CONTENTS
Friday, June 14, 1996
Bill C-45. Motion for second reading 3855
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3863
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3863
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 3864
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3866
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3866
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3866
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3866
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3867
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3867
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3867
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3868
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3869
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 3870
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3872
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3873
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 3874
Bill C-47. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3875
Bill C-48. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3875
Bill C-49. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3875
Bill C-50. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3875
Bill C-51. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 3875
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 3877
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3877
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3880
Motion moved and agreed to 3884
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3884
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3887
Consideration resumed of motion. 3888
Division on motion deferred. 3891
3855
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, June 14, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-45, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another
act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to lead off
second reading debate on Bill C-45 and to put forth the reasons of
the government why this legislation deserves the support of
members of the House.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to say that the purpose of this bill is to
amend the scheme set out in section 745 of the Criminal Code the
provision that provides for judicial review of the parole
ineligibility period for life sentences imposed on persons convicted
of murder or high treason.
[English]
In cases of first degree murder or high treason the parole
ineligibility period is set by law at 25 years. In the case of second
degree murder the parole ineligibility period is 10 years unless the
trial judge sets it higher at a point between 10 and 25 years. An
offender is not eligible to apply under section 745 until after that
offender has served at least 15 years of the parole ineligibility
period.
The decision in a section 745 review is made by a jury composed
of ordinary citizens drawn from the community. As the section
currently reads, the decision can be made by two-thirds of the jury,
eight of the twelve members.
After hearing evidence called by the applicant and by the crown
attorney in response, the jury decides whether to reduce the parole
ineligibility period and to what extent. If it decides not to reduce
the parole ineligibility period, the jury must decide when the
offender may apply again, if at all, under section 745.
In cases where the parole ineligibility period is reduced, the
offender becomes eligible to apply to the National Parole Board
when that period as reduced by the section 745 jury is up. The
parole board then consider the case and may grant parole only in
appropriate cases. In making its decision the parole board must
consider whether the offender's release would pose an undue risk to
public safety.
I emphasize a point crucial to an understanding of the issues that
arise with respect to Bill C-45, a point I do not believe is much
discussed or well understood generally. The life sentence imposed
on someone convicted of murder or high treason continues literally
for the offender's entire life. In that sense, life does mean life.
(1010)
In those cases where such an offender is released on parole, the
offender continues to be subject to the sentence and can be
reincarcerated at any time should he or she breach the conditions of
release imposed by the parole board. They are accountable for the
balance of their lives.
I would also like to stress for hon. members the legislative
history of section 745. It is said by some that this provision was
included in the Criminal Code by stealth, that it somehow resulted
from trickery or deception.
Section 745 became part of our Criminal Code 20 years ago in
1976 as part of the amendments by which the House of Commons
and Parliament abolished capital punishment.
Section 745 was the subject of full and vigorous debate. It was
not slipped into the statute books as a surprise to the unwary. It is a
fundamental aspect of the resolution reached by the House on the
very difficult question of the appropriate penalty for murder.
It was enacted as a response to the recognition that a 25 year
parole and eligibility period is significantly longer than murderers
were serving before parole at that time.
In cases of non-capital murder, the average time served before
parole release was between 12 and 13.2 years. In cases of capital
murder commuted to life, the average time served was between 6.2
and 7.7 years.
Section 745 was enacted in recognition that 25 years without
parole eligibility was and still is longer than comparable periods in
many of the western democratic countries. I hesitate to draw
comparisons with the United States because capital punishment is
3856
still used there. Nevertheless, even in the United States of America,
a country known for its firmness in response to crime, the average
time served by murderers who are not executed is 18 years at the
federal level and 15 years at the state level.
If I may be permitted to paraphrase some of the language used in
the 1976 debates with respect to this section, section 745 was
enacted to offer a degree of hope for the rehabilitation of convicted
murderers, as a protection for prison guards and in recognition that
in some cases the public interest would not be served by keeping
offenders in prison beyond 15 years.
As many members will know, there are those who would repeal
this section in its entirety. I have been presented with strong
demands from some quarters for the repeal of this section outright
based on the arguments about public safety, about the appropriate
denunciatory statement for what is arguably the worst crime in the
Criminal Code and about the prospect of victims' families being
revictimized by the public review conducted in front of a jury
where the offender might have no reasonable prospect of
succeeding.
[Translation]
The position I have stated publicly is that I have been looking at
ways to amend section 745 in order to re-focus the provision so that
it is available only in deserving cases. In my view, the status quo is
simply not on and Bill C-45 is proof of that.
By the same token, I am not prepared to propose to this House,
as others have done, that section 745 be repealed. In my view, as a
matter of policy and as a matter of principle, this would not be the
right thing to do.
[English]
Section 745 exists to recognize the possibility that offenders can
change after serving 15 years of their sentence. Unless we are
prepared to abandon all hope that people who have been convicted
of murder can change, our challenge is to find a way to refocus the
provision so that it is available only in those exceptional and
deserving cases.
The amendments proposed in the bill now before the House are
designed to achieve that objective.
(1015 )
Let me describe briefly the three elements of these changes.
First, it is proposed to eliminate access to section 745 and the jury
review entirely for all multiple murderers who may offend in the
future. For this purpose, a multiple murderer would be understood
as someone who murders more than one person, whether on the
same occasion or not.
The rationale for this proposal is very simple. It is based on a
principle found throughout the Criminal Code and criminal law
jurisprudence that repeat offenders should be treated differently.
The fact that it is a second or subsequent offence should be
reflected in the penalty that person receives.
Second, it is proposed to create a screening mechanism whereby
the chief justice of the superior court, or a judge designated by the
chief justice, would conduct a paper review of the application
brought by the person under section 745 to determine if there is a
reasonable chance of success. That would be done before the
application is allowed to proceed to the review jury. This proposal
would apply not only to future offenders but to the present prison
population as well, provided they have not brought an application
before the amendments come into force.
The purpose of the screening mechanism is to help ensure that
only those meritorious cases get a hearing before the section 745
jury. This is intended to address directly the concern of the families
of victims that they may be brought into a hearing process by an
offender who has no reasonable prospect of success.
Finally, it is proposed to change section 745 to require that the
review jury must be unanimous in coming to the decision that the
offender's parole ineligibility period should be reduced. Again, this
proposal is to apply to the present prison population as well as to
future offenders. This new requirement of jury unanimity will
strengthen the role of the community jury in the review process.
Let me mention this on the subject of the role of the jury in the
section 745 process. It is said by some that section 745
demonstrates that the criminal law is out of touch with the common
view, that it is out of touch with the perspective of the average
Canadian, that it does not reflect the community's desire in
responding to crimes of violence. To that, I say that section 745 is
just the opposite. It is an example of the community being directly
involved in the administration of the criminal justice system.
In the amendments proposed under section 745, the first step
would be that the offender has to persuade a judge, based on a
written application, that the person has a case for a jury which has a
reasonable prospect of success, based on the tests in section 745
itself.
The unmeritorious applicants will be screened out. Only those
ones will go forward that in the eye of an experienced judge have a
reasonable chance of success. Those cases that do go forward will
not be considered and decided by a judge, will not be considered
and decided by lawyers, nor by bureaucrats, nor by parole members
or members of other administrative boards or tribunals.
Those cases that are screened as meritorious and go forward for
hearing will be decided by 12 members of the community, often
the very community to which the offender seeks to return if parole
is eventually granted. Those 12 members of the community will be
drawn from the streets, the coffee shops, the buses and offices, the
3857
very people who elected us to Parliament, the very people in whose
name it is said that section 745 is out of touch with the community
and its values. It is members of those communities who will make
the decision under section 745 about whether there is any further
public interest to be served by that offender remaining in prison,
perhaps for a period of 10 years more.
(1020 )
Jury members will have before them particulars of the offender
and the offence. They will have before them any evidence that the
victim's family may wish to give. They will have arguments from
the applicant and also from the crown attorney who may oppose the
application. Under the amendments proposed, that jury will have to
be unanimous. All 12 of those average Canadians will have to agree
that in this case, already screened by a judge, the offender should
be given some reduction in the parole ineligibility period.
It will not result in the offender walking free. It will simply
result in the offender being permitted at that date, set by the jury, to
make an application for parole. It then becomes a question for the
parole board whether it is consistent with public safety that the
person be granted parole. Even then the person, for the rest of his or
her life will be subject to whatever conditions the parole board
imposes, and if those conditions are not respected that person will
face reincarceration. Those are the facts. Those are the
circumstances. That is the role of the community.
That is the way average Canadians reflect their values,
participate in the process, and ensure that decisions in all these
cases are firmly rooted in the views and the values of average
Canadians. That is the strength of community juries and it is those
juries that will be deciding these cases.
Let me also point out that at the first stage, this screening process
before the judge that we propose, the onus will be on the offender
to prove on the balance of probabilities that the application has a
reasonable prospect of success. It will be for the offender to
persuade the judge. Where the judge says no, where the judge
screens out an applicant and says there is no reasonable prospect of
success in this case, the person may not have his or her jury
hearing. The judge may decide if and when the applicant will be
allowed to apply again, but in any event the applicant may not
reapply before another two years' time.
The net effect of the amendments proposed will be that section
745 is not repealed. We do not believe as a matter of principle or
policy that repeal is the proper course. Section 745, and the faint
hope it represents, has been an integral part of the sentencing
regime for murder for 20 years. In those cases where applications
have been brought and succeeded and offenders have been
released, the record shows that the existence of this mechanism has
not endangered the public's safety.
After listening to all the stakeholders in the justice system over
the last two years, from judges to crown prosecutors and police,
offenders and victims' families, I am persuaded that the section
should be changed. The section should be improved and it should
be refocused. It should not be available automatically at the option
of the offender. There should be a screen to take the unmeritorious
cases out. The jury should be unanimous and in future offences,
those who take more than one life should not be eligible to apply at
all.
Simply repealing section 745 would constitute this Parliament
saying to the hundreds of people serving life for murder that in
every case, regardless of the circumstances, there is an inflexible
and invariable rule that the period without parole must be 25 years
or whatever period is fixed by the trial judge for second degree
murder, between 10 and 25.
It would be an invariable and inflexible rule excluding the role of
the community jury in taking a look after 15 years, ignoring the
fact that 15 years is the average time now in the laws of many
western countries to whom we like to compare ourselves, as the
maximum for murder. It would be ignoring the fact that before
1976 the average time served even for capital murder was less than
15 years before parole. So we do not favour repeal.
We say that it is an excessive reaction. We say that the principle
of this mechanism is sound, it provides a role for the community,
but we also propose improvement.
(1025 )
The effect of the improvements is that these applications will be
denied if the screening judge says there is no reasonable prospect
for success, if the jury decides that the application should be
denied, or the jury concludes that it is unable to decide
unanimously to reduce the period, or a judge presiding over a jury
concludes, after a reasonable period of time, that the jury will not
be able to reach a unanimous decision to reduce the parole
ineligibility period. The application will be denied by the jury in
those circumstances or where the jury is unable to decide the
offender will not be able to make another application at least before
another two years' time or within such other period as the jury may
fix.
[Translation]
I am prepared to do this, partly because of the charter, but also
for reasons of pubic policy. Let me return to the view I expressed at
the beginning of my remarks. Section 745 represents the hope that
offenders can change after serving 15 years of their sentence. I
believe that hope must be maintained for exceptional and deserving
cases.
3858
[English]
I commend this bill to the House. I ask my colleagues to support
it. With its enactment an important principle in the criminal law
will be preserved. We will have respected the need for public
safety. We will have encouraged rehabilitation which is a
fundamental principle of the sentencing process. We will have
shown sensitivity to victims. We will have reserved this procedure
for the exceptional and the meritorious case. With that I invite my
colleagues to support Bill C-45.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
presentation, the minister has rewritten history as it relates to
section 745 of the Criminal Code. I think that some clarifications,
if not corrections, are in order.
First of all, if memory serves, the last time a death sentence was
executed in Canada was in 1962, on December 6 to be more
precise. After that, the government, represented by the governor
general in council, systematically commuted all death sentences
until 1967, when Parliament decided to abolish capital punishment
for five years, a decision which was renewed for another five years
at the expiry of the first five years.
It was in a debate held in this House around that time, in 1976,
that was raised the matter of section 745 of the Criminal Code,
which provides that, in cases of high treason-admittedly not the
most common cases; we have to go a long way back in our history
to find any-but essentially cases of first degree murder, that is to
say planned and deliberate murders, and second degree murder,
where the term of imprisonment is longer than 15 years, offenders
be sentenced to life, but with a minimum sentence.
In 1976, about this time of the year, the Trudeau government
introduced a bill to abolish capital punishment permanently-if
anything can indeed be permanent in this world. The bill did not
specify any dates and the practice was not restored by this House,
even if there was a debate on the subject during the 33rd
Parliament. There was no mention of section 745 at the time.
When did section 745 become an issue? When Mr. Trudeau, who
was then Prime Minister, realized he did not have the majority he
needed in this House to pass his bill on abolishing capital
punishment. It was common knowledge at the time, and history
also showed that, since the death sentence had been abolished on a
temporary basis in 1967, a person sentenced to life imprisonment
for murder usually was granted parole after a relatively short time,
12 years or so. Several members were quite irritated by this
situation, as were their constituents.
(1030)
The Prime Minister was opposed to section 745; the solicitor
general, who was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, was
opposed to section 745. In fact, most cabinet members were
opposed to section 745, and it was not the cabinet that proposed
section 745 in the original bill. Section 745, which deals with a
minimum sentence of 25 years, was included when the government
realized that its bill was not getting support.
The six-vote difference that enabled the government to abolish
the death sentence in 1976 was only gained through back room
political negotiations between the government, its own members
and members of the opposition, to secure the majority required.
Otherwise, the bill to abolish the death penalty would have been
defeated in July 1976, instead of being passed with a majority of
six votes. As we can see, the balance of power is something very
important.
The comments made earlier by the minister must be put in their
historical context. The minister talked about the legislative aspect
of section 745. Everything was done through discussions that took
place in informal settings. People negotiated among themselves:
``If I give you a minimum of 25 years, will you support my bill?
Will you be in your riding? Can you be away?'' The result, in July
1976, was that the death penalty was abolished on the strength of
six votes.
It is wrong to try to rewrite history and claim this was a
government policy. The issue must be put in its proper historical
context, starting back in 1969, with the major criminal law
reforms. The process began with a liberal approach, by this I mean
small ``l'' liberal, in the non partisan sense, because nowadays the
Liberals have a rather different approach. Criminal law underwent
a reform. For example, the provisions of the Criminal Code which,
until 1969, criminalized homosexuality and the prescription of
anovulatory pills, were eliminated. Strange as it may seem, the use
of such medication was considered a criminal act. Needless to say
these provisions did not reflect the values of the time, or those of
today.
Other reforms took place in the ensuing years, including bail
reform. It must be remembered that, at the time, people could be
released on bail in Canada only if they had the money. If they could
hand over a chunk of money to the clerk of the Superior Court, in
the case of Quebec, or the Supreme Court, in the case of other
provinces, they could be released on bail for major crimes. Others
lacking the financial wherewithal could not be released.
The more liberal approach I was referring to a moment ago led to
release on bail subject to various conditions other than strictly
pecuniary ones. Furthermore, essentially the same conditions have
been retained, even though certain criteria for release on bail have
3859
been amended, because it could be seen that with bills passed in the
early seventies it was becoming extremely difficult to prevent
release on bail. Adjustments were made in the periods that
followed.
Basically, the possibility that citizens accused of a crime today
will be released on bail while awaiting trial does not hinge solely
on their financial ability to post bail or have someone else do so on
their behalf.
