CONTENTS
Monday, March 10, 1997
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8828
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8831
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8832
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8832
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8836
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8836
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8837
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8837
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8838
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8838
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8838
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8838
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 8839
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8840
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 8841
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8842
Bill C-381. Motions for introduction and first readingagreed to. 8842
Motion for concurrence in 58th report 8843
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8843
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 8844
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8852
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8858
Division on amendment deferred 8868
8805
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 10, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: I have received notice from the hon. member for
Mount Royal that she is unable to move her motion during private
members' hour. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of
positions in the order of precedence.
Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of
business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private
members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue
with the business before it.
Today is a supply day and I would encourage all members to
refrain from using props in any way. I leave that just where it is.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to
reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the
victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a
consequence, this House urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to those
families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am please to stand this morning to speak
to this motion. Tomorrow in a B.C. courtroom a drama begins,
initiated by one of Canada's most sadistic and despicable
criminals, a drama that will rekindle the pain, horror and anguish of
the 11 families whose children fell victim to mass murderer
Clifford Olson.
The legal base for this horrifying drama has been created and
sustained by the bleeding hearts who have controlled the Liberal
and Tory governments for the past 20 years. That legal base is
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
These bleeding hearts believe that a mass murderer like Clifford
Olson should have a legal base to seek a reduction in his penalty for
kidnapping, raping and murdering 11 little children.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code is irrefutable proof of the
existence of that belief in the Liberal Party, the Tory Party, the NDP
and the Bloc.
These bleeding hearts, supported by a host of judges, crown
prosecutors, defence lawyers and touchy-feely groups, insist that
Clifford Olson have this right in spite of the horror and terror Olson
created in the minds of 11 innocent little victims as he savaged
them in the pursuit of his own sexual lust and then murdered them
after his lust was spent.
These bleeding hearts insist that Olson have this right in spite of
the feelings of terror and horror suffered by the parents and
families over the loss of their innocent little sons and daughters and
the fact that these families will have to relive these feelings all
because of the simplistic thinking of those who man our
institutions of government and the clinging vines who suck their
sustenance off a sick and pathetic justice system.
Compare the pain, the agony and the loss suffered by the victims
and their families with that of a life term for Clifford Olson. He
lives safe and secure. He does not have to work. He has the best
food. His medical needs are provided. He has a coloured television.
He has the right to vote and to initiate lawsuits over the most
frivolous of matters, all at taxpayer expense. Now he has the right
to appeal for a reduction of his parole ineligibility while taking the
families of his victims through hell one more time.
These are the gifts of the bleeding hearts to Clifford Olson.
These are the gifts to Clifford Olson from the Prime Minister of
Canada and his Liberal government, from the Tory Party, the NDP
and the Bloc, from the bleeding hearts in our court system and from
the touchy-feely groups of society.
While providing all these gifts to Clifford Olson, what do the
Prime Minister and the rest of them have to say to the families of
his victims? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
I am splitting my time with the member for Edmonton
Southwest. I will therefore be speaking for approximately 10
minutes.
I have repeatedly stood in this House, as have my colleagues,
and asked one simple question, a question the justice minister, the
8806
Prime Minister and the rest of the bleeding hearts refuse to answer.
What is a fair and just penalty for the taking of an innocent life?
Their silence to this question is their answer. They believe an
innocent life is worth only 15 years imprisonment while their
murderers are extended every right and privilege.
(1110 )
On February 24, 1976 the Liberal government introduced Bill
C-84 to abolish the death penalty and to create two new categories
of murder, first and second degree murder, both of which carried a
minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
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 for life of those who deliberately and premeditatedly
killed, with no consideration for parole until a minimum of 25
years had been served.
However, unbeknownst to Canadians the Liberal government
betrayed them by slipping section 745 into the Criminal Code.
Section 745 nullifies the term life imprisonment and bestows on
killers an unjustifiable right to early release before serving a
minimum of 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 this has on
society.
The Liberal government's Bill C-45 was nothing more than a
meagre attempt by the justice minister and his government to sugar
coat those repulsive provisions of the Criminal Code for reasons of
political expediency. In doing so the justice minister violated his
own promise to the Canadian Police Association wherein he had
agreed to do business with it to support its position to remove
section 745 in return for its support of this ill conceived and useless
firearms control bill.
The Canadian Police Association learned from this experience
that it cannot trust this justice minister or the Prime Minister.
