mr. Lowther has said and the brevity of their remarks, if we might hear from them. They're present. You know as well as I do that it may take some doing to have this number of individuals associated with this bill assembled in one room again at some future time. It seems very reasonable just to hear from them very briefly, if they have a prepared text or some brief remarks.

The Chair: You would have to have unanimous consent to do something like that, to break the practice we've had. Because once we've broken it, Mr. MacKay, it's broken, and that provides serious implications for us in terms of our ongoing process.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Could I move a motion that we perhaps make an exception?

The Chair: What you need to do is ask for unanimous consent, if that's what you want to do. Is that you're asking for?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I seek unanimous consent, yes.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to hear from all of these witnesses today?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Unanimous consent is not there.

Mr. Lowther, carry on.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I may be allowed to paraphrase what I believe to be some of the comments of these individuals here in the room with us today, I will attempt to do so.

For both the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and Victims of Violence here in Ottawa, I'm sure I'm doing a very poor job of paraphrasing, but from discussions with them, I know that one of the things they wanted to make sure the committee was aware of is this. When pardons are granted, as they are today, for all types of crimes once a particular timeframe has been met—once the sentence has been served and there is a period of sentence-free time—there's a very distinct difference between obtaining a pardon for a criminal action that may involve robbery, or a property crime, and a sexual offence, particularly one against children.

These crimes have a life sentence and a life impact on the individuals involved. To treat them in the same way, as is done today within the National Parole Board, is not right. They want the committee members to realize that in fact these are life sentences. In addition, the victims they deal with are concerned that measures be taken, the strongest measures possible, to prevent others from experiencing the same sort of pain and violations they have experienced. That's part of the reason these groups have taken time out of their busy schedules to be here this morning.

For the Chiefs of Police and for the Police Association, again I paraphrase poorly, I'm sure, but they also are concerned about safety in the communities, as they're tasked with maintaining, and not having access to information that would allow them to be aware of those who have previous histories of sexual offences, particularly against children. They are aware of the very high recidivism rates of this type of crime. It is troubling to them and limits them; it actually handcuffs them in the performance of their own duty, which is a key reason they are here today.

• 0935

They have endorsed my bill and, I believe, the next one you're going to hear from, primarily because “Collectively these bills will positively impact public safety.” I'm quoting from their very own text in a press release that is part of your package. You'll see on page 6 a press release from the Police Association.

So with my attempts to paraphrase their positions, I'll move on, Madam Chair, to my summary.

Primarily this bill allows parents to protect their children as much as possible from unknowingly placing their children in the hands of individuals who have sexually offended against children in the past. The limited disclosure approach allows these individuals to start over without risking our children's safety. Due to the almost automatic granting of pardons once the conviction times have been served, coupled with the high recidivism rates for these types of crimes over long periods, it's only reasonable that we take every precaution possible.

Currently we can reasonably estimate from the government's own records, limited as they are, that about 7,800 pardoned individuals who have sexually abused children are walking the streets in Canada today—7,800. How many of them, I ask the committee to consider, are currently employed in positions of trust and authority over children? How many children are we putting at risk?

The pardon record exists, but currently we have no access to it. Bill C-284 would change that. The limited disclosure approach would allow for protection of our children while maintaining the privacy of the truly rehabilitated sex offender.

To the members of this committee, I know many of you are here with the desire to serve your country and make it a better place to live. Today, according to the government's own records, we know that approximately two children a month—two children a month—are being sexually assaulted by people who have been pardoned of the same offence earlier, and those are only the ones who have been caught. How many more children are out there who we're unable to protect due to the limited access to this information?

Bill C-284 allows us to take the preventative measures to stop these tragic, life-damaging crimes. This is one of those rare opportunities where we all can make a real difference, as many of you were determined to do when you came here to serve. It's always easy to find a reason not to do something and to stay with the status quo, but for the sake of this month's victims, let's make a difference. That's why we came here. Let's swiftly present Bill C-284 to the House with our collective recommendations of support for third and final reading. I submit to you that in good conscience, we can do no less.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Madam Chair, I have a question on the comment that two persons a month are abused by persons who have already been pardoned. If one has a pardon and applies for any job in Canada and there's a question on the job application, “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?”, can they say “No” if they've been pardoned, or “Yes, but pardoned”?

Mr. Eric Lowther: That would be I guess a decision of the individual.

Mr. John Reynolds: But legally, what can they say?

The Chair: We'll find that out from the department.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's something I'd like to know from the department.

I know there's a lot of support for this, but is there any opposition, other than what I see from the government?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Apart from the government's own concerns, Mr. Reynolds, I have received absolutely no opposition to the bill—actually only positive support. The government's concerns about the bill I believe were largely driven by not fully understanding the limited disclosure approach the bill was taking. That's why we have included a complete rebuttal, for lack of a better word, to each of the concerns about the bill that were forwarded to us. We feel we've addressed them quite thoroughly.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's fine.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Cadman, did you have any questions?

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): No. Mr. Reynolds took mine. I gave them to him.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: You're such a generous guy.

• 0940

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have just one point of clarification for Mr. Reynolds. I have been advised that once you have been pardoned, you can legally say no, you do not have a criminal record.

The Chair: Yes, that's my understanding as well, but as I say, we'll check.

Mr. John Reynolds: Unless you apply for a green card in the United States; they demand to know. They don't accept no.

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I would like to congratulate the member for his bill and tell him that he can count on my support and that of the Bloc Québécois in adopting this bill. I have no questions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Lowther, as a colleague. You've done a tremendous job here. Your presentation was very thorough. I have one quick question about your statistics. I'm wondering if there was any research or if you have any research available about pardons granted specifically to sex offenders? These are more general pardons. Do you have any research in that area?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, we do.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm looking for the number of pardons applied per year to sex offenders.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Right. The most recent report that came out, Mr. MacKay, was the report to federal, provincial, and territorial ministers on information systems on sex offenders against children and other vulnerable groups. The numbers I'm drawing are from that specific report. It very clearly shows that 704 sexual offences, that they were able to track, were committed by individuals who had been pardoned. That's since 1971. Of those 704, I believe 458 were sexual offences committed against children by individuals who had previously been pardoned. Those are the government's own numbers at this point in time.

But I should point out that there is no comprehensive tracking of what pardons are given for. It's very difficult to get information as to the types of crimes that are pardoned by the National Parole Board. It seems that once the time criterion is met, the pardon is given, and then there isn't much tracking beyond that. It's very difficult to get a breakdown.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right, thank you.

With respect to your particular bill, last week there was a report on child sex crimes from the federal-provincial-territorial working group that you've referred to, and one of their recommendations was that there should be a stand-alone national sex offender registry. Ontario and B.C. are both proceeding with these types of registries provincially.