Changes have taken place. Today, the government is
backtracking, quietly rewriting history. Today we are presented
with Bill C-45, which is not a bill that can just be tossed in the
garbage. It still deserves a slightly more careful analysis, and it
certainly deserves to go to committee for clause by clause
consideration and also so that witnesses can be heard. This is not a
bill that can be passed in two or three days. There are
criminologists, social groups, victims' representatives, the
Canadian Police Association and several other groups that will
wish to comment on this bill.
(1035)
Once again, the government is trying to play both ends against
the middle. It knows very well that this House has already spoken
on Bill C-226, introduced by the member for York South-Weston.
The House has adopted in principle the abrogation of section 745,
and the minister cannot ignore this.
Now we find in the philosophy of this bill, if there is one, or at
least in its principles, that, yes, the House did hold a free vote on
abrogation of section 745 of the Criminal Code, and the Minister
has obviously taken this into consideration.
However, the minister does not want to be perceived as
following the same political line as his former Liberal colleague,
the hon. member for York South-Weston. He is therefore
attempting to present something today, by juggling words or
procedures, that differs from Bill C-226.
Is there really such a great difference? Perhaps not really,
because, when it comes down to it, the parole conditions under 745
are made so difficult that, in future, if the bill is adopted as is, one
wonders if it would not be better to merely propose its total
abrogation.
Let us recall that, under the present circumstances, a person
convicted of first degree murder is sentenced to life imprisonment,
without eligibility for parole until he has served a minimum of 25
years of his sentence. If convicted of second degree murder, the
sentence is life imprisonment with a minimum of 10 years. If the
trial judge has set the minimum at 15 years or over, the individual
may make use of section 745 as it now stands.
In other words, after 15 years of imprisonment, the individual
may apply to the Chief Justice of the superior court of his or her
province, in certain provinces the supreme court, but at any rate
judges at equivalent levels, requesting designation of a judge to
hear the application. The judge merely notes the application,
having no power of discretion, meaning that he or she does not hear
the evidence at this point, merely noting that the 15 years have been
served.
The judge must then empanel a jury to hear the application, as if
it were a court of criminal assizes. The jury hears the application,
with a judge presiding, and determines by a two-thirds vote that the
inmate's behaviour warrants his release.
Although the two thirds criterion is there-and it is a pretty stiff
one-the determination by the jury is final, unlike in a criminal
proceeding where the decision of the jury is final on the facts and
cannot be changed by the trial judge. Neither can it be quashed by a
court of appeal or the Supreme Court. All a court of appeal or the
Supreme Court can do with a finding of not guilty in a criminal
case is order a new trial. It is no longer possible for a court of
appeal-and I admit that this is one of the Liberals' major
reforms-to substitute a verdict of guilty for a jury's verdict of not
guilty.
It can, however, do the opposite. That is, it can make a finding of
acquittal after a jury has reached a verdict of guilt. The jury
convened under section 745 determines by a two thirds majority
whether an individual may apply for parole. In the end, it is not
even the jury's decision, at the moment. The jury simply
determines the inmate's eligibility to go before the National Parole
Board to apply to present his case and his arguments. The jury's
decision is not the final one.
We might ask ourselves why, in a trial, is the jury's verdict of
guilty or not guilty final when, in the case of release on parole, the
jury's decision is simply a recommendation to all intents and
purposes to the National Parole Board. It is not particularly
fulfilling for a jury, despite what the minister said earlier.
(1040)
What then would be affected in section 745 if the amendments
were accepted? First, the accused, actually the inmate, appears
before the chief justice, who will designate a judge, and makes
application. As regards the application, Bill C-45 provides a new
step requiring the application to be made to a judge, who will hear
the evidence. On the basis of the evidence, he will decide whether
the inmate has a real or reasonable chance of success before the
jury. This is therefore the first stage.
Depending on whether he is powerful or destitute, on whether or
not he has a good lawyer, on whether or not the judge is in a good or
bad disposition that day, the defendant or the inmate may be treated
differently. This step, which may be unnecessary, is worth
reviewing. If the judge gives the inmate the right to appear before a
jury, the inmate will be required to do so.
This bill gives the jury a slightly different role by changing the
rules of the game. The rule that any recommendation must be made
by two thirds of the jury no longer applies. The bill now says that
the recommendation must be unanimous. The criteria used for
granting parole are the same as those used to determine if a
3860
defendant is guilty. All this is closely linked to the rule of evidence,
according to which the crown has the burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt and convincing 12 citizens that the defendant in a
trial is guilty. This is no longer a matter of convincing a jury that a
defendant is guilty. Rather, the crown must ask a group chosen
among ordinary citizens if, in their opinion, the inmate ought to be
granted parole. In fact, it is no longer asking for a decision, but for
an opinion.
Why set such a high criterion as the criterion of unanimity?
There will inevitably be someone among the 12 jury members who,
for his or her own reasons, will object to the inmate's applying to
the National Parole Board. The two thirds criterion should, in my
opinion, be maintained, and that is an amendment we will certainly
put forward at the committee stage, as the jury's recommendation
does not have the same weight as in criminal proceedings, in which
the jury must be unanimous. The group dynamics within a jury
must also be considered. A two thirds agreement represents a
significant degree of consent on the part of the jury, and this
standard can generally be recognized as valid in a free and
democratic society.
So a criterion to determine guilt must be seen quite differently
from a criterion to grant parole. On what basis must the jury
decide? Not on evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, but on a
preponderance of evidence. Jury members hear the evidence and
determine if they sincerely believe that the applicant deserves to be
granted parole given his behaviour, his record, and so on.
Demanding evidence practically beyond all reasonable doubt
because every member of the jury must be convinced is much too
high a criterion. Following a unanimous jury decision, the inmate
could and should apply to the National Parole Board, which is the
only authority with the power to grant parole.
(1045)
Contrary to what has been said by some members of the Reform
Party and the Liberal Party, which has several wings-that party is,
in fact, losing a lot of feathers lately-we are faced with some
rather difficult situations. They are trying to have it both ways.
So this militant wing of the Reform Party and the Liberal Party
argues that section 745 automatically grants parole to inmates. The
inmate must file an application, convince two-thirds of a jury, and
then appear before the National Parole Board.
We in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
recently heard representatives of the National Parole Board, who
explained to us that, under section 745, there were practically no
subsequent offences. This clause has probably achieved its
purpose.
It may be worthwhile to review it. Is it too cumbersome or too
complex? As the minister said, should a person convicted of more
than one murder be given the same latitude as a person who has
committed just one crime? I think that first offenders should be
treated with all possible leniency, especially after spending 15 or
20 years in prison.
We recognize society's right to protect itself against career
criminals. There are not only inalienable individual rights but also
a collective right to protection for all of society. I am not in any
way defending the idea that convicted repeat offenders should be
set loose on society.
We can still review the current criteria used to enforce section
745, without going to extremes. We should certainly consider the
age at which the inmate was convicted of a crime. If he is convicted
of first-degree murder at age 20, there is not much information on
his past. It may be normal to want to keep this individual in prison
for 15, 20 or 25 years to see what happens. There is a problem when
a 20-year-old is convicted of first-degree murder.
But there are always exceptions, as we saw in the Quebec
judicial district. This 62 or 63 year old lady, if I remember
correctly, had been found guilty of first degree murder. In theory,
she would not become eligible for parole until the ripe old age of
88. There are always exceptional cases like that.
This is a real-life story. Should persons who have been
law-abiding citizen all their lives until the age of 65 or 70 be
subject to the 25 year parole ineligibility criterion? This would
certainly not be very consistent with the individualization of
punishment principle, calling for the particular circumstances
under which an act, fundamentally reprehensible in itself, was
committed to be taken into account.
For the foregoing reasons, the official opposition will support
the principle of Bill C-45, especially since it is only normal to take
a second look and a good hard second look at section 745 of the
Criminal Code after 20 years of operation. There are very valid
provisions in this bill dealing, among other things, with criminals
who are utterly beyond redemption, in other words repeat
offenders, those who murder more than one person. I have no
trouble understanding this part of the bill.
Where the jury is concerned, I think we should stick to a two
thirds majority decision and hear more expert testimony on the
need for the inmate to convince the judge before the application is
allowed to proceed to the jury.
(1050)
There is something wrong with the way our criminal justice
system is administered. People should not have to make their case
first before a judge and then before a jury. This is not in keeping
with the way our criminal justice system generally works. Those
who go before a jury have chosen to be heard by a jury and, in such
cases, the judge is master of the law, but not master of the facts.
Now it would all be jumbled. The bill would have the judge
3861
examine the facts first and then the jury do it again. If section 745
and hearing by a jury are maintained, the judge should be only
concerned with the law and let the jury deal with the facts, as in any
other criminal matter.
For these reasons, we will vote in favour of Bill C-45 at second
reading and make sure it is examined carefully by a parliamentary
committee.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I realize I
will not finish my address to Bill C-45 before we have to stop for
question period. Nevertheless, I will touch on some of the points
raised by both the justice minister and our colleague from the Bloc.
The justice minister addressed this business as to whether
section 745 was brought into the Criminal Code originally by
stealth or without the full knowledge of the people. Our hon.
colleague from the Bloc touched on the backroom shenanigans that
went on back in 1976 when capital punishment was being removed
from the Criminal Code and when this section was brought in.
The people of Canada knew nothing about this, evidenced when
the hue and cry arose across the country as these first degree
murderers began to apply and receive a reduction in their parole
ineligibility. There was not a great degree of awareness across
Canada about what was happening in this area of the criminal
justice system. I suggest the justice minister has not adequately and
certainly not sufficiently or successfully addressed that point.
He also spoke highly about the protection that comes to the
justice system as a result of the use of juries and that it is people
from the community who will be deciding on the acceptability of a
section 745 application. That is fine and that is good. Juries are our
safeguard, but juries can only act and decide based on the
information they receive. Juries have not always made decisions in
the best interest of society because they have been deprived of the
information they needed to make a just decision.
The Donald Marshall case, which was tried by a judge and jury
and the decision was made by the jury, is an example of that. The
Wilson Nepoose case, which I was personally involved with, again
shows that if sufficient information is not presented to the jury it
cannot make a decision in the best interest of society.
I suggest as well if we examine the limited nature of the juries
that are called to act under section 745, what kind of information
are they receiving? Do they receive information pertaining to the
specific acts the individual committed, the circumstances around
them, the pain and the horror caused by that individual's action to
not only the victim but the victim's family and to society in
general? Are they given that kind of information? I suggest they are
not. They can make a decision only based on the information
provided to them according to the rules.
If we look at the rules they fall far short. That has been the
complaint from some of the vested interests in these section 745
hearings, concerning all the information about the consequences
the actions of this applicant who is there because of first degree
murder had on society and on individuals and whether this whole
question of retribution and punishment has been fulfilled, and
whether just the question of rehabilitation has been addressed
before these juries.
(1055 )
Therefore when the justice minister suggests all is well simply
because a jury of common people, picked from the community, will
be addressing the issue, I suggest there is a weakness in that
argument and that weakness is clear according to the information
placed before the jury. The jury cannot act on any other information
except placed before it. In most cases the rules are set, particularly
in the 745 hearings, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the
horror and pain caused by the applicant.
I have about five minutes left and so I will get into the main
thrust of my concern about this bill. Of course I rise to speak in
opposition to it. Bill C-45 demonstrates the justice minister
seemingly has no real understanding of the horror inflicted on the
murder victims, on their families and on society. If he does it is not
reflected in the bill.
The truck driver who witnessed the horror on Melanie
Carpenter's face as she sat captive in the front seat of her killer's
car understands the terror endured by this victim. The jury which
endured the vivid testimony of Karla Homolka and witnessed the
graphic audio account of the torture inflicted by Paul Bernardo on
Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy understands the pain and
suffering of these victims. It understands the constant anguish the
families of these young girls live with every day of their lives, lives
that have been damaged and altered forever.
Bill C-45 shows the justice minister has little empathy with the
family of murder victims. If he has, it is not reflected in the bill.
The victims and the families endure nightmares as a result of the
heinous crimes committed against their children and
grandchildren.
The members of the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal
Affairs witnessed firsthand the horror of Sylvain Leduc's
grandmother whose grandson was viciously beaten to death. Listen
to the horror of Sylvain Leduc's grandmother: ``The most painful
thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked
and cold in a morgue. My grandson was in the morgue for three
days. I was frozen to death. I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub
for three days. I could not stand it until I knew he had clothes on
him. My
3862
heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a
special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call
this intestinal fortitude''.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor after
question period.
_____________________________________________
3862
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in July 1995 Burma's military dictatorship, known as the
SLORC, released pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from
house arrest.
While many of us were cautious in our optimism, we took
SLORC's release of the Nobel prize laureate to be a sign of good
faith. Under SLORC's oppression, Aung San remains powerless to
bring about any democratic change. Given the limitations imposed
on her, she remains in essence a prisoner.
SLORC continues to thwart democracy by arresting its
supporters, erecting road blocks and even disrupting train
schedules. It will stop at nothing to prevent citizens from gathering
in peaceful assembly or meeting to hear the democratically elected
leader.
SLORC's oppressive authoritarian regime has not changed. I
urge my colleagues to continue to challenge the ongoing human
rights abuses in Burma and to encourage democratic reforms.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis members of the Bloc
Quebecois try to convince the House Quebec suffers within
Confederation.
However, one example it has not used to demonstrate the
suffering is the Canada-Quebec accord. Under the terms of the
accord Quebec receives a minimum of $90 million per year for
immigrant settlement services. This represents 35 per cent of the
$256 million the federal government spends on these services.
When the agreement was signed in 1991 the province of Quebec,
with 25 per cent of the population, was accepting 22 per cent of
immigrants. Today Quebec accepts only 13 per cent of all
immigrants, yet under the terms of this accord it cannot receive less
than $90 million.
(1100)
This accord has resulted in the province of Quebec receiving
$3,300 for each immigrant while the other Canadian provinces
receive on average $863 per immigrant.
If the separatists really want Quebec to be treated in a fair and
equitable manner, then I am sure they would agree to this accord
being renegotiated.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am disturbed by the big banks' insistence on gouging their
customers at every turn. Industry Canada reports show that the big
banks are charging fees on their credit cards that average 10.5 to 12
percentage points higher than the bank rate. Incredibly, even while
prime bank rates decrease, credit card rates continue to rise.
``Not fair,'' cries the chairman of one of the large banks.
``Caucus isn't friendly to the banks,'' states another representative.
The banks are nickel and diming their customers to death. The next
thing you know a customer will need to pay an entrance fee to have
access to his or her money.
It is odd that the central bank rate goes up one day and the banks
raise their rates the next day, but when the rate goes down, the
banks might react in a week or never at all.
I am asking the banks on behalf of all Canadians to act as good
corporate citizens, to work together with us in partnership for a
better Canada today and tomorrow.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week
Canada's national public broadcaster, the CBC, announced its new
fall programming schedule for English television. I am pleased to
see that Canadians will now have access to an all-Canadian
programming schedule during prime time on CBC.
Working with the best and the brightest talent in our country, the
CBC will be offering more dramatic productions highlighting
issues and topics that focus on Canadian stories; children's
programming that is educational, non-violent and entertaining; and
current affairs programs that will tell Canadians about their country
and its remarkable people.
[Translation]
Last December, the CBC formally pledged to canadianize its
regular programming. The corporation kept its word and I
congratulate it for doing so.