I am not just expressing my view on section 745. This view is
shared by victims' groups and countless Canadians across the
country. Bill C-45 may delay but it will not prevent killers from
getting a judicial review and ultimately a reduction in their parole
ineligibility. Bill C-45 and a review of a killer's application by a
judge does nothing but add an expensive layer of bureaucracy to
our growing criminal justice industry. This will add to Canadians'
financial strain and undermine their personal security.
The minister's June 11 introduction of Bill C-45, just 10 days
before the House recessed for the summer, was nothing more than a
half baked attempt to deflect criticism for not preventing Clifford
Olson from once again making headlines despite the fact he had
almost three years and ample support to do something about
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The justice minister's efforts to limit child serial killer Clifford
Olson's bid for early release failed. And to the horror of all
Canadians who have shared the pain of the Rosenfeldts and the
other 10 families whose children were brutally ripped from their
lives, on August 12, 1996 Clifford Olson was eligible for apply for
early release.
On March 11, tomorrow, the initial process of Olson's
application for early release begins, much to the horror of not only
his victims' families but to the horror of all Canadian citizens.
March 11 will truly be a day of national disgrace. For the Liberal
government to have turned its back on the families of Olson's
victims, for the Liberal government not to have done everything
within its power to prevent their anguish from festering more and
more is absolutely appalling.
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 possibility that these killers will be released from prison early.
Every time Clifford Olson exercises his right, courtesy of the
past and present government, to seek early release all Canadians
visualize the pain and suffering his murder victims endured.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code demeans the value of human
life. The Liberal government's refusal to eliminate section 745
clearly demonstrates the value it places on the lives of Canadians.
The Liberal government, as well as the Bloc, believes the lives of
our children and grandchildren are worth only 15 years.
I suggest that if the Liberal justice minister asked Canadians to
place a value on the lives of their children, overwhelmingly their
response would be life imprisonment or capital punishment.
I implore the Liberal government to repeal section 745 of the
Criminal Code. I implore the government to validate immediately
the lives of all Canadians by making these cold blooded killers who
would take a life serve a true life sentence or grant the people of
Canada a binding referendum on the return of capital punishment.
(1115)
If my appeal to the government is in vain and if the appeals of
the families of murder victims fall on deaf ears, as they have in the
past, then I make a commitment to all Canadians today. There will
be a federal election soon. A Reform government will remove
section 745 from the Criminal Code in its entirety. Then first
degree murderers like Clifford Olson will serve their full life
sentences. In addition, we will grant the people of Canada a
8807
binding referendum on the return of capital punishment for first
degree murder.
I make this commitment today in the memory of Christine,
Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun,
Terry Lyn and Louise, all who died horribly at the hands of Clifford
Olson. I make this commitment to their families and to the memory
of all murder victims, and to their families and to the citizens of the
country. A Reform government will repeal this obnoxious and
reprehensible portion of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great interest to the member's comments. Could the member for
Crowfoot tell us how a Reform government would go about
amending the Constitution in a way which would have the effect of
removing section 745 and which would affect Clifford Olson's
situation?
Surely the member is aware that this provision has been in the
Criminal Code for some time now. This is a vested right under the
law of this land which people have. I suggest to the member that in
playing with people's emotions in this way, by attacking the law, he
is being rather irresponsible. He knows, or he ought to know, that
this is not a matter that could be removed in this case without a
constitutional amendment. He knows or ought to know that no one
on this side of the House has any brief for Clifford Olson. Everyone
despises everything he did and everything he stands for.
Surely the member believes in a certain amount of respect for
law. Surely he believes that we do not live-
Mr. Hermanson: The law is wrong and we are trying to change
it.
Mr. Graham: He spoke of living in a lawful society. He has
trouble with gun control. After all it is guns that allow murderers to
do their dirty work. This does not seem to bother him. It also does
not seem to bother him to and suggest that a Reform government
could wipe out the effect of section 745 while he fails to recognize
this is a legal matter of great complexity which must be addressed
properly. If he were honest in his speech he would address it now.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to my colleague's
suggestion that I am less than honest. That is simply not true. That
is a false statement, if what he has suggested is that I am not honest.
I am honest and I am reflecting the honest and sincere concerns of
the families of victims of crime.
He touched on an important point, the retroactive power of any
government to remove the parole ineligibility section from the
Criminal Code. We have researched this topic. Our legal
researchers and others have indicated there is a question of the
constitutionality of the powers of the federal government to
remove the rights of Clifford Olson and others. It is a constitutional
question.