There are obviously logistical problems with setting up something like that, given that even the CPIC system that's in place is breaking down somewhat. We're going to eventually see a national DNA data bank registry and we have a gun registry that's set up to fail, but we obviously have national registry programs in place. I'm wondering about your feeling as to how your particular bill might fit with something like that—a national child sex offender registry.

I say that keeping in mind that a private member's bill was brought forward in the previous Parliament by a former colleague of yours, Jan Brown, and I've tabled a similar motion. I'm wondering if you would be in support of something like that to dovetail with your own motion.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I certainly would. The theme and the recommendations of the federal-provincial-territorial report that's come out are very consistent with my bill.

The only thing I would say is that the national registry in it of itself does not give us what Bill C-284 does. Just simply registering the criminal record of the individual and having access to the criminal record is not enough. What I'm suggesting here is, in the case of sexual crimes against children, due to the recidivism rate and the trauma that's implied in a life sentence to a child, we also need to have access to the pardon record. Without the changes called for in Bill C-284, we will not get access to the pardon record, at least not in an expeditious way.

• 0945

That needs to be added to any registry, because without these changes, you'd be violating some of the Criminal Records Act and some of the Canadian Human Rights Act if you were to obtain the pardon record.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have just one final question. For the record, Mr. Lowther, as you know, the Conservative Party is supportive of your bill, but I'm going to ask you the question before the government side asks you the question: How do you see this impacting on rehabilitation?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A key thing to remember about the bill, Mr. MacKay, is that if someone were applying for a position that was not a position of authority or trust or care over children, this information would not be disclosed. If it were for a truck driver or an accountant or some other kind of job, other than the care of children, the information would not be disclosed. He could continue with rehabilitation, I guess, for lack of a better word, without it ever having an impact.

But in the case where someone has this history, what it really does is allow those who are hiring the individual to make an informed decision. If they feel the individual has been rehabilitated, they may move ahead, or they may take whatever precautions they feel are necessary within their own organization. The key here is it allows those people to make informed decisions.

I don't think that necessarily is going to hinder the rehabilitation at all. In fact what it will do is just give our children one bit more of preventative protection and also give the parents one more degree of peace of mind.

Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It sounds like common sense. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am, incidentally, in opposition to your bill, and I'll tell you why. I'm sick and tired of us wasting our time putting band-aids on this problem, and this is another band-aid: we're going to do a little of this, a little of that, we're going to inform people. I was fascinated with your statement that a convicted pedophile could get a job as a truck driver or an accountant. Truck drivers and accountants do not assault children? This is ridiculous.

It fascinates me that people who are pedophiles or who have some other predilection to assault children are not adjudged to be mentally ill. They are. There's no question about that. It's interesting; if you murder someone and you're adjudged to be insane at the time, you will be confined at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. But with a pedophile or someone who assaults children, we say, “Well, we'll give him five years this time”, and when he does it again, “We'll give him 10 years; that'll show him”, and then, “We'll give him 20 years; that'll show him.”

It doesn't work. We know that. It does not work. Why do we keep trying to punish these people? It doesn't work.

You're now talking about pardons and paroles and advising and so on. Your statement about the truck driver or accountant made it quite plain: “All right, he can't work in a child care centre, but he can be a truck driver or an accountant, and that'll solve the problem.” It won't.

Why are we continuing to put band-aids on this problem? Why do we not treat it as a mental health problem? What we've done up until now hasn't worked, and what you're recommending is just another couple of band-aids. I'm sorry. I oppose your bill on those grounds. We have to face this problem for what it is: it's a mental health problem.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Lowther?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Certainly.

I concur for the large part with Mr. Grose's comments, but I'd ask him to deal with the reality of the situation we're faced with right now. The reality of the situation we're faced with right now is that these individuals are pardoned by the National Parole Board on a regular basis, and their records are hidden. If he'd like to advocate within this committee and in the justice department that those pardons not be granted at all, I'd be the first to line up in support of that. But this particular bill deals with the reality of the situation right now: that they are pardoned. People should have access to those pardon records so that they can protect themselves from these very same individuals who he and I share a common concern about.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I'm sorry. I disagree with you. If you're going to create two classes of pardons, then how does the pardon system work? Where do you draw the line? Rape? Pedophilia? Where do you draw the line? Your records are either sealed or they're not sealed.

• 0950

What is the point in the pardon system? I want the whole thing out of the criminal justice system altogether, because you're still playing with it and putting band-aids on it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I don't have a problem with what you're saying, but I would ask, is doing nothing better than incremental improvements today? Why can we not make incremental improvements now, as we look at a more comprehensive change to the whole system? Because—

Mr. Ivan Grose: I love that phrase, “incremental improvements”.

The Chair: Let him finish, please.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I'm sorry.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I submit to you that doing nothing and being frustrated with the whole situation is not as good as making some incremental changes now.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I did not recommend doing nothing. I said, “Why do we not change the whole system?” Fiddling with it, I'm not in favour of. Change the whole thing. And I'm surprised you're not here today advocating changing the whole system so that these people are taken out of circulation completely, not for a little while, not that they have a record somewhere, and not that they are an accountant or a truck driver. Change the whole system.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I concur.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lowther.

I agree to a large extent with many of the comments Mr. Grose has made. We're dealing here with something that should more properly be dealt with under the mental health system.

I have some difficulty with many of the premises that these private members' bills come from—that our criminal justice system is not working, etc. But I do have to admit in this particular case, because I am aware of a lot of the work that has been going on in the mental health field dealing with sexual offenders and the inability to find proper treatment— And the rates of recidivism that you've quoted to the committee here are very significant to this whole debate.

Inasmuch as I agree with Mr. Grose that we need to do something about the whole system, this is one case where I'm prepared to be much more receptive in hearing the evidence on public safety grounds at this point in time, until such time as things are changed. I'm very much looking forward to hearing from other witnesses and delving more into the statistics and where we go from here.

I thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): If I could revisit that motion, Madam Chair, I would like to make it clear that although there wasn't unanimous consent that those individuals from the four groups make a five-minute presentation, they have appeared before this committee on numerous occasions, and they know the routine. If they have briefs that they wish to leave with us, I'd like to see them, and they very well may be called at another time. I certainly would like to hear from all of them.

I have a question to Mr. Lowther: What is a position of trust and who makes that determination?

Mr. Eric Lowther: The position of trust would be someone who is in a position of care or trust over children. The person who makes the determination is, as the bill explains, the organization that is bringing them on board. It could be a volunteer organization; it could be a teacher. To quote the actual bill, it's when:

the person is responsible for or represents an individual, organization or group who is responsible for the welfare of one or more children;

It's when they're responsible for the welfare of one or more children in their care. Within that context, those individuals could apply to determine if the pardon record existed and what the details were.