I also want to praise the CBC for its remarkable contribution to
Canadian identity. I urge all Canadians to show their support of our
3863
national broadcaster by watching its Canadian programs, which
were created by and for Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, some people have been trying for years to
downplay Quebecers' blueprint for society, starting with the Prime
Minister, for whom our determination is tantamount to wanting ``a
flag on the hood''.
The Prime Minister also says it is not a best four of seven as in
hockey and he is right. It is much more than that. At stake is the
survival of a people. By refusing to accept a simple majority vote,
as is normally the case, he is playing with democratic principles.
He does so because he feels the rug being pulled from under his
feet.
To go against this democratic principle and to ridicule our
determination is evidence of a lack of ethics. A country is more
than a parliamentary structure, but it is through its members of
Parliament that the public can express itself.
This is why Quebecers democratically chose to be represented,
in Quebec City and in Ottawa, by two political parties advocating
Quebec's self determination. This democratic choice alone clearly
illustrates the will of our people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by
keeping our promise and meeting our deficit targets, this
government has helped restore market confidence in Canada and
create a climate of lower interest rates and job creation.
The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.2 per cent in 1993 to
9.4 per cent. Over 636,000 jobs have been created. We have
increased our investment to $315 million to help young Canadians
get their first job and have doubled our commitment to summer
jobs for young people. We have introduced the Strategis Internet
service, Canada's largest source of business and trade information.
We have hired young Canadians to hook up over 50,000 small
businesses to the Internet. We have amended the Small Business
Loans Act to make loans more accessible. Team Canada trade
missions to the Far East, Latin America and India have generated
over $22 billion in business deals.
We have invested wisely and have modernized our economy. By
working with Canadians we are bringing about positive change to
Canadians' lives.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1980, a constituent of mine, Steeve Dignard, risked his life to save
those of Claudette Bourque and Patrice Dignard, who were about to
drown in the icy waters of Rivière-au-Tonnerre, in my riding.
(1105)
On May 3, at 4 p.m., again at Rivière-au-Tonnerre, Diane
Pagé-Touzel lost foot while working on a crab fishing boat moored
at the dock. The icy waters, the eddies and the current were making
any rescue attempt almost impossible. Showing once again
tremendous courage, Steeve Dignard did not hesitate to risk his life
to save that of Diane Pagé-Touzel. The exhausted rescuer and the
woman were eventually helped to the shore.
I congratulate this man of exceptional courage, and I support his
nomination for the Cross of Valour.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to take this opportunity to note the recent unanimous Alberta Court
of Appeal decision striking down once again the gag law which
disallows anyone other than a politician or political party to spend
more than $1,000 during a federal election campaign.
Supporters of the gag law among the Liberals, NDP and PCs
have argued it exists to promote a level playing field. Rubbish.
Elections law in Canada is riddled with clauses designed to prop up
incumbents and traditional parties. The gag law exists to keep
ordinary Canadians out of political debate, especially where the
traditional parties have colluded on policy as they have on the MP
pension scam.
Before the government appeals this decision once again, it
should remember that it is precisely such antidemocratic
restrictions which are being employed under Quebec's referendum
law and aimed primarily at federalist supporters.
An appeal will probably be made in spite of this Liberal
hypocrisy. In the meantime we can thank the National Citizens
Coalition for what is indeed a great victory for freedom in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, most recent Statistics Canada figures note that the
unemployment rate in Fredericton, New Brunswick is the lowest in
3864
Canada east of Hamilton at 8.5 per cent. This is a 2 per cent
improvement in the rate since this government took office.
Credit must go to the small businesses that more and more create
our wealth and jobs, and those agencies such as the Fredericton and
Oromocto chambers of commerce and the Greater Fredericton
Economic Development Corporation which have distinguished
themselves regionally and nationally in the area of community
driven economic development initiatives.
It is fitting that these numbers come out during tourism week,
the basis of many jobs in our region. That, together with the high
tech sector, has resulted in our region benefiting from the more
than 600,000 jobs that have been created since October 1993.
Congratulations to the federal government for meeting its
campaign commitment to jobs, and the province and my
community for making that prosperity work for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury and its citizens.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday the people of Hamilton will have a chance to once again
re-elect Sheila Copps as their representative.
Throughout her career in politics Sheila has given of herself
tirelessly. Sheila Copps has served her constituents for the past 12
years with dignity, perseverance and courage. Sheila Copps'
commitment, her leadership, her integrity and her compassion are
the elements that make her the best representative for Hamilton
East.
Sheila, we wish you well on Monday. We look forward to your
return to Parliament and cabinet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the man who, as president of the Conseil du
patronat du Québec for the last ten years, set that organization's
course, will soon step down from his position.
Mention the name Ghislain Dufour in Quebec City and you
evoke a powerful symbol. This was a man who gave management
in Quebec a consistency and a visibility without precedent in the
annals of politics.
A federalist, as well as an ardent defender of Quebec's interests,
Ghislain Dufour is an eloquent example of the fact that it is
possible to work for the renewal of the Canadian federation while
remaining deeply attached to Quebec.
For some, the resignation of Ghislain Dufour will mean the loss
of a powerful ally, while for others it will mean the departure of a
formidable foe. But for all Quebecers, the image that will remain is
that of a man who gave a face and a voice to management in
Quebec.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the MP for Winnipeg North Centre has just returned after
travelling all over the country and talking with Canadians who are
concerned about their public pensions. The travelling MP said that
restoring faith in the CPP is as important as reforming the plan
itself. No kidding.
While hardworking Canadians worry about their pensions, is the
Liberal member from Winnipeg North Centre concerned about his?
No. Did the member for Winnipeg North Centre care one bit about
average Canadians when he refused to back away from the Liberal
pension trough? No.
(1110 )
Did the Liberal government care one bit about Canadians when it
firmly re-established its pension trough position last year? No. Did
the Liberals care one bit that Tobin and Copps, the $7 million
pension couple, are out campaigning at the taxpayers' expense
today? No.
Where is the integrity in this government? Where is the
leadership? There is none.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Women's National March, which set out a few weeks ago from
Vancouver and from St. John's, is converging today on Ottawa. It
was organized by the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women and the Canadian Labour Congress. This march is
modelled on the one by Quebec women last spring.
Women are the first victims of the cuts being made by our
governments in social programs, as well as in the unemployment
insurance fund. These cuts have a profound effect on their financial
autonomy. Some of the things the women who will be
demonstrating tomorrow before the Parliament Buildings are
calling for are a real job creation policy, an improved
unemployment insurance system, an increase in the minimum
wage, and better funding for day care and women's shelters.
I pay warm tribute to the courage of the women taking part in
this march.
3865
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate Mr. Kevin Bennett, president of Cathedral
Software, on being selected as the new face of mining by the Keep
Mining in Canada campaign for his work in developing customized
state of the art software with Highland Valley Copper at Logan
Lake, British Columbia in my riding.
For Highland Valley Copper, Mr. Bennett has built two major
computer systems for the mining industry. His ``Concentrate Sales
and Inventory Management'' system allows Highland to easily
track the production, movement and sale of mine concentrates. His
``Speedy Bid'' system eliminated the need for time consuming data
entry by aiding purchasing departments in preparing, distributing,
analyzing and awarding contracts for the supply of inventory items.
Kevin Bennett's work is indicative of how the Canadian mining
industry is meeting international competition head on by becoming
more efficient. It shows how the mining industry is pushing the
frontiers of technology and software development.
I applaud Mr. Bennett and Highland Valley Copper for their
innovative work preparing the mining industry for the 21st century.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the
women's Bread and Roses March is arriving in Ottawa. Two
streams of marchers began their journey on May 14 from
Vancouver and from Newfoundland and passed through many
Canadian communities on their way including my own of London,
Ontario.
Our government views this as a very important event bringing
Canadians together in a heightened awareness of the many issues
that concern women. Their priorities are the same as those of the
government and we have acted to address those concerns.
I would only point to the legislation we have brought forward to
deal with violence: our anti-stalking, anti-harassment and
drunkenness defence laws; our gun control legislation; our recent
initiatives concerning female genital mutilation and prostitution.
Women's economic progress and concerns are also at the forefront.
The government has created nearly 700,000 jobs and fully 45 per
cent of these, a number equal to the proportion of women in the
workforce, have gone to women.
The government is concerned and is listening to women. It will
continue to do so.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Monday, June 17 is election day in Hamilton East. People
in that riding will have a choice to make in determining who will
represent them in Parliament.
One excellent candidate is former MP Sheila Copps. Sheila was
first elected to the Ontario legislature in 1981. In 1984 she was
elected to the House of Commons and was re-elected in 1988 and
1993. She was subsequently appointed as a minister and Deputy
Prime Minister.
Sheila is by far the most popular woman ever to have sat in the
House of Commons. She has been and will continue to be a great
role model for all women in Canada and everywhere.
On a personal note and on behalf of Canadians everywhere, I
wish Sheila Copps well. Parliament is not the same without her.
Parliament will be enhanced by her return.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fisheries minister's track record on the Pacific coast has been
disastrous to say the least.
His announced licence buy back is a failure because it does not
deal with the real issue: major reductions in the number of fish
available to all sectors of the fishing community, commercial,
sports and native fishermen.
When fish stocks are in danger, what does the minister do? He
opens a native only fishery in the Alberni Inlet, a move which drew
severe criticism of the minister from a federal court judge last
Friday.
(1115 )
The minister has repeatedly favoured the native fishery at the
expense of the commercial and sports sectors. It is time for the
minister to cancel all native openings and when that is done, to deal
severely with all fishermen who defy the law and fish illegally.
This government and this minister must first conserve fish
stocks for future generations and then treat all fishermen equally
regardless of their race.
>
3866
3866
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on Wednesday, the Minister of Justice denied that there
had been any formal offer or that there was any imminent
settlement in the Airbus affair.
Last evening, we heard on the CBC that there had been a meeting
at 3 p.m. last Tuesday afternoon in Montreal, between the two
attorneys, Mr. Petteras for the federal government, and Mr. Irosky
for the plaintiff, to discuss the conditions of an out of court
settlement.
Will the Minister of Justice confirm that there was indeed a
meeting Tuesday afternoon in Montreal, with a view to discussing
an out of court settlement?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the lawyers may do between
themselves in discharging their obligations to conduct the litigation
is up to the lawyers. It is best left to the lawyers.
We have been sued; we have retained counsel. We are defending
the action and let us see how the litigation goes. Whether or not
there were meetings between the lawyers and what was discussed,
the fact is we are defending the action and we are preparing for the
next stage of litigation. What happens in the conduct of that
litigation often is off the record and without prejudice. In any
event, it does not serve anybody's interests to have an hour by hour
report on what the parties or the lawyers are doing in the litigation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to the same source, the lawyer representing the
government was indeed given a specific mandate.
Will the minister acknowledge that the mandate of the counsel
for his department included offers with a view to an out of court
settlement?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to go
into what instructions may have been given in confidence to
counsel in the course of litigation.
We are defending the action. We are preparing for the next stage
of litigation and we shall deal with the litigation as it comes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would now like to ask the minister if he will
acknowledge that his responses in the House for the past two days
have been lacking in transparency, since he has repeatedly denied
that there has been any offer and that, under the circumstances, it is
really difficult to believe his repeated statements that he is not the
one behind this investigation.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. I was asked on Monday or
Tuesday of this week by a reporter, in fact I was told that a
settlement of this case was imminent. I said that was not so, that
indeed as far as I knew there was no concrete proposal on the table.
I said that then and it was true. I have also said that the parties from
time to time have feelers one toward the other. That is typical in
litigation. There is nothing surprising about that.
We are in litigation. We are defending the action. We are
proceeding and preparing for the next stage. I shall report
significant developments to the House when they occur.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday morning, the Prime Minister denied in a CBC
interview that there had been any negotiations to settle the Airbus
affair out of court. Yet, in a report presented yesterday evening, the
CBC contradicted his statement.
In this matter, which is taking on more and more the appearance
of settling political scores and less and less that of a properly
conducted court case, why under the circumstances has the Prime
Minister denied that negotiations had been held toward reaching an
out of court settlement of the Airbus affair, last Tuesday in
Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just given a response on this. It
is a matter that is in the hands of lawyers, and lawyers do speak
together. I am not aware of everything that the lawyers talk about.
(1120)
This matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. A
plaintiff has instituted proceedings against against the government.
Does he want to settle out of court? I do not know, and it is up to the
lawyers to decide. Let them talk to each other.
I practiced law for a number of years. Lawyers speak together
every day, and very often they may talk about whether or not they
can put an end to a case, during these conversations.
3867
I would add that we are the defendants in this case, not the
plaintiffs, and the Minister of Justice has given an explanation.
I am not a direct party to this case.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
matter where it is obvious that the government's lawyers have been
ordered to use strong arm tactics on the former Prime Minister of
Canada, does the present Prime Minister find it normal, in these
politically charged circumstances, for the Minister of Justice to
seemingly not have kept him informed of his meetings with the
RCMP or of the possibility of an out of court settlement, which
might cost the taxpayers of Canada several million dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this in an investigation which dates back several years
now. The first time the police looked into the matter, we were not in
government. It was during the days of the previous government.
The investigation was reopened, and the plaintiff has instituted
proceedings against the government. The Minister of Justice is
acting as the government's solicitor, and he has delegated the case
to a number of lawyers.
As for me, I do not get mixed up in police investigations. It is not
appropriate for a Prime Minister to get involved in police business
when an investigation is being carried out. I have neither asked for
nor provided any instructions in this connection. It is, moreover,
my duty as Prime Minister to ensure that police inquiries can be
carried out without any political interference by anyone
whatsoever.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have a question for the Minister of Justice.
The minister said in response to questions from the member for
Beaver River on Wednesday: ``I can tell the hon. member that no
matter what may have been reported last night, there is no proposal,
there is no settlement imminent and there is no discussion of
payment of money''. Furthermore he said: ``I cannot take
responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I
explain why it reported what it did''.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, how can he make statements like that to
the House when he knows that the day before his lawyers were
discussing a settlement? How can he possibly say there is no
explanation for the story, give the House that kind of information
when his lawyers are sitting down and discussing a settlement?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I was asked a
question by a reporter from the CBC on Tuesday, I was told that a
settlement was imminent. That was news to me. I said to the
reporter that it was not right. The fact was that no settlement was
imminent. There were not even concrete proposals on the table.
That is what I said and that is the fact. There was no discussion of
payment of money.
Whether the lawyers are in the course of discharging their duties,
having conversations or not, that is a separate matter, something
over which I have no control. It is entirely within the ordinary
course of a lawyer's work in litigation. I practised litigation myself
for 20 years and I know how common it is.
The hon. member should look at the facts. It was put to me that
there was a settlement imminent. I responded that that was not so. I
responded that there were no concrete proposals on the table and
that remains the case.
Let us focus on the facts here. The facts are as I have disclosed
them to the House.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
kind of hair-splitting could only be done by a lawyer.
I am citing an article in the Toronto Sun yesterday where it says
that Globe and Mail managing editor Colin MacKenzie said that
Rock approached parliamentary journalist Susan Delacourt for help
in his behind the scenes probe of Mulroney one or two days after he
first heard about allegations from another journalist.
My question is very simple. Going back to the beginning of this
affair, why was the Minister of Justice conducting his own private
investigation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, it hardly behoves the hon.
member to challenge the facts and then when the facts are
explained to him to describe it as hair splitting. The facts are the
facts whether the member likes them or not.
(1125)
In so far as journalists are concerned, I have made it a matter of
public record from the outset. I have been frank and direct in saying
that I was fixed with information early on after I became Minister
of Justice. In respect of that information, I sought advice. I
consulted with the deputy minister. I consulted the solicitor
general. On the basis of that consultation, I communicated the
information to the authorities, discharging my moral obligation to
do so, and for them to do with as they saw fit.