The government, supported by the member opposite, has passed
other bills which have been challenged constitutionally. It is being
done today. Why not err on the side of the victims and the families?
Why is this member prepared to support the government in putting
those families through hell one more time, of having the horror and
the terror reawakened one more time?
(1120 )
Why do we not think about the victims and their families more
than granting privileges like the right to vote, like the right to sue
and now the right to appeal a life sentence after serving only 15
years?
I ask this member to look at his own conscience and justify what
he is saying to the families of the victims that have been raped and
murdered by Clifford Olson. What would he say to them and what
would he say to Clifford Olson? I know what he would say to
Clifford Olson: ``Here's your gift. This is your gift from the Liberal
government. We will not try to protect the families from the
rekindling of their fear, horror and agony''.
That is what this member is saying. ``We will not try that. Why?
Because we are afraid of a constitutional challenge''. But he is not
afraid of a constitutional challenge in things like the Pearson
airport bill that went through this House. No.
I find behind his comments a charade that is disgusting and
reprehensible to the people of Canada who are concerned about
causing the families to live one more time through that kind of
agony and pain. Why do we not balance the law so that reasonable
rights are granted the accused, but at the same time ensure that the
families are not subjected to relieving their terror, not only this
time at the hands of Clifford Olson, but if he is turned down he will
be able to appeal again, and again and again.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too find the question from the last member on the other
side of the House quite unbelievable. I would like to ask a very
straightforward question of the hon. member for Crowfoot-
The Deputy Speaker: I guess the hon. member did not hear that
the five minutes questions and comments has ended. We are now
back on debate. The hon. member indicated that he was splitting
his time with the hon. member Edmonton Southwest.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I apologize to the House. I was under the impression that I
would be following my Bloc colleague.
This debate brings to mind just about the very first comment that
I made in the House. I recall it very specifically. I had been in the
House and spoken once or twice before. I commented on something
that had taken place when the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
who had been the solicitor general at the time, was involved.
8808
When I made my statement he looked up at me and then after
I had finished he rose on a point of order and said that was not
the case, that he had taken part in the debate and that I was
misquoting him. I apologized to the House and to the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I believe now that he is no longer a sitting
member I may name him. We all know that I am talking about
the former solicitor general Warren Allmand. I am glad that I did
apologize for what he felt was misrepresenting him. Although we
come from different planets as far as our approach to criminal
justice affairs are concerned, I came to know him over the
succeeding couple of years as a very fine individual.
We may not have agreed on very many things as far as criminal
justice affairs are concerned, but we found that we could
honourably disagree and respect and like each other, even though
we did not sing from the same song sheet.
Section 745 came about as a direct result of the abolition of
capital punishment. The abolition of capital punishment came
about, as members know, because it was considered that there were
two standards of justice in our country. It was considered by many
in the civilized world as barbaric and that capital punishment in the
name of the state was still murder. It really puzzles me how the
same people who can be violently against capital punishment can
be at the same time in favour of abortion but that is a whole other
story.
(1125)
Another major concern with capital punishment is that from time
to time the state makes mistakes. That is evidenced by what is
going on now in Ontario with the Morin inquiry. The criminal
justice system has becomes more capable of making scientific
evidence available that will-I am talking now about DNA
evidence-conclusively prove that someone was not involved.
When we look back at what could have been a mistake in the name
of the state we have to say we are glad we do not have capital
punishment.
Opposition to capital punishment comes from the notion that in
our society it is better that a thousand people go free than one
innocent person be convicted. And carrying that to an extreme, it is
better that the benefit of the doubt stay with the potential victim of
the state so that an innocent person will not be punished. That is
really the bottom line and basis of our jurisprudence, our criminal
justice system, of our common law, that came to us over 800 or 900
hundred years ago and has stood us very well.
The quid pro quo for Canadians concerning capital punishment
is that people who are convicted of capital offences will be in
prison for 25 years, not for 15 years or not for 10 years. The quid
pro quo to get rid of capital punishment was if someone, having
committed first degree murder-we are not talking about
manslaughter here, we are talking about premeditated murder as a
capital offence-would find themselves in jail for 25 years. The
maxim used all the time is ``if you cannot stand the time don't do
the crime''.
Our society says that at minimum people convicted of capital
offences will be imprisoned for 25 years. That brings me back to
the ex-hon. member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Warren Allmand.