Mr. John Maloney: So if I wanted to hire an individual to care for my two children in my home while my wife and I work, that would put me in that position?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Mr. John Maloney: Could you explain to me the process that goes into considering a pardon for a sexual offender? Is it a mere lapse of time, or is there a thorough investigation or a rudimentary investigation? Could you explain that to me?

Mr. Eric Lowther: To my understanding, there is an investigation when a pardon is issued by the police. They do an investigation to make sure there haven't been any additional charges and that there isn't any evidence of criminal activity prior to the granting of the pardon. That investigation does go on.

• 0955

But I would also point out that the number of pardons that are denied are about 1% of the total of applications. The vast, vast majority of pardons applied for are granted. We're seeing anywhere from 15,000 to 20,000, sometimes more than 20,000, pardons granted every year. Basically it's automatically granted, provided the timeframe of three years after your sentence is served or five years after your sentence is served. It's automatic.

Mr. John Maloney: And sexual offenders are just like the others?

Mr. Eric Lowther: They're treated no differently.

Mr. John Maloney: No psychological assessment is required or anything of that nature?

Mr. Eric Lowther: They must have good behaviour, but effectively good behaviour applies to anyone who's pardoned, whether it's a property offence or a sexual offence. They're not treated in any different way. The pardon is still applied.

Mr. John Maloney: What if I use an alias? What if I don't use the name under which I was convicted? How are you going to catch me?

Mr. Eric Lowther: We have that same challenge today on the criminal records side, don't we? We can verify birth date through birth certificate and photo ID, and then of course there's the fingerprint option, which is also part of the criminal record. That is also maintained in CPIC, but when it's pardoned, it is, as I say, sealed and kept separate. So the information is there, which can be matched, but today we don't have access to it.

Mr. John Maloney: Are you suggesting that people submit their fingerprints when they seek these positions as well?

Mr. Eric Lowther: It happens today. If people wish to, they can pursue the criminal records with a fingerprint match, if requested to do so.

Mr. John Maloney: If requested by whom?

Mr. Eric Lowther: By the hiring party.

Mr. John Maloney: I have no further questions, Madam Chair.

The Chair: John McKay and then Jacques Saada.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): First of all, Madam Chair, I want to congratulate Mr. Lowther on a very thorough presentation and the enormous amount of effort. We have some feel for how that comes about.

I have a fairly simply question: What's “a child” for the purposes of this bill?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I would say “a child” would be consistent with however it's defined in Canadian law in every other statute.

Mr. John McKay: Well, “a child” is all over the map in the Criminal Code. It seems to me that when we're dealing with something as serious as a pardon, we should be fairly precise about whether we're talking about people under 14, 16, 18, or whatever. I'm curious as to whether you have a view on what constitutes “a child” for your intended purpose for this bill.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I defer to the other statutes that define what a child is, but in my own personal opinion, I'm of the mind that it should be 16 or younger.

Mr. John McKay: Have you given thought to how your bill would apply to the Young Offenders Act?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I have to confess I have not. The main intent of this bill, as I've stated, is to allow those who are bringing on people and putting them in a position of trust over children to be informed of their criminal history, including pardoned offences, particularly sexual offences against children. The intent of this bill is to be preventative and to provide protection for those children. Integrating it into the Young Offenders Act has not been the primary thrust of the bill at all.

Mr. John McKay: Even though at this stage, we bump people charged with these kinds of offences up to adult court? It's just that a lot of—how shall we say?—sexual activity takes place in this age range.

What would be your view on what constitutes “a person in a position of trust and authority”? If I'm a school board and I'm searching the records with respect to a teacher, that's pretty obvious. If I'm searching the records with respect to a caretaker, is that also so obvious? How would you narrow that definition down?

• 1000

In the bill you are saying, “The Minister shall”. When you say that, you eliminate discretion. When you eliminate discretion, you have to be very precise as to what that should mean. So how are we going to arrive at what constitutes a position of trust and authority with respect to a child?

Mr. Eric Lowther: A number of agencies already do this kind of check. For example, I know day cares in Alberta already do criminal record checks on those they hire. You give the example of a caretaker and ask if this should be someone we do the check on. I would say most likely not, because they're not in a position of authority and trust and care, as a teacher would be over children.

But that does not preclude the institution from making the case that they would like to have that position included so that they can assure the parents who send their children to that institution, as well as their own staff and administration, etc., that they have done everything they can to ensure that the children in that institution are not at risk. So I would say that's a position where the institution itself can make the case that they want to be able to have access to this information to assure the parents and those in the school that this precaution has been taken.

Mr. John McKay: So we could then have a fairly broad variation across the country as to what institutions try to make the case that they're entitled to inquire and those that don't?

Mr. Eric Lowther: It depends on how the minister applies that particular part of the act. It just depends on how the minister is—

The act, as you can see, as I've put forward here, makes it clear that:

the Minister has received an undertaking in writing, in a form prescribed by the Minister, from the person, individual, organization or group—

So the minister has the latitude within this to determine the form of the application and what constitutes one to be considered by his ministry.

My concern is, as I said in my closing comments, it's very easy for us to find every reason not to do something. What I am encouraging this committee to do is to find every reason for doing something.

The Chair: I'm going to have cut you off, because Mr. Saada has a question, and this room has other people coming in at 11 a.m.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. You said that I could ask one question? Did I understand you correctly? One question?

Thank you, Mr. Lowther, for your concern with protecting children. I am convinced that you know as well as we do this is not a partisan issue, but rather a question of coming up with a method for achieving a common goal, which is ensuring the safety of children.

With all due respect, I must point out that I have serious reservations with respect to a comment you made on two occasions. On two separate occasions, you implied in substance that we had a choice: that we adopt bill 284, or that we do nothing. I might point out that that does not entirely reflect reality.

First of all, as you know, on October 29 and 30, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of Justice met and examined and adopted a ten-point report. One of their recommendations deals specifically with the objective you are pursuing.

• 1005

I wanted to set the record straight, because I do not accept your saying that unless your bill is adopted, nothing will happen. That is not totally accurate.

Now,

[English]

I have one or two questions. First of all, Bill C-284 would make it mandatory for the Solicitor General to unseal or disclose criminal records. Do you have any reason to believe that the discretion the Sol Gen has now was misused?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, not necessarily misused, but probably, more simply, just not used. People were not aware of the opportunities they had with the Sol Gen as it is now, and it was not used for a variety of reasons.

If I may go back to your comments on the federal-provincial-territorial task force, it's interesting, and you're right: that report does support a lot of what is called for in this particular bill. But the recommendations it makes have not been implemented, number one. And number two, even if they were implemented, it would still not give access to pardon records. Therefore I don't think it goes far enough.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Saada. We have another private member's bill to hear.