The police eventually reported that they had looked into what I
had said, that there was no reason for further inquiry and that they
were closing the file.
May I also say that is a practice that has been followed in the
past. Indeed, it was revealed last week by John Turner that when he
was minister of justice he followed exactly the same procedure.
I would like the hon. member to tell the House whether he thinks
that if a Minister of Justice and Attorney General is told something
3868
about allegations of serious wrongdoing that he ought not to pass it
on to the authorities? That to me is a startling proposition.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of
course the Minister of Justice should pass on the information to the
proper authorities.
Now will he answer my question and tell us why he made
additional inquiries with journalists to get more information
himself?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member
may have read in the newspapers, the fact is that I did no such
thing. I have made it clear from the outset that two people provided
me with information. I believe I acted entirely responsibly in the
circumstances and provided the information to the authorities.
I am gratified to see that the hon. member agrees that was the
correct thing to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a
decision that will force the federal government to stop all
discrimination against same sex couples by giving them the same
benefits enjoyed by common law couples.
Could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the
Government of Canada intends to appeal this decision?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
decision, made public yesterday morning at 9.30, contains some
very complex points that will require a few days to untangle. We
are not making any decision on the important issue of appeal until
we have studied the consequences of the decision in detail.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the tribunal ordered the federal government to stop the use
immediately, in a number of federal texts, of any definition of
spouse that discriminates against same sex partners in a common
law relationship.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to
comply with the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can only repeat what I have already said. The decision made public
yesterday raises extremely complex points requiring detailed
consideration and consultation, in particular with our lawyers,
before we take any sort of a position.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as a direct result of an investigation by the justice
minister's department, it now appears that Canadians could be on
the hook for millions of dollars. Now the justice minister is saying
he is leaving it to the lawyers to negotiate a possible settlement in
this case.
Is the minister seriously telling us that he is giving nameless
departmental lawyers the authority to pay millions of dollars to
Brian Mulroney in a possible settlement which he says he knows
nothing about, or is he really aware of everything that is going on
and he is just trying to hide it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the member errs
when he begins by saying that this was an investigation conducted
by the justice department. This was a police investigation
conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for whom the
solicitor general reports to Parliament.
(1130 )
The role of the Department of Justice is also a matter of record.
As happens 100 to 150 times a year, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police went to the International Assistance Group and asked it to
communicate to a foreign government a request for assistance in
pursuing the investigation. That was the role of the Department of
Justice. This is not a justice department investigation.
As to settlement, the government has retained and instructed
very competent lawyers to defend this litigation. We are preparing
for the next stage of litigation. With respect to matters of
settlement, if discussions for settlement occur they will be
conducted by the lawyers who eventually will seek instructions. As
I have said, I shall report to the House if there is anything of
significance to report.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice continues to tell the House that he
really is out of the picture on this whole thing. This is a not a
two-bit case. This is a case of such magnitude that it is on the front
page of the press every day.
The RCMP started this case before the Liberals came to power.
They closed the case. When this government came to power and
this minister was appointed, he initiated the opening of the case
again, even though he may deny it. He talked to the reporter and he
got the case going again.
At this time he is telling us that he is now out of it. One wonders,
whether there is a case or not, how much money is at stake because
of the incompetence of this minister and his government. Why is
the minister telling Canadians on a daily basis that he really knows
nothing about what is going on in this case and anything about a
3869
settlement, when anyone and everyone with any kind of position on
that government is talking about settlements on a daily basis?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume there is a question there.
I can tell the hon. member that he is in grave error when he says
that I initiated this investigation. The reality is the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police makes its own mind up when it initiates
investigations and when it stops them.
The hon. member will know from the answers I gave earlier this
week in the House that there are just two principles involved here
so the hon. member should follow them.
First, so long as I am Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if
someone fixes me with knowledge of serious wrongdoing, after
making consultation of experienced and capable people, including
in this case the solicitor general, I will communicate that
information to the police to do with as they might. That is principle
number one and a colleague of the hon. member has already
conceded that that is the proper course.
The second principle is that once that information is
communicated it is up to the police to decide what to do. In this
case they told me they were doing nothing after looking into it.
If they then start an investigation on their own, or into a different
matter because that information does not relate to Airbus to my
recollection, if they then decide to initiate an investigation that is
up to the police. Politicians should not be involved in directing and
controlling police investigations. That is the second important
principle.
The hon. member will find that both of those principles were
respected in this case.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
In their red book, the Liberals accused the Conservatives of
weakening major cultural institutions such as the CBC by cutting
off their funding. Yesterday, we learned that the CBC is preparing
to have the French network assume part of the cost of
Canadianizing its programming, estimated as some $27 million.
In view of the fact that this will further widen the gap in the
amount of financial resources accorded the two networks, is the
Prime Minister willing to accept this discrimination against
francophones in Canada and Quebec?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the CBC has a mandate to serve Canadians in both official
languages. The hon. member should delight in the fact that 90 per
cent of programming in prime time is Canadian. The network
intends to increase that figure to 100 per cent.
[English]
Having said that, the CBC English network has already factored
in those cuts and no other network will have to pay for the
Canadianization of the English network.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the
French network of the CBC was already very hard hit by budget
cuts and is having a hard time meeting the needs of francophones in
Quebec and Canada, would the Prime Minister ensure that the
English network assumes its own deficit and does not further
weaken the French services of the CBC?
(1135)
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is what I have just said. The English network of the
CBC will absorb its own cuts.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the
spirit of co-operation between Radio-Canada and Radio-Quebec,
which have just concluded an agreement ensuring maximum
visibility for programs produced by Canadians for Canadians. In
these times of budget cuts, this sort of innovative and creative
partnership reflects judicious use of funds and promises more of
the same.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said the government must
extend to gay couples the same benefits it gives to heterosexual
couples.
It said if discrimination is prohibited then benefits must be
granted. However, in this House the justice minister said to us and
to Canadians that his government was intent on fighting
discrimination, not granting benefits.
Since the justice minister assured Canadians that the goal of the
government was not to grant benefits, does he intend to stand by
that commitment? How will he respond to the tribunal's decision?
3870
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear that the
judgment that came from the Human Rights Tribunal yesterday
was in a case that was commenced long before Bill C-33 was
thought of, introduced or passed.
The judgment was based on the law as it stood before Bill C-33
added those words to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The
enactment of Bill C-33 was irrelevant to the judgment. The
judgment dealt with benefits. Bill C-33 did not. It dealt with
discrimination.
My hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has
already told the House that we are going to have to look at the
judgment. He will have to consider its implications and a decision
will be made on the question of whether an appeal will be brought
when we have had that opportunity.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
minister can delay the decision all he wants, but for years courts
and tribunals have been setting policy for government and even the
private sector on this issue with no debate in government. That is
an absolute outrage and is unforgivable. Parliament, not the
tribunals, is where the laws of Canada should be written.
The justice minister said that he tabled Bill C-33 so this issue
would not be left in the hands of the courts and the tribunals. If he
was serious about that promise, will he respond to this ruling in
such a way to uphold the primacy of this Parliament?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in view of what happened last
month I am astonished to hear that the hon. member would want to
have another parliamentary debate on the human rights legislation.
The hon. member suggests that Parliament should be supreme.
Indeed Parliament is supreme. Parliament enacted the Constitution
of Canada which is the supreme law of the land. That Constitution
establishes fundamental principles of justice and rights.
Parliament also enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act which
establishes principles and rights. Under our system of government
in which there is a legislative branch, the courts and tribunals are
called on to apply those principles on the facts of particular cases
and to interpret statutes on the basis of those principles.
Parliament is supreme all right, but having laid down principles
we then have to turn over to the legislative branch the interpretation
and application of those principles. That is what has happened in
this case, and that is part of the government of this country.
As to the decision in this case, as we have told the hon. member
we will look at it and decide in due course whether an appeal
should be brought.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In spite of the minister's commitment to provide a transition
period made necessary by the implementation of the
unemployment insurance reform, 11 of the 50 Quebec groups
working to enhance the employability of greatly disadvantaged
people just learned that their contract would end on August 31.
This means that 2,000 greatly disadvantaged Quebecers will
suddenly be without resources to enhance their employability.
(1140)
Why, in spite of his commitment to give these groups a transition
period to adjust and to allow negotiations with Quebec to unfold,
has the minister abruptly ended the contracts of these 11
organizations without giving them time to find the necessary
resources to continue to provide essential services to greatly
disadvantaged people?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a whole slew of
organizations working in the area mentioned by the hon. member,
including the Government of Quebec, the SQDM, the Government
of Canada and various other groups.
This is a difficult issue, since we are being asked to proceed
rather quickly, to try to follow up on the Quebec consensus
regarding active measures, training and so on. We are trying to
ensure the greatest possible flexibility regarding the new
management and the new arrangements which we will reach with
Quebec and the other provinces.
There is no doubt that some major changes will take place. Since
January, when I became responsible for this portfolio, we have
been asked to proceed quickly, to avoid getting involved in areas
where the province should play a quasi-independent role, and I
have agreed to do that.
Now, we are being asked to stay put, to maintain the status quo.
Let us not forget that these organizations knew all along there was
nothing permanent about their funding. I hope the Government of
Quebec, the SQDM and other stakeholders will look at the role
played by these groups and will decide accordingly.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take
note of the minister's will to comply with the consensus in Quebec.
Does the minister recognize that several of these groups are
unique resources, that they are concentrated in eastern Quebec?
3871
As there is a transition fund expressly for such situations, does
he not agree there should be a moratorium and will he impose one,
so that the resources and the expertise developed can continue to
serve useful purposes after the conclusion of the negotiations with
the Government of Quebec?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transition funds will be
managed in co-operation with the other governments. In Quebec,
there is indeed a sum of money that will be available to the
Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Government of
Quebec. If Quebec wants to maintain some system outside its
government administration, and certainly outside the federal
administration, we can certainly discuss it.
However, neither in Quebec nor elsewhere will we take measures
that would force governments or other organizations to take charge
of any agreement that we have reached. After all, we are trying to
negotiate so that the federal government will, in many cases,
withdraw from these activities.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
As the minister knows, the fishing industry has been very
concerned about the new inspection fees imposed on processing
plants. The matter has been reviewed by the standing committee
and by the minister's staff.
Will the minister advise the House of the result of that review
and what changes he has agreed to make to plant inspection fees?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in consideration for the concern and comments of the
committee, the hon. member and his colleagues, and the industry, a
revised fee has been worked out that basically reflects the concern
of the smaller industries and the smaller plants.
For example, for a processing plant that would have an area of
less than 300 square meters, instead of having a fee of $1,500 plus
$500 per operation, which could amount to $4,000 or more, a flat
fee of $1,000 has now been invoked. In addition, there is a cap of
$10,000 on the annual certificates and a cap of $250 for the import
certificates.
We will review the fees after one year. I believe these measures
will reflect a high standard of fish processed in Canada, exported
and imported.
(1145)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in view of the
recent bill tabled by the justice minister, I ask the minister if he
would tell the House and the people of Canada what he believes is a
fair and just penalty for planned and deliberate murder, the taking
of an innocent life.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the present regime in the Criminal
Code, which has been in place for 20 years, is a fair and just
regime.
For the last 20 years the penalty in the Criminal Code for first
degree murder is life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for
25 years subject to, after 15 years, members of the community
coming together on a jury to determine whether the person should
be given the opportunity before the 25 years, but after 15, to seek
parole, which is up to the parole board.
I have now proposed changes to that regime to make it fairer and
more just. It will require that all applications be screened by a
judge to determine they have merit. It will require that the jury be
unanimous so that the people drawn from the street are unanimous
in giving the person a shortening of the period. It says such a break
should not be available under any circumstances to multiple and
serial murderers.
In short, that is a fair and just approach. As I said in my speech
this morning in second reading debate of Bill C-45, the changes we
propose will improve the present regime.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister has a strong propensity of bringing in contentious bills at
the 11th hour. We saw that with the gun registration bill last year
and with Bill C-33.
I ask the justice minister why he stretches the ability of members
to adequately examine and fully debate these bill. Why is he
bringing in these bills at the last hour?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member himself has been
calling for changes to section 745; he wants to repeal it.
While I do not agree with that, I agree the matter should be dealt
with and I have brought the bill forward. I would have thought the
hon. member would have been critical of me for not bringing it
forward.
It seems that no matter when I bring the bills forward the hon.
member finds them contentious and controversial. We are acting at
this time. The House is in session. Let us debate the bill and send it
to committee. Let us hear the evidence and let us bring it back and
decide. The House should act as soon as possible.
3872
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Again this week again and for the second time, this government
neglected to answer my question about the insurance coverage of
the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale.
Are we to understand from the minister's unwillingness to
respond that the contractor does indeed lack the coverage required
in case PCBs are spilled while lifting the Irving Whale?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
conditions for contracting was the insurer would have adequate
insurance in the event of a PCB or oil spill.
In this situation the insurer has $10 million in the event of a PCB
spill and $100 million in the event of an oil spill. That is over $110
million.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): In that case, Mr.
Speaker, will the minister reassure the public by tabling in this
House before the end of this session all the insurance contracts
covering the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale
for both this year and last year, yes or no?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will discuss
this with the minister.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Finance spoke about how recent changes
to the GST had affected trade-ins on new cars. The vast majority of
Canadians simply cannot afford to buy a new car. What what do
they do? They buy a used car instead.
By removing the tax credit on used cars, the minister has made it
more expensive for the average Canadian to buy a used car. By
eliminating the tax credit the government is saying: ``We do not
care. You already pay tax on the car. We are more interested in
getting more people to pay more tax on that car''.
How can the minister justify taxing the same good over and over
again? Why has he abandoned the red book promise of a revenue
neutral tax?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
it wrong again. I know a system that would simplify taxes is not
something the Reform Party understands, at least from looking at
its tax proposals. This is a system that was put in to simplify.
(1150)
I would be glad to explain to the hon. member the full notional
input tax credit system. It was too complicated. We eliminated it.
As a result we will be collecting exactly the same amount of tax as
we did before. There is no tax increase in this at all.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Natural Resources.
In Windsor and Essex County monarch butterflies are a familiar
and welcome sight when in the fall they mass together in a
spectacular display to migrate south from Point Pelee and Pelee
Island. Experts say the habitat loss in the butterflies' wintering area
in Mexico is causing their decline.
What is the government doing to ensure the conservation of this
beautiful and delicate species?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
taking positive action to study sustainable development of forest
ecosystems to protect the monarch butterfly.
Natural Resources Canada through the model forest program in
Manitoba is working with Mexico to study the migratory patterns
of the monarch butterfly, which travels from Mexico to Point Pelee
and Pelee Island near the hon. member's riding.
Canada and Mexico take conservation of the monarch butterfly
very seriously. Earlier this week President Zedillo of Mexico used
monarch butterflies to symbolize diplomatic relations between
Mexico and Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
An Ontario court recently ruled that the Unemployment
Insurance Act is discriminatory under the charter of rights and
freedoms, as adoptive parents and natural parents are not entitled to
the same benefits.
3873
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development concur
with this ruling and take the necessary steps in order to realign
his legislation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, aware of the
ruling made by the court in this matter. But we still feel that we
have a duty to carefully consider this ruling. In due course and in
consultation with the Minister of Justice, we will make a decision
concerning a possible appeal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
softwood lumber issue simply will not go away. The minister's
quota system is causing nothing but havoc and chaos in the
industry.
Whose interest is this quota system serving anyway? Is it the
lumber industry and the mills that are forced to shut down for three
weeks or is it the minister, who hoped this problem would simply
die?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we got out of this agreement with the United
States secure access for our industry for five years, something we
have never had before in any sector, including this one.
The first people on the line who said they wanted this
arrangement was the industry. In getting this arrangement we have
to sort out how the allocations will occur within the country.
We are listening to everybody. We will come up with a system
that will be fair and equitable, on that will maximize our access of
that market to the United States.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister, who will be aware that seven years ago
the House unanimously passed a resolution affirming that members
would seek to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. He will
also be aware of the United Nations report that said Canada has the
second highest number of poor children among 18 industrialized
nations.
How does he feel about this status of Canada and what is he and
his government doing about it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are always preoccupied with that type of social
problem in our society. In the last budget the Minister of Finance
had some concrete proposals to deal with this problem. I know
provincial governments are working on it as well. We are very
preoccupied and we will take steps within the means of the
government to improve the situation.
The best way to improve the situation is to have an economy that
creates jobs and produces more income for families. In doing that,
children will be in a better position. It is a preoccupation and we are
working on it.
* * *
(1155 )
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment.
This week the Sierra Club's 1996 Rio report gave Canada failing
marks for its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases which contribute to
global warming and climate change. Furthermore, a recent report
of the northern river basins study provided further evidence of
serious effects of climate change.
How is the government addressing this very serious issue of
destruction to the atmosphere?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the northern
river basins study has very clearly indicated that climate change is
happening now. All of the research and data in this study will help
us move forward on this very important agenda.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it is not on
the Airbus.
About two weeks ago there was a report that western Canadian
barley producers lost about $180 million probably because of the
bungling of the Canadian Wheat Board's sales and irregularities.
I asked the minister to do a judicial inquiry into that. I was
wondering if he could inform the House whether he has become
informed on the issue and what action he has taken.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present
time I think it is inappropriate to comment on what is happening
with western grain transportation.
We have a grains panel in place which will report at the end of
this month. My colleague well knows the commission will come
back with recommendations on what should be happening.
3874
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On November 24, 1989, the House of Commons passed a
unanimous resolution to eliminate child poverty before the year
2000. But UNICEF tells us that, of all the industrialized countries,
Canada has the highest rate of child poverty, second only to the
United States.
Does this observation about child poverty give the Minister of
Human Resources Development an incentive to put back on the
table the $630 million he had available last December to fund day
care in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is undoubtedly
aware that the government has already recognized in the budget its
obligation to try to come to the assistance of low income families
and, in particular, to try to protect children living in such situations.
With regard to the proposal to which the hon. member is
referring, which was made last fall, before Christmas, as everyone
knows, the provinces' reaction was very lukewarm. They were
concerned that the Government of Canada was once again
interfering in their affairs, that the proposal would have meant
interference in a strictly provincial matter.
Is this the only way we can intrude in situations where the
provinces must take responsibility? Because, what happens? We
see that in the employment insurance bill, for example, we have a
proposal that could, in fact, provide relief for these people who
need help with the cost of day care for their children, among other
things.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
Tourism is the key growing economic activity in Canada. In
1995 more than 777,000 people visited the wonderful province of
Prince Edward Island, adding $178 million to the province's
economy. This is a growth industry.
Given that the Prime Minister committed $50 million to the
Canadian Tourism Commission to promote tourism across Canada,
can the minister report on the progress of this initiative and how
these funds are being spent?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the question. After the Prime Minister issued
the challenge to the private sector to match the contribution of the
government of $50 million a year, in the first year we raised from
the private sector contributions virtually $40 million. In the second
year we expect to make the target of $50 million, thereby doubling
the contribution of the federal government.
The Canadian Tourism Commission is an example of how
federal, provincial and private sector contributions working
together can create jobs and economic growth for Canadians in all
parts of the country.
* * *
(1200)
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier the Minister of Human Resources Development
said that there needs to be an upper limit on the funds going into
employment insurance. Has the minister yet determined what that
should be? Is it $5 billion?
Second, will the minister tell the House whether the fund will be
made discrete and not part of general revenues so it will truly be an
insurance fund?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a
couple of questions.
With respect to the nature of the obligations of the Government
of Canada, it is one thing to have a separate fund when it is in a
surplus, and it is another thing to have it separate when it is in a
deficit.
If the hon. member is suggesting that when the fund is in a
deficit position which would ordinarily occur in a recession,
premiums would have to rise to make it self-sustaining. I think that
would be very counterproductive.
As far as the upper limit amount of the surplus, I think everyone
recognizes it is a question which has to be addressed. We have
historical data demonstrating what happens when there is a
downturn in the economy. We have only had a situation for the past
few months where the fund has been a real surplus position.
I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance, myself and other
members of the government will deal with this problem in an
appropriate way at an appropriate time.
3875
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Dr. Jagan Cheddi,
President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and to section 72(2) of
the Canada Labour Relations Board Act, I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, copies of the annual report on the Access
to Information Act and the Privacy Act for the 1995-96 fiscal year.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to six
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Health) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-47, an act to respecting human
reproductive technologies and commercial transactions relating to
human reproduction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-48, an act to amend the Federal Court Act,
the Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1205 )
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-50, an act respecting an accord between the Governments of
Canada and the Yukon territory relating to the administration and
control of legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51,
an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Wednesday, June 20 shall
be the eighth allotted day in the present supply period instead of
Thursday, June 21 as I announced earlier.
Since the annual summer adjournment rumour mill is already
working overtime, I think I ought to give it a rest and clarify the
reasons for this change. It is simply to accommodate the needs of
3876
the House to deal with bills that may be sent back by the Senate as
late as Wednesday afternoon. The government wishes to be in a
position to deal with a bill if one should come from the Senate.
I apologize to my colleagues in changing from Thursday to
Wednesday, but with co-operation we hope that by Friday the
House can adjourn as scheduled.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I request a clarification from the hon.
minister. I think there is some confusion. He talked of Wednesday,
June 20, and Thursday, June 21. Thursday is the 20th and Friday,
the 21st. I wonder if he would clarify this point.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I got my dates mixed up, my
apologies. We had announced that the final opposition day for this
period would be on Thursday, June 20. Unfortunately, with the
possible return of some bills from the Senate, we would like to
move it to Wednesday, June 19.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions to the
House. The first petition from my constituency has 160 signatures.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including
amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from petitioners who
pray and call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205, introduced by the
hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity to
provide in Canadian law that no criminal will profit from
committing a crime.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions, each on the same subject, from
residents of my riding and more particularly the towns of Trail,
Nelson and Fruitvale.
(1210 )
The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize that as the
legislature of Newfoundland has passed a resolution calling for a
constitutional amendment to remove the rights of denominational
classes of persons to operate their own schools and further, that if
Parliament accedes to these proposals to amend the Constitution at
the request of one provincial government, it would set a precedent
for permitting any provincial government to suppress the rights of
minorities.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament not to amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
to refer the problem of education reform in that province back to
the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by
non-constitutional means.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I have a number of petitions to present.
The first petition comes from over 20,000 petitioners, all from
within the Kamloops constituency in British Columbia from
virtually every community and every part of the constituency.
It states that Canadians, mainly women and children, are
becoming increasingly fearful to walk on our streets and in our
neighbourhoods, that they believe that many violent and sex
offenders are being paroled prematurely or being released without
proper treatment or rehabilitation, and they believe that those
convicted of dangerous and sexual offences should remain
incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and
can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely
rehabilitated.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons and the
Minister of Justice to take whatever steps necessary to amend
Canada's Criminal Code and the parole system of Canada to ensure
safety and peace in Canadian neighbourhoods.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions that are in conflict.
One petition calls on Parliament not to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way
which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I have another petition in conflict with the petition above which
calls on Parliament to enact legislation to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against persons based
on their sexual orientation and further calls on the government to
pass the necessary legislation.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, another
petition points out that HRDC funding focuses on services for UI
recipients only. The petitioners point out that this will effectively
3877
eliminate most employment programs for immigrants, new
Canadians and visible minorities experiencing barriers to the job
market.
They point out that these programs have been very successful in
helping individuals obtain long term and permanent employment.
Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to continue funding
programs with proven success rates for non-UI recipients.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
number of petitions, one of which came from the Canadian
Vietnamese community which calls on the government to use its
good offices to ask the Hanoi government to: first, release all
political prisoners; second, abolish the communist dictatorship and
establish a democratic and plural political regime in Vietnam;
third, respect the human right to organize free elections under
observation by the United Nations in order that the Vietnamese
people can choose a regime suitable to their aspirations.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
other petitions dealing with law and order.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition
signed by 78 constituents and nearby residents of New Brunswick.
The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code
to the effect that a mother or father without serious cause not be
able to place obstacles between a child and his or her grandparents,
and failing agreement between the parties that the modalities of the
relationship would be settled by the courts, and further to amend
the Divorce Act so that it would give grandparents access to
information about the health and well-being of their grandchildren.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
3877
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1215)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot had the
floor. There remains to him up to 31 minutes.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
continue with my opposition to Bill C-45.
Bill C-45 demonstrates that the justice minister seemingly has
no understanding of the horror inflicted on murder victims, their
families and society. If he does, it certainly is not reflected in the
bill.
The truck driver who witnessed the horror on Melanie
Carpenter's face as she sat captive in the front seat of her killer's
car understands the terror endured by this victim. The jury that
endured the vivid testimony of Karla Homolka and witnessed the
graphic audio account of the torture inflicted by Paul Bernardo on
Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy understands the pain and
suffering of these victims. It understands the constant anguish the
families of these young girls live with every day of their lives, lives
which have been damaged and altered forever.
Bill C-45 shows the justice minister has little empathy with the
families of murder victims and the nightmares they endure as a
result of the heinous crime committed against their children and
grandchildren.
The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs witnessed firsthand the horror of Sylvain Leduc's
grandmother whose grandson was viciously beaten to death. I ask
the House to listen to the horror of Sylvain's grandmother:
The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies
naked and cold in a morgue. My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I
was frozen to death. I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I
could not stand it until I knew that he had clothes on him. My heart is a pump
that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special sacred place
situated below my stomach. Some people call this intestinal fortitude, but I call
it my soul. It is there that love, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion,
happiness, conscience and God dwell.
The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it
is numb and on other days it is just like jello. It has lost its desire for living. It
does not care much about everyday things anymore. It has lost its desire for
food, for sex, enjoyment, travel and books. There is an emptiness there, a hole
that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it. Horror and
fear live there also.
3878
Sylvain's murderers have done this me. When all is quiet, I cannot stop my mind
from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take
sleeping medication to dull those horrible pictures. I receive psychiatric care but
find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense. It takes so much energy to get
there. I find it also hopeless. I feel like a dead flower that has been trampled down. I
feel like I have been robbed.
Those are the comments of one of the family members of a
victim of a first degree murderer. For the justice minister to allow
the anguish to keep festering, to allow this grandmother's wounds
to be opened and reopened is wrong, yet that is precisely what Bill
C-45 allows.
Each and every time a killer applies for a judicial review of his
parole, the family and society relive the horrible memories and live
in terror of the day these killers will be released early from prison.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code demeans the value of a human
life and so does Bill C-45 does. Both are examples of a previous
and the current Liberal government's blatant disregard for human
life, the families of murder victims and the safety of society.
Section 745, which provides killers with an avenue for early
release, makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.
The penalty for premeditated first degree murder is life
imprisonment without the eligibility of parole for 25 years. A life
sentence is not about rehabilitation. It is about punishment and
retribution for the most horrible crime in society, the unlawful
taking of an innocent life and the devastating effect it has on
society.
The justice minister does not believe in punishment or
retribution, only in rehabilitation. That is what we have been
getting from what some of his own party call the bleeding hearts
for the past 25 years. They tolerate the most extreme crimes in
society while mocking and ridiculing those who would bring a
sense of sanity back to the justice system.
(1220)
Section 745 of the Criminal Code nullifies the penalty for first
degree murder. It provides murderers an opportunity for a judicial
review of their parole ineligibility after they have served just 15
years of a life sentence.
Bill C-45 does not repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code
despite strong opposition to that section existing within our statutes
today. Victims groups, the Canadian Police Association and a
majority of Canadians believe section 745 should be eliminated
completely.
Nothing except the full elimination of section 745 is acceptable
to the Reform Party, and 98 per cent of our delegates at our national
convention last week voted for the complete elimination of section
745 after debating and voting on this issue.
Bill C-45 is nothing but a meagre attempt by the justice minister
to sugar coat this repulsive provision of the Criminal Code which
bestows on killers an unjustified right for early release.
Bill C-45 strips multiple or serial killers of the right to apply for
early parole. However, this applies only to multiple murders
committed after the passage of the bill. This creates categories of
killers, good killers and bad killers. Good killers are being granted
special status, a hallmark of the government. Good killers will have
the right to appeal for early release from prison while bad killers
will serve out their life sentence.
Clifford Olson will still be able to apply for a reduction in his
parole ineligibility, as will all multiple killers currently
incarcerated in Canadian prisons.
As of December 1995 there were 574 first degree murderers
incarcerated in Canada. Of those, approximately 5 per cent were
multiple killers. Multiple killers sentenced after the passage of Bill
C-45 will not be eligible to apply for a reduction. This provision of
Bill C-45 does not appease the Rosenfeldts, whose son was
murdered by serial killer Clifford Olson.
The Rosenfeldts, the Mahaffys, the Frenchs and many other
Canadians will not be satisfied until multiple killers receive fair
and just penalties, consecutive life sentences for each of the lives
they took. Clifford Olson should be serving 11 consecutive life
sentences. This is the only fair and just penalty for the taking of 11
young, innocent lives.
I often wonder when we debate this kind of a bill who we
represent and who we speak for. Are we speaking for that narrow
slice of community as represented by the justice minister this
morning? Are we speaking for the Canadian Police Association,
the chiefs of police, the victims groups and the vast majority of
Canadians who have a real concern and fear about the growing
laxity on the part of the government when dealing with such serious
matters?
Because of Bill C-45 Clifford Olson, as all other multiple
murderers, cannot apply directly to a jury but must first satisfy a
superior court judge that their application for a reduction in parole
will have a reasonable prospect of success. What does that mean?
We are not quite sure what a reasonable prospect of success means.
If a superior court judge denies Olson or any of the other 28
multiple murderers currently incarcerated the right to a judicial
review by a jury they can appeal to a court of appeal. They can also
make application to a superior court judge again. Therefore what
we have are circles within circles where it seems there is an endless
opportunity and process whereby first degree killers can continue
to appeal using taxpayer dollars in order to do so in what seems an
endless attempt to re-enter society early.
3879
As well, if the jury denies them a reduction in their parole
ineligibility, provisions within section 745 allow them to appeal
again and again. The same process will be applicable to all first
degree murderers.
Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which allows for the
expenditure of additional funds for section 745 appeals. When
questioned yesterday, the justice minister said the extra money will
be allocated to Correctional Service Canada for longer periods of
incarceration for those killers denied a judicial review by a jury.
(1225 )
This is a misleading joke. The justice minister has set up another
level of appeal for first degree murderers and this is what will incur
the additional costs.
I question the necessity for extra funding in this regard, given the
number of criminals, including violent criminals, who will never
see the inside of a prison as a result of the Liberal's Bill C-41,
which grants alternative measures to violent offenders, and Bill
C-17, which reduces indictable offences to summary conviction of
offences which may include jail sentences or nothing but a fine.
More money is needed for the added hurdles killers will have to
jump before exercising their right to a judicial review of their
parole ineligibility.