Mr. Cadman, you wanted just to say something.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have a just a quick question, Mr. Lowther, following through on Mr. McKay's point. In your view, if a person has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child as a young offender and if that record is sealed, should they be subject to the same unsealing of the record?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Definitely.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lowther, thanks. You can see that this helped members to focus on areas of your bill, and you might have wanted to hear what they had to say and be prepared to find a way to respond to some of those concerns as well. It helps in the process.

We'll rise now for a minute in order to have our next witness, Ms. Guarnieri, come forward. Keep in mind that people are coming in here at 11 o'clock, so just take a minute.

• 1007

• 1009

The Chair: Order, please. This is something like trying to herd cats. Okay.

You didn't want to sit with your chin on the table there?

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: Short people need a high chair.

The Chair: Many of us in this room know about that.

• 1010

At the opening this morning—I don't think you were present—we set out that it's our goal today to hear from the member, not from witnesses. That's the procedure we follow.

So what we'd like—and I think you saw a little bit of what happens—is to hear from you. I understand you have a presentation.

Colleagues will have questions. Those questions are meant as much to allow us to focus on issues that may then assist us in the types of witnesses we'll call as to allow you, also, to focus on what the concerns of the committee may or may not be.

So we'd ask you to go ahead.

I'd also ask the cameraman to please leave the room.

[Translation]

Ms. Albina Guarnieri, M.P. (Mississauga-East, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to start by thanking the committee members for coming this morning. I know full well that some of you were up quite late last night awaiting the outcome of the Quebec election. I thank you for the effort you have made to be here this morning.

I would like to offer a special thanks to the members who helped put this important bill together.

[English]

I have come here today to ask for a full hearing on a perverse manipulation of justice that takes place without public input and without the support of Canadians. Concurrent sentencing is a mutation of justice that has resulted in sentences that bear no reflection on the severity of the crimes committed and all too often completely disregard the impact of a predator on the second, third, or eleventh victim.

Canadians never voted for concurrent sentencing. They were never asked if their identity, their Canadian identity, depended on having a more lenient sentencing system that includes volume discounts for rapists and murderers. Concurrent sentencing is foreign to the basic concept of justice.

The fact is, Canadians believe every act of murder or sexual assault, every victim, should matter in the sentencing equation. That is why 90% of Canadians support changing the law to ensure that people convicted of several murders or sexual assaults serve consecutive sentences for each offence.

That is the result of a national survey by POLLARA, conducted just last month. It also found that a mere 8% of Canadians support the status quo.

I am on firm ground when I say that the intent of my private member's bill is supported by an overwhelming majority of my constituents, and yours. The bill will fill a cavity in the teeth of justice that permits predators to escape the proportional and just consequence of committing serious crimes against multiple victims. It will also protect further victimization of society by those who have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they will likely commit a violent crime in the future.

As Mr. Justice MacKeigan, in a 1975 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judgment, declared:

A so-called concurrent sentence does not sentence the convicted person to a term of any imprisonment at all, since it does not require him to serve a single day of imprisonment. A person cannot serve in jail the same day twice any more than he can be successfully hanged twice. A judge, in imposing a concurrent sentence, is not carrying out his duty.

I am not seeking to increase the penalty for any crime but simply to require that penalties for murder and sexual assault have meaning and force. At the same time, I expect that ending concurrent sentencing will reduce our injustice and inhumanity to the families of victims, restore some truth in sentencing, and limit the number of lives gambled away on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator won't attack again.

In the years I have been involved in this issue, I have—sadly—been visited by too many victims of concurrent sentencing. Some had lost children, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses—all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in the 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.

• 1015

Survivors 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.

Presently, concurrent sentencing always applies when a murder is involved. 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, which brings me to the truth that still escapes our sentencing equation.

For me, the most alarming moment in the Olson hearing occurred when Olson read out a letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all his murders at once. This way, the lawyer indicated, Olson could take full advantage of concurrent sentencing.

Olson mocked in the court, “They can't do nothing. They can only give me a concurrent sentence.”

Just to give you a little taste of the other advice coming from Olson's esteemed member of the bar, Olson quoted a letter to him from his lawyer that said:

Let's plan a program, of which the first thing is to see that you are thoroughly protected from repercussions by overzealous boy-scout policemen.

Just last week, concurrent sentencing struck again right here in Ottawa. Theresa McCuaig, who is here today, watched as concurrent sentencing reduced the courts impotent to react to a series of crimes that included the torture and murder of her grandchild, the sexual assault of another victim with a curling iron, which left her scarred for life, not to mention the attempted murder of yet a third victim, kidnapping, forcible confinement, and other charges.

The judge sentenced the men involved to life with no parole for 25 years for the murder, and 73 years for the other offences. This concurrent sentence is merely for show, and will, of course, be irrelevant to the number of years before these predators are eligible for parole.

Such is the current system of volume discounts, the same system that has made irrelevant the murder of Kristen French and the 14 rape victims of Paul Bernardo; the murder of Don Edwards' mother and assault of his sister; and, of course, the last 10 victims of Clifford Olson. All are irrelevant, as are literally hundreds of other victims of multiple murderers and thousands of victims of multiple rapists.

Bill C-251 seeks the recognition that each crime committed of the gravity of murder and sexual assault requires a response from the justice system. It is based on the principle that law and the rule of law must operate to protect individuals equally. If all victims, after the first victim of a sex offender or a murderer, are disregarded through concurrent sentencing, this principle is compromised.

The intent of my bill is to require that there be a consequence for each violation of the law. Consecutive terms of parole ineligibility for multiple first- and second-degree murders and a consecutive sentence for each sexual assault would result in proportional justice that is closer to the fair and balanced justice system Canadians want.

This government did not ignore the distinction that must be made between the single and the multiple offender in its changes to section 745, which prevented future multiple murderers from applying for a judicial review after 15 years.

You will remember when Allan Rock, as Minister of Justice, in 1996 told this justice committee:

I don't know why it's difficult to perceive the difference between the single offence and multiple offence— In terms of whether I would support consecutive terms for murder, I might well.

He went on to say that he had no plans to introduce legislation but would leave that to another justice minister.

This government has also supported consecutive sentencing in the Criminal Code. Bill C-68 re-enacted section 85 of the Criminal Code, which imposes consecutive sentences for the use of a firearm in certain indictable offences. Consecutive sentencing was part of section 85 to ensure that the additional minimum penalties would be meaningful, and not be washed away as part of a concurrent sentence.

• 1020

Section 85 has remained in substantively the same form since 1978. It has been challenged on charter grounds and upheld by the Supreme Court.

We already have government support for consecutive sentencing for firearm offences and government recognition that there should be a difference in parole ineligibility for single and multiple murderers, so what could possibly be the justification for concurrent sentencing for multiple murderers and sexual predators? How can Canada's laws be so tolerant and generous toward the savagery of a Clifford Olson yet be so dismissive of the life sentences forever served by his victims? Why should the most brutal of violence against women and children be irrelevant simply because it did not involve the first victim?