Bill C-45 may delay but it will not prevent killers from getting a
judicial review and ultimately a reduction in their parole
ineligibility. According to the judicial review reports of March 31,
1994, 128 first degree murderers were eligible for judicial review.
Of the 71 who had applied, 43 had completed their judicial review
while 28 applicants were outstanding. Out of 43, 19 received
immediate full parole eligibility, 13 had a partial reduction in their
parole ineligibility and 11 had been denied.
Bill C-45 and the review of a killer's application by a judge will
do nothing but add an expensive layer of bureaucracy to a growing
justice industry. Bill C-45 is nothing but the government's attempt
to tinker with the penalty for first degree murder.
Bill C-45 is not the first attempt by a Liberal government to
fiddle with or amend the penalty for first degree murder.
Successive governments have tinkered to the point where our
justice system has been skewered in favour of the criminal. As a
result of this bleeding heart approach to justice, the rights of
criminals supersede the rights of victims in this country.
Murder was first classified as capital or non-capital in 1961.
Before then one punishment was prescribed for murder, the death
penalty. After 1961 only capital murder was punishable by death,
capital murder being the planned and deliberate taking of a life or
the murder of a police officer or prison guard. This was further
reduced and only the killing of a police officer was punishable by
death.
Persons convicted of non-capital murder were sentences to life
but were eligible for parole after seven years. However, this too
changed but for the better and after 1967 all those serving a life
sentence for non-capital murder could not be recommended for
parole before serving at least 10 years.
On February 24, 1976 the Liberal government introduced Bill
C-84 to abolish the death penalty and create two new categories of
murder, first and second degree murder, both of which carried a
minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Those convicted of first
degree murder were to serve 25 years before being eligible for
parole, while second degree murderers would serve between 10 and
25 years prior to release.
The 25 year minimum for first degree murder was the Liberal
government's trade-off for the abolition of the death penalty.
Instead of the death penalty, society was to be protected by the
incarceration of those for life who deliberately and premeditatedly
killed with no consideration for parole until a minimum of 25 years
had been served. However, the Liberal government betrayed
Canadians by slipping section 745 into the Criminal Code. We
heard today from a Bloc member about the shenanigans that went
on behind the curtains and in the House during that debate.
According to a former Liberal parliamentarian, section 745 was
to provide ``a glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when
such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all
criminals''. I wish I had the opportunity to ask this former MP what
he felt was a just and fair punishment for the deliberate taking of a
human life. What murderer has ever given his victim or his
victim's family a glimmer of hope?
A killer does not deserve that which he denied his victim.
Murderers should not be given a glimmer of hope or any incentive
to ease the burden or the severity of their punishment for what they
have done. The glimmer of hope advocates have made a farce of
our penal system by extending to murderers rights they deliberately
and viciously denied their victims.
Convicted murderers, rapists and others who take it upon
themselves to assault or take the life of another person, another
human being, throw all their rights away the minute they launch
their deadly attack. For the criminal justice system to provide a
criminal with a so-called glimmer of hope or to restore their rights
is a further injustice to the victim and the victim's family and is an
offence to Canadians. I am confident all Canadians would agree
with this statement, particularly the Potts family of Hamilton
whose daughter was murdered 15 years ago by Norman Joseph
Clairmont.
3880
(1230)
In 1978 Clairmont was handed the statutory life sentence with no
chance of parole for 25 years for the brutal and savage murder of
the innocent 19-year old Potts girl. After making application for
early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code, Clairmont
was granted a reduction in his parole ineligibility. On February 8,
1993 a jury in the Ontario court deliberated less than three hours
before granting this killer a chance at parole after serving only 18
years of a life sentence. This decision allowed Clairmont to
immediately apply to the parole board for unescorted temporary
absences. Clairmont was eligible for parole in 1995.
This is not an isolated case. A number of convicted murderers
have been successful with their section 745 applications. Brian
John Boyko of B.C., convicted in 1974 of non-capital murder, won
a reduction in his parole ineligibility to 16 years under section 745.
Convicted of the first degree murder of a Calgary policeman
during a credit union hold up and hostage taking in 1976, William
Nichols won a reduction in his parole ineligibility period to 20
years at an Alberta hearing.
Jean-Louie Rodrigue, convicted of second degree murder in the
killing of a Montreal police officer, won a reduction in his parole
ineligibility from 25 years to 15 years, as did Charles Simard who
murdered two teenagers. Convicted killer Gilles Lavigne did as
well.
Murderers like Clairmont, Nichols, Rodrigue and Simard are
lining up and will continue to line up to take advantage of the
glimmer of hope provided by an irresponsible bleeding heart
government and endorse the current government. Bill C-45 may
dim but it will not extinguish that glimmer of hope.
Reform, as a majority of Canadians, believes life means life. The
only just and fair penalty for the taking of an innocent life is life
imprisonment. Let us forget the glimmer of hope because that
glimmer of hope was snuffed out in each one of their victims.
If the justice minister had truly consulted Canadians on this
matter as he has indicated, he would know a majority of people
share this belief. The minister's own caucus believes section 745
should be eliminated completely. This was evident last year when
the House voted on private member's Bill C-226. Seventy-four
Liberal members, including the then Minister of Transport, voted
against the justice minister and voted in favour of repealing
entirely section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Despite the results of the House of Commons vote and despite
the fact that an overwhelming number of Canadians want section
745 repealed, the justice minister has produced Bill C-45, a flawed,
half measure piece of legislation which continues to demean the
value of a human life.
In closing, we are going to add to the list of pain, horror and
sorrow as each year goes by. If the statistics hold true, we are going
to see at least 40 people murdered at the hands of juvenile
offenders. We are going to continue to add to that horror within our
society, the sorrow, the suffering and the grief, and the justice
minister and the government are adding to it by bringing in this half
measure they call Bill C-45.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to add my words to the debate on
Bill C-45. I wish to inform the Chair at the outset that I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley.
This bill shows that once again the justice minister has seen fit to
bring forward a piece of legislation that is half baked, weak kneed,
bleeding heart and which simply does not do the job where section
745 of the Criminal Code is concerned.
(1235 )
Millions upon millions of Canadians are telling the government
that section 745 has to go. It is that simple. In reality what we have
is Bill C-45 which is some 16 pages long and simply deals with
categorizing murder. It is absolutely abominable that the
government would try to categorize some murderers and therefore
the victims and their families, as more serious than others, or that
one murder is okay.
The government leaves the impression that one murder is okay
but if a person kills more than once, then perhaps section 745,
known as the faint hope clause, should not apply. It leaves people
and would be criminals with the impression that it is acceptable. It
is not acceptable to Canadians at large. It is not acceptable to
victims rights organizations across the country that have been
speaking out on the side of victims and it is certainly not acceptable
to the Reform Party of Canada.
As I said, the bill is 16 pages long when in reality we only
needed one short page of legislation to repeal section 745. I believe
very strongly that all acts of murder are reprehensible in the eyes of
Canadians. There are no good killers. Killers should not get special
treatment because they committed just one murder.
The categorization of murder by the justice minister is an insult
to the families of victims of one time killers. That is becoming
more recognizable as word gets out of what the justice minister
intends to do with this piece of legislation. Yet it does not surprise
me. We have repeatedly seen this type of initiative come forward
by the Liberal government and this particular justice minister.
I remember two years ago when we were debating Bill C-37, the
amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Reformer after Reformer
said that the legislation was insufficient, that it was inadequate and
did not address the concerns of Canadians who were deeply
concerned about the rising incidence of violent crime by young
people. I might add there is a very real concern by the young people
3881
themselves. Statistics show that they themselves more often than
not are the victims of these young hoodlums.
Bill C-37 did not adequately deal with the problem. We said it
then and we maintain that now. It has become self-evident. The
justice minister himself shortly after that bill was passed said that
the Young Offenders Act was once again under review. Now we see
the same thing happening. It is becoming consistent with this
justice minister.
We saw it a couple of months ago with Bill C-33, the legislation
on sexual orientation to make it a protected category under the
Canadian Human Rights Act. The justice minister as was indicated
during question period today had maintained and had assured
Reformers and the Canadian people that it was only to protect
against discrimination and nothing more could be read into it. Now,
just a few weeks later we see the results of that. Regardless of what
the minister said today, that it had no impact on the ruling by the
tribunal, I do not believe it. I do not think the majority of Canadians
believe it. It reinforced what was there. That was a concern
certainly expressed by the constituents of Prince George-Peace
River and I believe by millions of Canadians across the country.
By categorizing murderers in Bill C-45 by the number of
victims, we are adding another level of bureaucracy to the justice
system. One level addresses multiple murderers; another addresses
what the justice minister would like us to believe are the less
nastier one time killers.
(1240 )
Instead of differentiating between multiple murderers and single
murderers, the justice minister should have proposed consecutive
sentencing. That is what people are calling for. For example,
Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences. That would
have been fair. That would have been justice. That is what
Canadians are calling for.
It is ironic that private members' Bill C-226 was introduced on
March 14, 1994, and was reintroduced following the prorogation of
Parliament in January. In the last session, the House of Commons
voted at second reading to refer the bill to the standing committee.
Seventy-four Liberals, including the then Minister of Transport
who is now the Minister of Human Resources Development, voted
against the justice minister and supported the repeal of section 745.
Yet private members' Bill C-226 which would have seen the repeal
of this section was buried in committee. The bill which has been
reintroduced has not yet been dealt with. Instead, the minister
brought forward this half baked, totally inadequate piece of
legislation.
To give a little bit of history, in 1976 Pierre Trudeau and the
Liberal justice minister struck a deal with Canadians and the death
penalty as a punishment for first degree murder was taken off the
books. Even though the statistics and polling at that time showed
that the majority of Canadians still wanted the death penalty for
some of the more heinous crimes, the Liberal government did away
with the death penalty but left Canadians with the assumption that
life meant life.
We want to make it clear that when we talk about first degree
murder this type of murder is not committed in a fit of rage. Some
thought has been given to it. It is cold blooded premeditated
murder. We are talking about the Clifford Olsons and the Paul
Bernardos.
I am sure everyone understands how I feel about this issue.
About a month ago I was fortunate to have my private members'
Bill C-218 drawn which called for the reinstatement of capital
punishment. I and a number of my colleagues spoke one evening on
that and expressed our support for the return of capital punishment
and for having a true free vote on it in the House of Commons. I
stated that the Reform Party's position, which I strongly support, is
that we should have a binding national referendum on the
reinstatement of capital punishment. This was reconfirmed at our
recent assembly. Let all Canadians decide on such an important
issue.
However, the justice minister, the Prime Minister and others on
that side of the House have very clearly indicated that they will not
allow the people to have a say on this important issue. Therefore, I
drafted my private members' bill and submitted it to the House in
the hope that as a second-best alternative we could have a true free
vote. Members could get the wishes of their constituents and then
vote accordingly. It would not be as we have seen in past
Parliaments that have voted on capital punishment, first to abolish
it and then to reinstate it and members voted their personal
conscience on the matter.
It is of interest that the first judicial review using this faint hope
clause was in Alberta in 1992. William Nichols was in jail for
robbery-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has
expired. Does he wish to share his time or does he wish to use his
full time? That is really what it comes down to.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I will
share my time.
(1245)
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not catch the entire portion of my colleague's speech.
I wonder if he would tell the House the example of the gentleman
from Alberta he was beginning to speak about. I think it is
important that the House hear it.
3882
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I was
to inform the House about the first example, William Nichols. I
believe my colleague for Crowfoot did refer to that example.
After the review, although he was found guilty of robbery,
kidnapping and killing a police officer, his sentence was reduced
from 25 years to 20 years. This is the first example of how this
clause has been used, and against the wishes of the vast majority of
Canadians.
I find it very interesting that one of the reasons, one of the
excuses the justice minister has used to bring in gun registration,
for example, with Bill C-68 was that he was responding to the
wishes of Canadian policemen, those individuals across the
country who lay their lives on the line to protect society every day
and night.
Yet what we find is that the Canadian Police Association has
passed other resolutions the justice minister is ignoring. In other
words, he picks and chooses what he wants to move on.
I will read from Canadian Police Association resolutions passed
at its convention:
Whereas the penalty for those persons convicted of murder is currently
subject to varying parole eligibility, and this has produced a great measure of
uncertainty amongst Canadians about the credibility of the justice system in
Canada, be it resolved that:
First, the Criminal Code be amended so as to allow a discretionary capital
penalty for those persons convicted of first degree murder as currently defined;
In other words, capital punishment should be brought back for
some of the heinous crimes.
Second, all other persons convicted of first degree murder but not sentenced
to capital punishment be imprisoned for life with no chance of parole or
conditional release in any form, except for emergency medical treatment, until
the expiration of 25 years;
Third, section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed.
In other words, do what the government said about the GST;
abolish, kill, do away with. It did not do that and it will certainly
not do it with section 745 regardless of what the Canadian Police
Association says and regardless of what millions of Canadians
across the country want. I find that absolutely disgusting. That is
why I will be voting against Bill C-45.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-45.
I think it is clear in Canadian law what the juries and judges
decide when a person comes to trial. When this government
changed the rules to not allow capital punishment it gave a
trade-off to the Canadian people who felt that was still an important
part of the judicial system.
The trade-off was that if a person is convicted of first degree
murder they would be given a life sentence without eligibility for
parole for 25 years.
If there is any concern whether or not they can prove this
individual committed first degree murder, premeditated murder
with intent, then they are not convicted. They reduce the conviction
to second degree murder. That is not the issue here.
The issue here is that the trade-off for getting rid of capital
punishment was life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. That
is what Canadians thought they were getting. Nobody advertised
that what they were getting was a faint hope clause added to that at
a later date that says after 15 years they can apply to be eligible for
parole. That was not the understanding when Canadians accepted
reluctantly the removal of capital punishment.
(1250 )
If the courts are not convinced without any doubt at all that a
person is guilty of premeditated murder, then they do not convict
them of first degree murder. We are talking about only those
individuals who are given this sentence when there is no doubt they
committed the crime.
It is not that everybody who murders will end up with life
without eligibility for 25 years. It is only those few individuals
convicted of premeditated murder. The others are either convicted
of second degree murder or of manslaughter if their crimes are
considered to be unintended in the first place.
Having given Canadians this assurance that somebody who took
a life, who intended to take a life, who planned on taking a life,
would get a life sentence, we are now faced with a justice minister
who is talking about making a difference between those who
planned and intended on taking one life from somebody who
planned and intended on taking more than one life. That is
irrelevant. Those are the kinds of decisions juries and judges make
at the time.
I find it abhorrent that we feel the decision made by a jury of
peers and by a judge, people who heard all the current evidence of
the day and made a decision, can be overturned at the whim of
somebody else who was not there to hear the testimony.
That in essence is what we are deciding when we deal with this
bill, and what the individuals decided when they brought in the
faint hope clause, to totally disregard a decision that was made in
our judicial system which we uphold and which the justice minister
and his colleagues say is a great system that does not need to be
changed that much because it works really well.
That is the system that decided whether these individuals would
be tried and convicted of first degree murder, and that is the system
that decided whether they would get life in prison without eligibil-
3883
ity of parole for 25 years. Why is that system not being regarded?
Why is their decision being put aside after 15 years? I and a lot of
Canadians feel that is not right.
Instead of the government talking about looking at that challenge
to a decision made in a court of law by a judge and jury, instead of
asking if it is right to have that decision challenged 15 years later,
maybe we should remove this clause that questions the judgment of
those people, the minister will tamper with it. He will decide and
have judges and juries decide whether a person is a serious killer or
not, whether he is a bad killer or a good killer.
That decision was made years 15 years before, when the jury and
the judge decided that person should be charged and convicted of
first degree murder. When that judge handed down the sentence of
no eligibility for parole for 25 years, that decision had already been
made. Who are we to say they were wrong when they made that
decision after they heard all the evidence?
I suggest to the justice minister that he take the tactic Reform
Party members of Parliament are taking and prevent these things
from even occurring. I introduced a private member's bill which
deals with dangerous offenders and which tries to keep people who
are likely to kill off the street so we are not faced with making
decisions about how we are to handle them after they have killed.
We are trying to bring in legislation to keep those kinds of
individuals who are likely to reoffend, likely to commit serious
harm to other people or likely to kill other people off the streets of
Canada. I suggest that is a much more efficient way and a much
better way to deal with this issue.
Let us not talk about how we are to deal with these people who
have been convicted and sentenced for first degree murder. Let us
try to keep them from committing murder. Let us try to prevent
more victims.
We are doing that. My hon. colleague talked about his private
member's bill. I have my private member's bill that deals with
dangerous offenders and I have a private member's motion that
talks about people who show the propensity of doing these
horrendous crimes. It says they be assessed by psychiatrists and if
it is felt they are likely to kill somebody, it proposes the system
deal with them before the event happens.
(1255)
This is the way it should be handled, not by tinkering with a part
of the Criminal Code that should not be there in the first place.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. She said
initially-
Ms. Meredith: That is a surprise. You have not been here that
long.
Mr. Boudria: I know it constitutes perhaps cruel and unusual
punishment to have to, but I did.
The hon. member said this government had changed the rules on
capital punishment. I ask her to reflect and to set the record
straight. She is an honest person who is interested in the truth. She
will recall that the last time capital punishment was imposed in
Canada was under Mr. Diefenbaker. He abolished it at that time,
commuting every sentence. No government after that ever
imposed it.
A free vote of Parliament under a previous government
abolished capital punishment. In the last Parliament there was
another free vote initiated by the then Conservative government
that resulted in the reiterating of the end of capital punishment.
Would the hon. member not recognize that what I said now is
true and that what she said prior was not?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that it was
previous governments that dealt with this issue. It was a previous
Liberal government under which section 745 was introduced into
the Criminal Code.
I will acknowledge there were what were considered to be free
votes in the House of Commons. That is as far as I would go. Free
votes in the House of Commons by government members are not
really free votes.
When dealing with the capital punishment issue, I suggest it was
made very clear to government members before that vote was taken
by the Conservative government what the expectation was.
It is not Parliament that should be making this decision, it is the
Canadian people who should be making the decision. It is the
Canadian people who should have the opportunity through a
referendum to decide whether punishment is something they want
as the most severe penalty in their justice system. The justice
system is the system there for the Canadian people, not just the
members of Parliament.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member as well. It seems the position she and
her party take really shows contempt for jurors.
It is jurors who make these decisions. It is not done by lawyers,
bureaucrats, psychologists, professional people. Decisions relating
to reducing the ineligible period of parole are made by so-called
ordinary Canadians. They are people from the community, down
the street, neighbours and so on.
Why does she show so little faith in fellow Canadians?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is not I who shows little faith in
jurors and in fellow Canadians. It is the people who support this
legislation who will put aside a decision that jurors made in the
3884
initial charge of this conviction. It is a trial by jury and by judge
that tries and convicts people on first degree murder.
A person cannot be convicted of first degree murder unless there
is a jury there. I respect the jury and I respect the judge at the
original time.
Why would we need another judge and jury to decide the fate 15
years later? That fate was decided with all the evidence presented
at the time. I respect their decision. I and my colleagues ask why
does nobody else respect the decision of that initial court?
* * *
(1300 )
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Transport and one
researcher be authorized to travel to Chicago on June 18, 1996 to gather
information on the creation of a binational structure for the St. Lawrence
Seaway.
This is an amendment to a motion adopted on May 16. Both
parties have been consulted. I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
motion?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing if our people have not
done their job but this is the first that we have heard of this. We
have not been informed.
The Deputy Speaker: There does not appear to be unanimous
consent for the motion.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another motion to propose. Perhaps the hon.
member can verify this with his colleagues and then he will be
satisfied that there was consultation.
Later this afternoon the House will be dealing with Motion
M-116. There have been consultations about this initiative. I move:
That at the end of the time allotted for private members' hour, a recorded vote
be deemed to have been requested and that such a vote be deferred until next
Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first motion, a
telephone call has been received from the Reform whip's office
telling us that the motion with regard to Chicago has received
unanimous consent. If not, I am ready to propose it later, perhaps
after the next speech.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
previous motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
get to something more important than wasting money down in
Chicago and that is Bill C-45.
The Liberals do not get it and it is our job to tell them what they
are doing is not right. Let me continue to show the weakness of this
bill.
The screening review mechanism that the government has
developed is a joke. I wonder, as do many Canadians, if this review
process will be as effective as the National Parole Board has been
under this new system.
The crown and the criminal are able to submit evidence in the
form of an affidavit. There is no examination of the inmate until a
jury hears the case. While an affidavit is a legally binding
document, why should anyone who has committed the most
heinous crime there is, the cold and premeditated taking of another
human life, be trusted? One time is enough. They are put away one
time, not two, three, four times.
Does the government's rehabilitation program suddenly instil
honesty in these criminals? For the protection of Canadians we
should have the right to question inmates before they are granted
jury hearings.
One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is why the
government puts more value in the loss of 2, 3, 20 or even 200 lives
while the loss of one innocent life is grounds for a sentence review.
Why try to make a distinction?
As reporter Licia Corbell wrote: ``Take, for instance the fact that
Rock is distinguishing between multiple murderers and those who
kill once as though a murder victim's death is only legitimized by
someone else's murder''. That is ridiculous. That is sad. It is
enough to make one sick.
This is what the justice minister does not get. He believes a first
time murderer, a premeditated killer, found guilty by a jury of his
peers deserves a second chance. A second chance for what? To do it
again? The punishment should match the crime. Some of us favour
capital punishment, some do not. It is life imprisonment, but a
murderer serves 25 years, and automatically gets paroled after 25
years. Now the government wants to reduce that even more. That is
totally wrong.
3885
(1305 )
Corrections Canada's mission is to contribute to the protection
of society by exercising lawful control. It seems ironic that the
government willingly sends peacekeepers around the world to
protect the lives of people in countries such as Bosnia, yet it is
willing to release rehabilitated murderers on to Canadian streets.
Why do two or more people have to be killed by one murderer
before the government steps in to lock these criminals up? Where
are the government's priorities? Has it forgotten that its first
responsibility is to Canadians? We must do everything to protect
their safety. Is is any wonder that people do not trust our justice
system?
It is time to place the rights of victims at the forefront. It is time
to put law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.
Has the justice minister ever offered the Boyd or the Rosenfeldt
families compensation for the horrific murders of their children?
No, he has not. However, the government is willing to offer
inmates compensation for slipping on a stairwell. The government
is willing to offer Clifford Olson compensation to the tune of
$100,000. It is even allowing him to publish books and make
videos while in jail. What a slap in the face to these families.
Where is justice? What a disservice and what an insult. There is no
justice for the victims.
Why is the government so soft on criminals? Make no mistake,
the people who we are talking about are criminals. They have
broken the law. They are first degree, premeditated killers. We are
not talking about second degree, by chance, look at the review and
the situation and maybe give them a second chance. Society wants
these first degree, premeditated, plan to kill killers punished for
those crimes.
However, instead of punishing them, they are given
compensation. They are made to feel comfortable. They are
provided with the opportunity to be released early but, as the
justice minister says, ``only in appropriate cases''.
When was first degree, pre-planned murder ever an appropriate
case for early release? Why use language like this? This is what the
justice minister said: ``This is the right thing to do because it
preserves the opportunity, but only in the appropriate cases''. Do
we not want a deterrent? Do we not want to have a deterrent for
killers that plan to kill, that plan to take another life? Do we not
want to tell these people that if they plan and commit a murder they
are going to pay the price which is 25 years in jail? And if they are
not good after 25 years then maybe they will serve even more. I do
not think this Liberal government wants a deterrent. It wants to
appeal to some soft bleeding hearts, but I will save that for another
part of my speech.
The justice minister also said: ``I think it is impossible to say that
of all the hundreds and hundreds of people serving time for murder
that there is a purpose to be served either for the victim or society
to have them serve all 25 years without the prospect of a review''.
We are not talking about the hundreds and hundreds of second
degree murderers. We are talking about first degree, pre-planned,
premeditated murderers here. He is trying to whitewash the two
situations. He is trying to mingle the two together. He believes they
deserve a second chance. I disagree and I think the majority of
Canadians do as well.
If these measures are going to strengthen the justice system and
make Canadians feel safer, why do we not release these one-time
murderers, if they get released after 15 years, and put them into the
neighbourhood of the justice minister and the solicitor general? I
wonder if either one of these ministers would feel safe if we
released these rehabilitated criminals into their neighbourhoods.
Would they think twice about walking around in their
neighbourhood at night? Would they worry about the safety of their
children, grandchildren, friends and neighbours? I am sure they
would.
If they had a reason to be concerned then they need to listen to
Canadians and give this bill some real clout. They should close all
the loopholes like section 745. They should give Canadians some
peace of mind and quit coddling the criminals.
The public is scared. Our streets are no longer safe. Crime is on
the rise. The minister tells us: ``Oh well, they are using statistics
like `if I punch this guy in the face that is violent crime so therefore
that is increasing crime'''. That is not a violent crime and not worth
talking about. Violent crimes are increasing and young offenders
crime is increasing.
Mr. Boudria: Don't move.
Mr. Silye: As long as he does not move his head we are okay,
Mr. Speaker.
Even the justice minister admitted a few days ago that Canadians
want a country where they feel secure in their homes and
communities and where men and women can grow without fear.
Our society has been shaken by violent crime and a defective
criminal justice system which this Liberal government has been so
slow to fix.
(1310 )
Despite the justice minister's claims, the public interest will not
be served by keeping murderers in prison for any less than 25
years. The justice minister is trying to suck and blow at the same
time. He is trying to satisfy Canadians that he will look after the
Clifford Olson's of this world by not allowing them a chance for
early parole from this time forward.
We are not concerned about Olson. He is not going to get out. I
think most Canadians should feel safe about that. Even under the
3886
existing law he will not get out. We do not need to scare Canadians
with that. That is not what the Reform Party is saying.
However, we are saying that the justice minister cannot suck and
blow at the same time, telling Canadians to fear no more and still
please the bleeding heart liberals, the bleeding heart defence
lawyers who try to go to the nth degree to make the law more
lenient for criminals. They do not give a darn about the victims.
They are so quickly forgotten.
Look at Nicole Simpson. Look at the tragedy in Calgary where
someone was shot six times in the back. The whole trial was not
about the victim. The whole trial was about whether the offender
was in a robotic state. That is where defence lawyers are taking this
country. I am offended and tired of it all.
The government cannot have it both ways. It must decide who it
wants to please. The people the government and the minister
should be trying to please is the Canadian public, not the bleeding
heart liberal lawyers in our defence system.
The Canadian public is upset with the soft, wrong-headed target
of this intended bill. They want to show the justice minister they
are upset. They want to show him that he has not solved the
problem but that he has created more anxiety and more fear and
concern. They can show their concern by calling their MPs if they
like but that probably will not make any difference. But Reformers
are here every day. We will be hammering the justice minister
every day. However, he is perfect and he never makes a mistake. He
will never listen to us. But he will listen to Canadians.
Canadians want him to get with it, to get tough on young
offenders. They want him to put in a proper Young Offenders Act,
not one that is wishy-washy, where if a person is 15 or 16 they have
to prove that they should not be tried in adult court. When 12 and
13-year-olds are telling the police what their rights are, it is time to
crack down. If you do the crime you pay the time. These kids need
protection from each other.
The minister is soft on section 745. He knows what the Canadian
public wants. Why does he not just do the right thing?
Let me get back to the Canadian people. I believe there are lot of
Liberals who believe that the justice minister is being too soft. We
believe he is too soft. He should remove the anxiety and the fear
from peoples' minds and make our streets safer. If the Canadian
people feel that way then send him a fax. I am asking Canadians to
send Rock a fax at 613-990-7255.
The Deputy Speaker: Before questions or comments, I would
ask all members not to refer to other colleagues in the House by
their first, last or middle names. They must be referred to by either
their riding or their ministry.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my hon.
colleague. I am really glad that extremism has been eradicated
from the Reform Party. Imagine how the speech would have
sounded under the previous form of extremism.
Having listened to the more moderate Reform Party that now
exists since their last convention-
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is not
extremism.
Mr. Boudria: I am glad the hon. member told us that the speech
we just heard is not extremist. There is worse than that in the
Reform Party. That is the point I was getting at. I am glad he seized
upon it.
I agree with the member that this is not extremism, that there is
worse yet within the Reform Party. We in the government
understand that and all Canadians do as well.
I want to get to the content of the speech of the hon. member for
Calgary. I must say that he and I have a different concept of what
justice is.
Mr. Ramsay: Obviously.
(1315 )
Mr. Boudria: That is quite true. It is not a matter of who is a
bleeding heart Liberal as opposed to a red neck Reformer or
whatever. That is not the issue. The issue is what is just and that is
what we should be concerned about today.
My hon. colleague said that we were not concerned about
Clifford Olson being able to leave jail under section 745 of the
Criminal Code and I do not think I was either. Does the member
agree with me, which he has just done, that such a probability was
virtually non-existent? Will he make sure to chastise his colleagues
who have been invoking that proposition in order to instil fear in
Canadians on this very issue?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the only people I am going to chastise
are the ones in the Liberal government. The only person I am going
to chastise is the member when he says imagine what kind of
country we would have if Reform ran it. We would have a
wonderful country. We would have a better country than what we
have under the Liberals.
The Liberal Party once stood for the little people. It once stood
for the little guy. The Prime Minister used to campaign as the little
guy from Shawinigan pretending he had no money, that he was a
poor boy and he just worked his way up like everybody else and
that he was making just $50,000, $60,000, $80,000 a year as a
hardworking lawyer and a politician. He is not a little guy any
more. He does not represent the little guys and the Liberal Party
does not represent the little guys any more. The Liberals now are
big business. They are worse than the Conservative Party.
3887
Talk about imagine. Imagine having a justice system that cares
more about the criminal and the rights of the criminal than it does
about the prevention of crime and the victims of crime. There is
something wrong.
We should be doing something about it. The punishment should
match the crime. Whether someone is 12, 13, 14 or 100 years old, if
they commit a crime, they should know beforehand what the
penalty will be. They should know that the penalty for first degree
premeditated murder is life imprisonment. That penalty might
match the crime. Life imprisonment. But then it is softened by
saying that they may be let out after 25 years, or is it automatically
out after 25 years?
An hon. member: Automatically.
Mr. Silye: It is automatic. So the penalty for taking a life is 25
years.
While serving the 25 years the person can appeal and file for
earlier parole at 15 years. Now the Minister of Justice is trying to
differentiate between one murder and multiple murders. That is
what makes his amendment ridiculous.
Why try to make this distinction? The reason he is trying to
make section 745 seem tougher, or he is addressing it with a new
bill altogether, is that he has received complaints. He knows that
everything we have been saying is true. Canadians are concerned.
Canadians want criminals punished more. They do not want them
to make a mockery out of the criminal justice system. He has heard
those comments but he is not listening to the people he should be
listening to.
Gosh, the prosecution lawyers are frustrated. Time after time
they bring criminals into court and there is plea bargaining and then
the criminals get off. The criminals are served a lighthearted slap
on the wrist sentence and then they do the same crime again. All
kinds of deals are done. They are given 12 years and then they get
early parole after three years. The prosecutors, the police and the
RCMP are not happy.