This week, on the anniversary of the massacre of l'École Polytechnique, as we all wear ribbons in support of ending violence against women, you might be interested in how women view concurrent sentencing.

In the POLLARA poll survey, 92% of women support consecutive sentences for rape. Only 5% support the current law.

The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and REAL Women both support my bill. You have copies of their letters.

It should surprise no one that women overwhelmingly support consecutive sentencing for rapists and murderers, because the overwhelming majority of the victims of these predators are women and children. So let us not pretend that we can be taken seriously in our efforts to reduce violence against women while protecting volume discounts for the predators who victimize, rape, and murder women on the largest scale.

Women are joined in their support by the people who know first-hand of the damage caused by the predators who are currently being protected from justice. They are here today to offer you their insights into tragedies and dangers that have resulted from our failure to act sooner. They represent the people who are closest to the truth about predators, their impact, the threat they pose, and the way Canadians are revictimized by their defence.

I am confident that if this committee fully considers the facts, there can be only one conclusion—that concurrent sentencing for rapists and murderers deceives the public, revictimizes the families of the dead, puts communities at unnecessary risk, and violates fundamental justice and the rule of law.

Benjamin Disraeli said justice is truth in action. I ask this committee to support action to restore truth in Canadian justice.

I would like to at this point introduce an esteemed partner of Fraser Milner, Gerald Chipeur, a constitutional lawyer with extensive experience before the Supreme Court of Canada and the appellate courts in Canada. He is a former chair of the constitutional law section of the Canadian Bar Association, and he is on the Canadian Bar Association's Constitutional Task Force on the Future of Canada. He is currently counsel to the Alberta MLA committee on prisoner voting rights, which recently recommended a ban on prisoner voting in their report called, Promoting Responsible Citizenship.

I'd like to invite him to make a few brief comments.

The Chair: Ms. Guarnieri, I wasn't as chair given notice that you were bringing a witness.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Actually, Madam Chair, I did notify your clerk, and he assured me this was quite fine.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to hear from this witness at this time?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Okay. Questions?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Madam Chair, before we go to questions, I'd like to finish up with a few comments.

The Chair: All right.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I would like to introduce some of the people who have been working for years to bring predators to justice.

In the audience today in support of my bill is Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Julian Fantino, York Regional Police Services.

• 1025

You will no doubt remember Project Guardian, which exposed and charged an enormous ring of prosecutors in London who were responsible for victimizing literally hundreds of children.

In the audience today is the Canadian Police Association, Grant Obst, president, accompanied by his board of directors, representing men and women who know—all too well, unfortunately—the impact of predators who patrol the streets.

We also have with us Vince Murray, who represents the prison guards of Ontario who risk their lives each day to control the predators in custody in the province of Ontario; and Steve Sullivan, who runs the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, which has been largely responsible for the achievement of victims' rights in this country.

I really would like to ask Scott Newark, legal counsel to the Attorney General of Ontario, to present to the committee a joint letter from the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of Ontario supporting an end to concurrent sentencing for rapes and murderers.

With your indulgence, I'd like to invite him to the table.

The Chair: We ruled earlier on this. If other witnesses are to come to the table, there will have to be unanimous consent. Any documents can be, as you well know, forwarded to the committee, and tabled.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, I move to seek unanimous consent to have Mr. Newark read that into the record.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: We don't have unanimous consent.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Madam Chair, I'd like to read the letter into the record, please.

The letter reads:

Dear Ms Guarneri:

Please accept this letter as confirmation that the Government of Ontario supports the principles of consecutive sentencing for repeat sex offenders and multiple murderers as identified in your Private Members' Bill which we understand to be before the Commons Justice Committee. Hopefully the Committee will, in the discharge of its duties, assess the best method of exactly how this can best be accomplished and hold full hearings into the vitally important matters addressed by your Bill.

Given the exclusive federal jurisdiction over criminal sentencing in general and parole ineligibility for murderers, such efforts as yours are absolutely essential in order to ensure justice for victims and public confidence in the justice system. The Ontario government is also firmly of the view that requiring consecutive sentences for multiple sex offences and permitting consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers will result in enhanced public safety for all Canadians. Further, these measures will help restore public confidence in both the sentencing and parole components of the justice system by eliminating much of the current contradictory and convoluted practices in administering sentences for these types of crimes. Any amendment which promotes greater truth in sentencing and more appropriate periods of parole ineligibility for such offenders are welcome changes and as such, we are pleased to offer our support for the principles canvassed in Bill C-251. We look forward to it receiving full hearings which we will follow with great interest.

It is signed by Charles Harnick, Attorney General of Ontario, and Robert Runciman, Solicitor General of Ontario.

Madam Chair, among others who are in support of my bill and who are in the room are the Canadian Peace Officers' Memorial Association, Vince Murray, president; the Canadian union of customs and excise employees, Ronny Moran, president; the corrections component of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Len Hupet, president; Theresa McCuaig, grandmother of Sylvain Leduc; the National Union of Public and General Employees, Marie Bean, representative; representatives from REAL Women of Canada; and Victims of Violence, Gary Rosenfeldt, director.

Perhaps I can table the witness list.

The Chair: Do you have a witness list?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Yes, I do. The clerk asked me to deliver it today. I'm simply following his request.

It is complete with letters of support from people from coast to coast.

The Chair: If you'll just give them to the clerk, we'll get them translated and distributed.

Mr. Reynolds—or Mr. Cadman.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Cadman is going to be our first questioner, because we can't wait to get to Mr. Grose and hear his reasons for not liking this one.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank Ms. Guarnieri for her presentation. It was a very thorough presentation.

• 1030

I have a couple of quick questions. First, I'm just wondering why you've restricted this to murder and sexual assault. Do you think this should apply to any others—for example, aggravated assaults, attempted murders? I mean, there are a number of serious crimes that I feel we should be looking at. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for restricting it to murder and sexual assault.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: As you know, any time a private member wants to submit a private member's bill, he's at the mercy of the drafters. So in the greater wisdom of the individual who drafted this bill—who is, I might add, no longer on the Hill—he thought the bill adequately captured the intent of the principles I just espoused to the committee.

By all means, if you think there should be additions to my bill, I welcome amendments that will strengthen the intent of my bill.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay.

Along the same lines, why was it restricted to section 271, which is essentially sexual assault, and why not section 272, which is sexual assault with a weapon?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: As I said earlier, I'm open to suggestions. If there are ways of strengthening the intent, by all means do it.