Why do we not toughen up our laws? That is all we have to do
and we are the ones who have the ability to do it. The minister is the
man who is responsible for doing it and he will not. He is going
soft. He is trying to give the impression and appearance that he has
done something with the laws we have. Now I know why I always
compare him with the finance minister; he is trying to create a
myth too. He is the second minister of myth because he is trying to
create the illusion that he is getting tougher and is doing
something. Do not worry, serial killers will not get out after 15
years, only after 25.
I find it frustrating. Instead of listening to the people who are
complaining, he is trying to please the lawyers that come from the
litigation system and the defence system, the bleeding heart
lawyers, the bleeding heart individuals, the bleeding heart Liberals.
He is trying to please them.
(1320 )
The minister cannot suck and blow at the same time. He cannot
have it both ways. He is either blowing with the wind or against it,
or he is sucking in the wind. Whatever he wants to do, he has to
make a decision which way he wants to go. The minister has
chosen to try to do both and he is satisfying neither. They are half
measures that just anger both sides. I am sure he takes his lesson
and his leadership from the Prime Minister who tries to do the same
thing.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the public and members of the House to put
themselves in somebody else's shoes.
Imagine you are the husband, the father, the wife, the son or
daughter of somebody. You come home one day and a police
officer is at your door. The police officer asks you to sit down and
he tells you that unfortunately and sadly your loved one has been
murdered, murdered in cold blood, murdered in a premeditated
fashion. An innocent person has been murdered. They have been
ripped out of your life with absolutely no explanation.
These individuals, these loved ones are left to pick up the pieces
after this unspeakable tragedy, a tragedy we would not wish on
anybody. It destroys their families and their lives forever. The
impact and pain these people feel are immeasurable and last their
entire lives.
It is for this reason and in this context that we discuss Bill C-45,
an effort to make amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
As we have discussed before in the House, this bill deals with a
very narrow issue. It deals with individuals who have committed
cold blooded, premeditated, first degree murder. These individuals
wantonly, irresponsibly and without any regard for anybody else
have taken lives, something they have absolutely no right to do.
We disagree with the changes the justice minister is making on a
number of levels. First, what kind of message does it send to
murderers? It sends the message that if they kill one person, it
could be okay; if they kill more than one, it is definitely not.
Murder is murder and has to be deplored, period.
Second is the concept of deterrence. Some people would say that
having a first degree murder penalty of 25 years with no hope of
parole is not a deterrent to committing the crime. Having worked in
jails I can say that deterrence plays a very big role in people's
actions. Deterrence does play a role.
The prospect of a penalty of 25 years is not looked upon
favourably by anybody. The penalty of 25 years without any
exception has to be there for first degree murder. It is not there for
second degree murder for a reason, but it must be there for first
degree murder because first degree murder applies only to
premeditated cold blooded murder, an act that is so reprehensible
that the majority of Canadians have said that people who commit
this type
3888
of murder must be treated in the harshest way. This would send a
message of deterrence and would also provide protection for
society.
We have seen a significant departure in our justice system since
the early 1980s. At that time the Liberal solicitor general said to
Canadians: ``From now on the focus of the justice system is not
going to be on the protection of society. The focus of the justice
system will be on dealing with the criminal. We are going to
concentrate on the criminal, not the protection of the innocent in
society''.
That is the mindset which has pervaded our justice system over
the past 14 years. It is something Canadians have been utterly
revolted by. They feel that their rights as innocent civilians to be
protected by the justice system are being abrogated from on high
by the federal government in Ottawa.
(1325 )
That is why my colleagues from Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley and Fraser Valley West, and my colleague from Crowfoot
who was our lead speaker on this bill, have put forth constructive
measures to ensure that the protection of innocent civilians is the
primary goal of our justice system.
It is not to say that we are not concerned about rehabilitation. It
is not to say that we are not concerned about prevention. However,
certainly the number one goal of our justice system has to be the
protection of innocent civilians. That is why we feel the changes to
section 745, which Bill C-45 brings in, do not properly reflect our
desire to protect Canadian citizens.
There are a number of measures the justice minister can take. I
would suggest that he look at the following. Some interesting
experiments have been done in the United States. They looked at
inner city schools that had very high teen pregnancy rates, high
crime rates, high drop out rates and high illiteracy rates.
The school children were referred to the university which started
to deal with the children early on, from kindergarten on. Not only
did they teach these children their ABCs and the three Rs but they
also taught them concepts such as self-respect, respect for others
and appropriate conflict resolution. They informed them about
drug and alcohol abuse and smoking.
The parents were also brought in. They were usually single
parents. That was the environment these children lived in. They
brought the parents into the school system, and the parents took an
active role in the classroom with their children and with the
teacher. The parents often did not know how to be good parents.
They did not themselves have the basic pillars of a normal psyche
because they had grown up in an abusive environment.
The outcome was very interesting. The parents learned how to be
good parents. The parents learned what self-respect was. The
parents learned that slamming somebody's head into a wall was not
appropriate conflict resolution. The parents learned about drug and
alcohol abuse and the value of education. In the end, there were
much lower rates of drop outs, criminal activity, drug abuse,
assaults, et cetera.
The hon. justice minister should bring together his colleagues,
the ministers of education from across the country, to change the
focus in our education system. The greatest impact we can have on
the justice system later on, and the prevention of conduct disorders
and criminal behaviour is through changes by focusing on early
childhood education in the way I mentioned.
I would bring attention once again to the bills my colleagues in
the Reform Party have put together. There is the one on the victims
bill of rights. I hope the justice minister does not let this very good
bill die in committee. He should give it the same expeditious
treatment that he gave to Bill C-33. There is also the bill of my
colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on
dangerous offenders. The justice minister should take a very close
look at that because it will certainly make our streets safer.
Revamping the Young Offenders Act is essential. It is an
absolute sham right now. Changes need to be made. I implore the
justice minister to deal with that. I know members across the party
lines would be very happy to work with him to make our streets
safer for Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3888
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak in support of
the motion put forward by my colleague from Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley. It is an honour because if the government
acted on this motion, another loophole in our criminal justice
system would be closed. With every loophole we close as
legislators Canadians are safer and Canada is a safer place to live.
What does the motion seek to accomplish? The motion would
require that anyone convicted of serious sexual assault against an
adult or any sexual assault against a child be examined by two
psychiatrists. If the psychiatrists conclude the offender is likely to
3889
commit similar crimes in the future the attorney general would be
compelled to proceed with a dangerous offender apprehension.
Sexual predators would be identified by the system after their
first conviction. Instead of getting back on the street after serving a
specific sentence they would be held indefinitely until we can be
assured they would not offend again.
Before Reform is criticized for being too tough on crime, let us
reflect for a moment. I imagine everyone in the House has had the
experience during our lives of knowing or reading about a crime
which if the system had worked the way it was designed would not
have happened. All of us can recall incidents when a crime was
committed by someone who but for our lenient parole system, a
miscommunication between officials or failure to arrest a person
on an outstanding warrant would have bee locked up.
My friend from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley in a
speech she delivered on this motion on March 25, 1996 cited
several such examples in relation to rape and murder. The matters
she described to House are not out of some murder mystery movie
or some crime thriller paperback. They are real situations, real
people, real Canadians who were raped and murdered by people
who should have been in jail.
Recently I attended a victims rally in Abbotsford of over 2,000
people who were waiting for the government to do something to
prevent many of these crimes from happening again. Canadian
taxpayers, law-abiding citizens, cannot understand why their
elected members of Parliament are not changing the system to
correct the errors of the past and protect our children from crimes
committed by those who should have been kept behind bars.
Melanie Carpenter of British Columbia would be alive today if
Fernand Auger, who kidnapped, assaulted and murdered her, had
been identified after he had committed his first offence.
Did our justice system fail Melanie? Yes. Auger had been
convicted of two brutal sex assaults 10 years earlier of teenaged
prostitutes. His sentence for those crimes was two years less a day.
When Auger was closely observed by psychiatric professionals
five years later after being convicted of a robbery charge and
receiving a federal sentence, what was their finding? These
professionals realized Auger was a danger to the public, that he was
a walking time bomb. What did they do? Nothing. Under our
current laws Auger had to be released.
If Motion No. 116 had been in place at that time the legal system
could have dealt with him and he would not have been out of the
streets to look for yet another victim, in this case Melanie
Carpenter.
Should we have done something to prevent offenders from
committing crimes again and again? Yes. That is part of our
responsibilities as MPs, a major part of why we are elected and
given the trust of Canadians to enact legislation, to make the laws
which our professionals can then enforce.
Debbie Mahaffy was at the victims rally I attended. I wish the
members of the House had listened to her talk, listened to the pain
and anger in her voice, listened to how her life and the lives of her
family will never be the same again because of what a sexual
deviant did to her daughter Leslie.
What of all the parents and loved ones who became victims of
such a madman as Clifford Olson? After a history of criminal
activity this dangerous offender could have been identified and his
killing spree which left 11 Canadian children dead might not have
happened.
What of Gary McAstocker, convicted of raping a 21-year old
woman and sentenced to seven years in prison? He was released 36
months later and while on parole rammed his car into a vehicle
driven by a 48-year old widow. He grabbed her, beat her and
threatened her before she escaped.
In 1988 McAstocker was sentenced to four years and three
months. In 1992 and 1993 the parole board concluded that if
released McAstocker was ``likely to commit an offence causing the
death of or serious harm to another person''. Nevertheless, in
February 1994 he was freed again. Four months later, on June 14,
1994, 14-year old Tina McPhee left her home in Edmonton to walk
to school. She disappeared and McAstocker became the prime
suspect. Just before he was to submit to police questioning he
hanged himself.
(1335 )
If Motion No. 116 had been in effect and two psychiatrists had
examined McAstocker, Tina McPhee would likely be alive today.
The justice system needs the tools to complete the job if it is to
protect citizens in our country. That is what our laws are for, to
protect the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Motion No. 116, put forward by my colleagues from
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and Calgary Southeast,
would simply ensure a dangerous offender description would be
designated to those individuals who have already been convicted of
sexual offences and who two professional psychiatrists feel will
reoffend.
These dangerous offenders would be kept in custody until the
parole board is convinced the offender does not pose a serious
threat to society. Parole eligibility would be after three years and
then every two years. As my colleague said, if rehabilitation and
treatment were successful, the offender would not be incarcerated
forever.
3890
Yes, Reform has taken a tough position on crime and
punishment. Somebody has to, and certainly there is no point in
waiting for the government to act. Canadians demand action and
that is what this motion will give them.
Why do I not trust the government will move in this direction?
Just witness the government's action this past week in response to
the wishes of the people of Canada that the opportunity for early
parole for murderers be eliminated.
What does the government do? It says ``if you can keep it down
to one murder, no matter how premeditated, no matter how
gruesome, you can still get early parole''. Being soft on one time
murderers and tough on repeat murderers is hardly my idea of
strong, forceful leadership on this issue. That section of the
Criminal Code should be repealed, and that is that.
A government soft on murder can hardly be expected to be tough
on those who may be repeat sexual offenders. That is why this
motion has to come from this party, but hopefully it will win
support among the Liberal backbenchers, among those who have a
feel for the needs of Canadians and who care about the safety of
Canadians.
When this motion was debated on March 15, the Bloc member
for Saint-Hubert, the justice critic, raised two arguments against
the motion, which I would like to address now.
She claimed the motion allows psychiatrists to usurp the roles of
the prosecutor and of the judge. That is false. All the psychiatrist
may do under the motion is determine whether the person
convicted might reoffend. That is their role. Then the attorney
general must bring in an application to have the person declared a
dangerous offender. It is up to the prosecution how vigorously this
is pursued. It is up to the judge to make the declaration.
The Bloc justice critic believes this is tantamount to turning the
justice system totally upside down. If protecting Canadians from
the threat of sexual assault by repeat offenders is turning the system
upside down, allow me to be the first to turn the crank.
The other argument raised by the member for Saint-Hubert is
that statistics show violent crime is on the decrease in Canada and
therefore, in the member's opinion, there is no need for a change in
the Criminal Code. This member is certainly selective in her
statistics.
We are talking today about how the law deals with sexual assault
offences. I wonder if this member is aware of the poll done by the
Reader's Digest Roper. The question was: ``How good a job do you
think each of the following groups or institutions is doing to protect
the public against violent crime and criminals?''
It is interesting that the people of Canada have absolute support
in their police; 68 per cent feel they are doing a good job; only 23
per cent feel the courts are doing a good job; 19 per cent feel the
prison corrections system is doing a good job; 15 per cent feel the
parole system, which releases all these reoffenders, is doing a good
job. This means that 85 per cent of Canadians feel our laws are not
good and do not save or protect Canadian people. In other words,
we need Motion No. 116.
Does the member for Saint-Hubert suggest the decrease in the
number of rapes and murders, according to what she has reported,
means we cannot improve the law that deals with these offences?
We are talking about the law. Surely this is not the case.
If a loophole or an oversight in the law is found which may result
in harm to innocent Canadians, it is our duty to address that fact.
That is why we were elected, why we sit in the House and why we
receive our paycheques. We are supposed to be doing the work
Canadians have asked us to do.
We also cannot ignore the examples of those who slip through
the system, who continue to wreak havoc as they search out new
victims. I support Motion No. 116 and urge other members to
support it as well. If we save one life through such a measure our
time and efforts here will be worth it.
(1340 )
The Deputy Speaker: There being no other members rising to
speak, under Standing Order 44 the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley is permitted to briefly sum
up. No one is to speak after her.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have
spoken in support of this motion and I wish to clarify some
comments made by members of the Bloc and the government.
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam pointed out that
opposition to the motion implies that the job of declaring
dangerous offenders would be transferred from the judicial system
to psychiatrists. That is definitely not the case.
When an individual has committed serious, indictable, sexual
assault against an adult or any sexual assault against a child, the
individual must be tested by two psychiatrists. The reason I
introduced the motion is that, like many other Canadians, I am
concerned that our system does not take seriously individuals who
have shown an inclination or a pattern for this kind of serious
sexual assault against an adult or children and does not incarcerate
or force them into treatment to make sure these situations do not
arise again.
The motion is putting into place that those individuals after
being convicted of those crimes must be seen by psychiatrists who
would determine whether the individual is likely to reoffend.
3891
After that determination has been made by the psychiatrists,
who are really the only people who have the tools to make that
kind of assessment, it forces the courts to look at a dangerous
offender application. They do not have to declare them dangerous
offenders, but simply that the courts have to determine whether
the individual is a dangerous offender.
We are not at all taking it out of the judicial system. We are not
suggesting psychiatrists replace the judicial process. We are
suggesting that because of past experience of people slipping
through the system it is important to eliminate those areas where an
individual may not be identified. We are talking about preventive
measures, changing our laws in such a way that the emphasis is put
on early identification of pedophiles and psychopaths, people who
are likely to reoffend, and to deal with with them in a direct,
upright and serious way.
If my colleagues in the House are really concerned about the
protection of women and children, as the red book promised, and if
they are really concerned about the safety of Canadians on the
streets and in their homes and about the commitment to protect
society from predators who do not hesitate to use children as their
victims or intimidate and threaten women, I urge them all to
support Motion No. 116 and show Canadians the House is prepared
to do something to ensure the safety of all Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the
question on the motion is deemed to have been put, a recorded
division deemed to have been demanded and deferred until
Tuesday, June 18 at 5.30 p.m.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The House stands adjourned until Monday, June 17 at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 1.45 p.m.)