I was advised by legal counsel at the time that rape and serious crimes were covered by the term “sexual assault”, so if there are other sections of the code that should be brought into this, I certainly welcome them.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I just wanted to get that on the record, that section 272 should be applied here too.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you. That's a valuable suggestion.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): The only thing I would do is to add a statement of support to your presentation, and state that I can't imagine why anybody would want to let someone go free on a second or subsequent sexual assault or murder.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Since we already adopted the notion of dangerous offender several years ago, which applies in the cases you are referring to, namely to Clifford Olson and other serial killers, do you think that the amendments you want to make are warranted? What would adopting your bill add?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I think that we need to be sure that people who commit serious crimes, who rape and kill, serve their sentences. In my opinion, the legislation that you just mentioned gives too much leeway to the individual who has to decide whether or not to release the offender. I understand that the cases are reviewed every three years. In my opinion, anyone who commits a crime must serve his sentence. That is the bill's guiding principle.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: What more does it add if the individual has already been convicted as a dangerous offender? The most well-known example is probably that of Bernardo, who was sentenced to 150 years in prison.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: It would guarantee that victims can resume their normal lives. Mr. Mike Keogh came to see me in my riding office and told me his tragic story. His 11-year old child was raped and killed. He told me that each year at Christmas instead of celebrating with everyone else he gets ready to go to the National Parole Board to make sure that the man who raped and killed his child does not get out of prison. He will have to bear this hardship and this burden for the rest of his life. He told me that one year he did not go to the Parole Board and the man got out of prison. I do not think that it is fair for us to ask of victims to take all kinds of steps to save other people's children. He asked to me outright: "Why does this responsibility to ensure that other people's children are protected fall on my shoulders?" In my opinion, he was right to feel it was unfair. Why can't we be assured that we will be well protected? That man could live in peace for several years and celebrate Christmas like other people do, if that is actually possible for him given the circumstances. But every Christmas, he must be ready to face this cruel task of having to go and see the man who killed his child. Is that justice? Not in my opinion.

• 1035

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I understand that when we examine a topic of that nature, it is difficult to disregard cases like the one you have just mentioned. No one around this table can be insensitive to a case like the one you just shared with us. However, amendments with impact on future generations should not be made on the basis of one case in particular. Based on what you have said, and I am not personally aware of the case you referred to, someone was allegedly charged with rape, aggravated assault, murder or something like that. You would have preferred the person to be sentenced, for example, to 15 years for rape, 20 years for aggravated assault and 25 years for murder. If you add all of those sentences together, you end up with some 60 years of prison time.

To achieve the results you are seeking, you are perhaps challenging many more principles than you realize, including the judicial discretion that courts have in cases like those. Although I do not like to talk about specific cases, in the case you just mentioned, the judge who heard the trial could have handed down consecutive sentences, although he seems to have handed down concurrent sentences. In the end, what you are saying is that the judges should have less discretion and that either the notion of concurrent sentences or the notion of consecutive sentences should be eliminated. One of the two should be eliminated.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: In my opinion, there should be no discretion for judges in the case of murder. If you were to accept the principle that I have proposed, it would be simple. There is a price to pay when an offence is committed and a penalty must be imposed. For murderers, no discretion should be possible. It is as simple as that.

[English]

What I am proposing in this bill is proportionality in sentencing. If there's a crime, there has to be a penalty. As I pointed out, this committee and the government in its greater wisdom eliminated judicial discretion.

In fact, it's my understanding that, as we speak, there are seven provisions coming into effect where the government has actually taken away judicial discretion. In total, it's my understanding, in the Criminal Code there are at least 20 provisions that take away judicial discretion.

So my question to this committee would be, if we're willing to take it away with respect to—

Can I read some of the text just to highlight what we're taking away judicial discretion in?

Section 92: One year minimum for a second offence where a person convicted of possession of a firearm, prohibited weapon, device or ammunition, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or minimum of two years less a day if it is a third offence.

Section 95: One year minimum if an offence preceded with by way of indictment where a person is convicted of possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition.

Section 96: One year minimum of offence preceded with by way of indictment where a person is convicted of possession of a weapon obtained by commission of offence.

Section 99: One year minimum where a person convicted of weapons trafficking.

Section 100: One year minimum where a person convicted for possession of weapons for the purpose of trafficking.

Section 102: One year minimum where offence preceded with by way of indictment when a person is convicted of making an automatic firearm.

And section 103: One year minimum where a person is convicted of importing or exporting, knowing it is unauthorized.

Now, if, in these cases, which I understand are being enforced or enacted today as we speak, the government and this committee have seen, in their greater wisdom, to take away judicial discretion, why would we not— You know, for murder in the first degree, there is no judicial discretion. Why would we object to taking away judicial discretion when it comes to the most serious of crimes, where the person has committed more than one murder and has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he may be a threat to society?

• 1040

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have just a few questions. Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'll perhaps pick up where you've left off—well, perhaps where Mr. Bellehumeur began—in terms of the dangerous offender sections.

Have you read the victims report recently tabled by this committee in the House of Commons dealing with victims' rights and the roles of victims in the criminal process?

Mr. Albina Guarnieri: No, I must confess, I am not fully briefed, but please make your point.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'm just asking if you've read it. I'll come to the point momentarily.

My second question to you involves section 745 of the Criminal Code, which is the penalty you've referred to for first-degree murder. You would agree with me, I think, that the penalty for first-degree murder is 25 years, is a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

Do you agree with me?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Yes. I object to the word “life” sentence. I would say it's 25 years without parole eligibility.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, as I read the section—and correct me if—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Yes, it's in the code. I accept your terminology—under duress.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I don't want to play semantics, but as I read the section of the code, it is a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years, which I would read as saying—and maybe I misinterpret it here—that the Clifford Olsons and the Paul Bernardos are in fact eligible for parole in 25 years but are sentenced to a life imprisonment.

Is that a fair interpretation?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Well, I don't accept your premise, because I think you know we're talking about consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, which will give meaning to consecutive life sentences in my bill.

You're a lawyer, and I think you're allowed to play with words.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, I'm reading the words as they—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I'm just a simple layman.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Fair enough.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Chair, I'm prepared to continue.

And you, I would just remind you, are a legislator, and I think there is some responsibility to check the law as you attempt to change it. But I'm going to move on to my next question.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: If I can just make a point, I'm a legislator who is seriously handicapped by not being a lawyer.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Fair enough.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: That is why I've brought my legal counsel. And I find it somewhat offensive that you will not permit him to speak on my behalf, when appropriate.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I don't want to get into an argument, because I am interested in the context of the bill, I truly am.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: So am I.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Section 753 of the Criminal Code, which is the dangerous offender application, to which you've already referred in questions from Mr. Bellehumeur, allows the court to impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

I come to this because I've read your speech, and I have a lot of questions on this bill.

In your speech in the House of Commons, you said the three objectives—and I respect those as a parliamentarian—are, “To reduce the inhumanity to the families of victims”—which is why I asked you if you'd read the report on victims.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: “And injustice”.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I have them right here.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Well, I said “injustice”, too.

Mr. Peter Mancini: You said, “to restore some truth in sentencing”—I'm reading from Hansard—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Yes, but I'm not reading from Hansard. I had a prepared text here today.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'm just going by your objectives as you stated them in the House of Commons.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Well, I've made another statement here. I've added, “and injustice”.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I don't think these are totally different from the presentation you made. I guess because you've been a member in this Parliament longer than I—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I'm getting longer in the tooth by the minute.

Mr. Peter Mancini: —and the is third time you've submitted, my question—this is the long way to ask it—is this: Has the recent report on victims' rights, or those sections of the code, come some way toward meeting your objectives in producing this legislation?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Does that recent report recognize that each act carries a penalty? Does that recent report say that each victim should be recognized in the sentencing equation? If it doesn't, then it won't meet the spirit of my bill.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Let me move on, then.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Well, I beg to have an answer, since you made the point.

• 1045

Mr. Peter Mancini: I think it's an all-party report. I'm not going to defend it. It's there to be read. It was the result of participation by many of the people you've mentioned as supporting your bill.

Perhaps I can move on. In terms of the taking away of judicial discretion—and to some extent, you've already answered that—do you not see any case in the future where a judge might not want to impose, or there might be some argument not to impose, consecutive sentences? Should we prejudge future cases?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: In all the years I've presented this bill, I haven't heard of a single case example. If you have one, I'm certainly willing to entertain the thought. However, the principles of my bill are very clear. You have a crime; you have a penalty. That, to me, is proportional sentencing. The current system does not have it. It has disproportionate sentencing.

Do you think it's right that Graham James served two days for every time he committed an offence? Do you think the 14 rape victims of Paul Bernardo should never go to trial?

I find that offensive, an obscenity in the justice system.

Mr. Peter Mancini: In terms of—and again, I'm not trying to play legal games here; I'm just wondering if you've thought this through; I'm sure you have—section 12 of the charter, which deals with undue punishment, one of the reasons the dangerous offender legislation is not challenged is that there is judicial discretion there.

I just wonder if, in an effort to ensure the full passage of your bill, that would be a compromise you're prepared to consider, if it would save it from a charter challenge before the courts.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: You're assuming that my bill would not withstand a charter challenge. I have a constitutional expert beside me, and I think it would benefit this committee if he were allowed to speak.

I want to make the point that it's the parole board that loses discretion under my bill, not judicial discretion. I have not changed the penalties for murder. I've simply said that each crime carries a penalty. I haven't raised the penalty for murder. So I'm puzzled by your last question.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Because what your bill says is the judge “shall” sentence.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: But he already does sentence for a murder. He has no discretion in first-degree murder.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Not in first-degree murder.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: That's right.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But in your bill, there would be a combination. If there was a sexual assault and a murder—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: No; actually, in sexual assault I don't ascribe any kind of penalty. The judge still has judicial discretion in the sexual assault provision.

The only difference in my bill would be that let's say there are twelve rapes, and the judge gives six years. He would have to say, “It's six months per rape”, whereas now it's whitewashed into this myth. It would restore some truth in sentencing.

If the public at large thinks six months per rape is sufficient penalty, then I guess there wouldn't be a public outcry. But if the public thinks two days every time Graham James assaulted someone is an offensive judgment by the courts, then—

That is probably what you're objecting to.

Mr. Peter Mancini: A final question?

The Chair: No, sorry; I'm going to move on to Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to follow up on similar comments of congratulations to you, Ms. Guarnieri, for your perseverance in getting to this stage. I congratulate you wholeheartedly.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to some of the comments that were made, particularly with respect to section 745 and the availability now of dangerous offender applications, is it your understanding that dangerous offender applications similarly do not reflect the individual sentencing attachment that would be assigned to each crime?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Exactly. I believe crimes as severe as rape or murder require certainty in sentencing, and my understanding of the dangerous offender legislation, a review every three years, doesn't qualify, in my mind, as being sufficient.

Yesterday I attended a briefing with justice department officials, and I specifically asked whether an Olson or Bernardo would ever be released. They said, “Not likely”. But I want certainty that an Olson or Bernardo will never be released. Any predator is not a safe addition to any neighbourhood.

• 1050

Mr. Peter MacKay: So in follow-up to Mr. Mancini's questions about the importance for victims to have a sentence that attaches to their experience, their injustice, do you feel that this is one of the motivators for you and for others who are in support of this bill?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Absolutely. It's the rule of law.

Perhaps I could just read the principles of sentencing. I refer to paragraph 718(f):

to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

I think that's an important provision in any sentencing equation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Then given that there were amendments to section 745 that do now prohibit the eligibility for multiple offenders—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Exactly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —but we know it's not retroactive, do you still feel this is an appropriate change that could be made to attach to every first- or second-degree murder?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: My bill is not retroactive, as you know, but since we made a distinction in section 745 between someone who kills once and twice, why would we not make that same distinction to the sentencing equation? It defies all logic.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It certainly does.

Ms. Guarnieri, you already answered this question, in part, when Mr. Cadman asked you if you would be opposed to any additions or adaptations being made to your bill. Would you similarly have no difficulty if the government itself wanted to take over carriage of this bill and introduce it in the House of Commons?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I have repeatedly put it to past justice ministers and solicitors general that if the government in its wisdom saw fit to introduce a bill that would maintain the principles of my bill, and not distort or minimize the principles, I would certainly welcome that initiative.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

Madam Chair, through you, I would request unanimous consent that I be permitted to ask a question, with respect to the Constitution, of Mr. Chipeur, who's with Ms. Guarnieri.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: You have more pull than I do with my colleagues, obviously.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Since we have, as obviously Ms. Guarnieri has had, the benefit of your counsel, I guess in a general way I'd like to ask you your opinion on the constitutionality of it, given that there appears to exist in this country a form of charter constipation whenever we're drafting legislation in this place.

Mr. Gerald Chipeur (Partner, Fraser Milner): The section of the charter that would be an issue is section 7 and the section regarding cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court of Canada has, in the Boucher decision—The Queen v Boucher—decided that consecutive sentences may be imposed, and in fact affirmed the imposition of them in a particular case.

The fact is, in the Criminal Code today there are 20 provisions providing for consecutive sentences. The only way in which the charter would even be relevant in this case, when you're considering cruel and unusual punishment, is if in fact the individual sentence as it related to an individual case was cruel and unusual as it related to the offence being considered.

Because this bill does not in fact add to the penalty provisions within the code, and only deals with the question of, in the case of life imprisonment, eligibility for parole—in the case of sexual assault, it deals with the issue of the total sentence as it relates to each individual action that is an issue when there is a conviction for those actions—there is no possibility that the courts could come to the conclusion that you have a cruel and unusual punishment in an individual case unless the underlying Criminal Code provision was, in and of itself, cruel and unusual punishment.

• 1055

So logically, this bill does not increase the possibility of a successful charter challenge.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Keeping in mind that one of the principles in sentencing is deterrence, is it fair to say that those 20 current sections of the code that you're referring to generally attach to crimes of violence, and that in fact this bill would be consistent with the need to protect the public and also send a message of deterrence?

Mr. Gerald Chipeur: When the court did consider the question of consecutive sentencing—or, I should say, minimum sentencing—in the past, they did focus on that issue, and they did say because we were dealing with the possibility of violence, minimum sentences were appropriate in the case that was before them.

I think it's possible to make an analogy and say that because the court was impressed with the question of violence in the case of minimum sentences, they would also take that into consideration when dealing with consecutive sentences.

But remember, it's my view that there is no charter question that this bill raises that is not completely tied up with the underlying Criminal Code provisions and penalty provisions. So it does not, in and of itself, add a problem for the courts.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You're simply expanding existing sections.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you, Ms. Guarnieri, and thank you, Mr. Chipeur.

The Chair: Keep in mind that the government members are all operating independently. This is not the traditional case where you have the government on one side and the opposition on the other. Each of them have questions as well.

Mr. DeVillers, did you have something? And we all want to hear from Mr. Grose.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Guarnieri.

Do you have any confidence in the National Parole Board, or the parole system in this country?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: That's not the issue here.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Well—

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Let me ask you a question. Do you believe each victim should be computed into the sentence equation, should have some kind of standing, or not? If your answer is no, then you will disagree with my bill. If you accept the premise that each victim should have some form of justice, then you will agree with it.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I don't think it's that simple.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: To me, it's simple math.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I'm the one asking the questions, so I'll continue.

I think your opinion of the national parole system is relevant, because in the current system, a person who commits one of the crimes referred to in your bill is sentenced to life, and they are under the control of the criminal justice system for the balance of their life, subject to their eligibility for parole.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: And I'm not taking away their right for parole. My bill doesn't take away parole provisions.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Effectively, it does.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: It just says, “Don't murder more than once if you're going to murder”.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But if a person is not eligible for parole for 50 years, they would have to be a very young offender for that not to have been removed. I think that's a practical consequence of the bill.

My concern is with the parole eligibility and the parole system. If a person has no confidence in that system, then I can see the logic to your bill. If a person has some confidence that our system can function properly, that there are people on the parole board who will be, down the road, making determinations in the appropriate cases, then I don't see—

You made a statement in your opening statement that a person can't be hanged twice. Well, using the same logic, a person can't have two lives in jail. They have only one life.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: You're making my point, Mr. DeVillers.

As for the success of rehabilitation between 1987 and 1996, let me read you the stat that 206 people were murdered and 429 people were sexually assaulted by people who were out on parole. To me, that's one victim too many.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But they were not necessarily people who'd been convicted of the offences described in your bill.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Actually, these stats apparently do reflect the kind of people—the predators—I'm trying to capture in the net.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But that's not the exact point of the bill.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Chair, I would just make the statement that I don't have the same concerns that this bill is going to contribute to public safety that I had over the last bill we just examined. That's just for the record.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Lee.

• 1100

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Chair: A promotion! Where's the cheque? I want that entertainment budget.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm sorry; Madam “Chairman”.

I want to make a very short statement to say that, in my view, as one member here, the bill identifies a weakness in sentencing and parole procedures and law, and an area of some misunderstanding on the part of the public and a lot of people, including legislators, or both, and somehow this bill is going to help out here, one way or another. I can't predict yet where it will go.

The second thing I want to say is that a number of people have come to Parliament Hill today to indicate general or specific support for this bill. Even though they have not been able to be recorded as witnesses, I, as one member, just want to acknowledge—and they've all been mentioned on the record—that I'm aware of their presence. Their presence is indicating some degree of support, or complete support, for this bill.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks. Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I can hardly wait.

To the hon. witness, I would like to say I find it more than a little disturbing—and I use that word advisedly—that you find offensive this committee observing its own rules. But be that as it may.

What does worry me about this bill is that we're taking away—and it's been discussed by more learned people than me, by lawyers—the discretion of judges. Now, where does it stop? If some fellow commits ten crimes and therefore gets ten sentences, maybe he's an alcoholic or a drug addict—Who knows?—and the judge might decide he could be rehabilitated.

What does he do, give him ten sentences of ten years, and it doesn't matter whether he's rehabilitated or not?

And incidentally, if we're going to stack these people up in prison, where are we going to find the prisons? We don't have enough room in our prisons now.

Getting back to this discretion thing—

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Ivan Grose: —if, once a person is convicted, there's no discretion left to judges— and I think this is a chink in the armour that surrounds them. You rob a Seven-Eleven, steal one chocolate bar, and the computer says five years; two chocolate bars, ten years; rob a bank, fifty years—“Ouch, that one really hurt”.

It gets away from our basic justice system. Plus, I think it's in conflict with a lot of other legislation.

Here again, I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional lawyer, but your own constitutional lawyer said that—

And this is a statement that bothers me. You've intimated here today that judges are locked into this concurrent sentencing. I've heard this on radio talk shows. But this, I ask you to admit, is not true. They can impose consecutive sentences at the moment. True? Yes or no.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: The answer to that question—and I answered that earlier—is that with respect to murder, they cannot.

Name me a case where— Paul Bernardo—fourteen rapes, two people dead, and he has one 25-year sentence. Where is the consecutive sentencing?

Mr. Ivan Grose: You're leading us down the garden path here. We're not talking about murder.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: You've made a lot of statements, and I'd really like to address some of the comments you've made.

With respect to your comments, I really think you're mixing apples and oranges. I mean, the intent of my bill is to narrow the gap between justice and our justice system.

You mention the analogy of robbing a bank. Well, this government, in its greater wisdom, implied a one-year minimum offence with a firearm. I would argue to you that if someone robs a McDonald's 25 times, they will get 25 years. That seems somewhat—

I've been told by some members that my bill is draconian. I would say it's more draconian that somebody who steals food 25 times with a firearm might get life, but someone who murders gets a freebie murder.

To me, there's an inequity in that. So I really reject the premise of your statements.

• 1105

In the other statement you made you inferred cost. In terms of attaching a cost, a price, to the lives of victims, I believe the facts will indicate that the $48,000 per year it costs to keep a predator in jail is a good investment, especially when you consider the cost of social programs, parole officers, and police work caused by their release. And cost really shouldn't be a consideration.

If you're talking about simply freeing up a bunk bed for the next predator, well, get rid of the people who might be there for frivolous things. That would be my answer.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ivan Grose: But just one—

The Chair: Mr. Grose, we're finished. There are people waiting in the hall to use the room.

You can see that there are lot of issues that have to be resolved. We will now proceed to decide on our witness list and to carry on with scheduling these hearings.

We're adjourned.