When he was the solicitor general he stated, I will paraphrase but at
the time I quoted from Hansard that ``from this day forward the
raison d'être, the reason of our criminal justice system, will be
rehabilitation. It will not be the protection of society,'' which it had
been up until that time. It was going to be from this day forward in
Canada rehabilitation of the criminal.
That is not all wrong. It makes sense because the recidivism rate,
the rate at which criminals would find themselves out of jail, back
in jail, as everyone knows is just like a revolving door. It makes
sense to try to stop this never ending revolving door of people
getting into trouble and then back into jail, getting out and then
going back in. The only way that we can possibly stop this is by
rehabilitation. The notion of rehabilitation just makes eminent
sense.
However, as it often is, when the pendulum swings it tends to
swing too far. In my opinion and in the opinion of many the
pendulum has swung far too far in favour of the rights of the
criminals. It needs to swing the other way to give balance to the
rights of victims.
When we are talking specifically about section 745 which is the
so-called faint hope clause, we have to ask ourselves who should
have the faint hope? How is society best served? Are we serving
society by saying to everyone who commits a crime, as Edward
Greenspan, the famous criminal defence attorney, has said, that a
person's future should not be determined by one horrific event, no
matter how horrific that event was? The idea is that everyone is
deserved of a future and the opportunity to right a wrong, and that
we as individuals should not be known forever because of the
results of one mistake, no matter how horrific.
(1130)
On the other side of the coin, how is society to be protected if we
do not hold people accountable and responsible for what they do?
Our society has decided against the death penalty. Many people
including myself believe that the death penalty is horrific and
should not to be done in the name of the state. How are we to
protect innocent victims? The only way is to ensure that before
people commit a crime they understand the time that is involved.
Before people make a decision to commit a crime they should
understand they will be held accountable. To take another person's
life in a premeditated first degree murder will result in 25 years
behind bars, period, with no hope of parole. If they do their time
properly in the future they will be allowed to leave.
8809
In conclusion I move an amendment to the motion:
That the motion be amended by inserting the words ``and immediately'' after the
word ``formally''.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment of the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest is acceptable.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this morning, the Reform Party motion focuses attention
on the Clifford Olson case. This is a truly terrible case, and one that
does not reflect well on the Canadian justice system.
Independent of the Bloc Quebecois position with respect to the
amendments to section 745, studied here in this House when it was
Bill C-45, does the hon. member of the Reform Party agree on two
points?
Before the government's proposed amendment to section 745,
does he think that a well-informed jury would have released an
individual like Olson-assuming that there had been no changes to
section 745? On the other hand, we know that section 745 has been
modified and that the amendments to section 745 contained in Bill
C-45 do not allow multiple murderers access to a judicial review.
Does he consider that Olson is a multiple murderer and therefore,
in accordance with section 745 as modified by the government,
Olson will not be freed?
(1135)
Can the hon. member provide me with some information? In my
opinion, under section 745 as it was before, Olson would not have
been released, and the amendments made by the government will
make it even more difficult for him to obtain his release, because it
will be blocked immediately.
His case has been chosen as typical. Although I do not wish to
call them demagogues, they are coming very close to it this
morning, by naming names and bringing all that up again. I know
this is a serious matter, but could the hon. Reform member who has
just spoken clarify section 745 for me? I know that they want to
abolish it, but I am speaking of the present situation.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the fact that Clifford Olson is
subject to review now makes this a particularly timely motion. The
motion also reflects on every other section 745 review before the
courts at this time.
The point is not the process by which a murderer is able to utilize
the law. The point we are making is when will the law protect the
victims. It is not that the criminal has to go through several more
hoops and that it is more difficult to be released under the
provisions of section 745. It is that section 745 exists at all and that
it causes the victims to have to go through the judicial process one
more time to have the scab removed from the sore and to be hurt
once again. They then become the victims not only of the criminal
but of our criminal justice system.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to speak in response to the Reform Party
motion concerning section 745 of the Criminal Code.
For the information of hon. members I note that section 745 is
now section 745.6. The section has been renumbered as a result of
the coming into force of Bill C-41 on September 3, 1996.
I want to spend a few minutes explaining what section 745.6 of
the Criminal Code is all about. I fear there is still a great deal of
misunderstanding about what the section is and what the section
does.
[Translation]
Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code provides for a judicial
review of the parole ineligibility period in cases of life sentences
for those found guilty of murder or high treason.
In cases of first degree murder or high treason, the ineligibility
period is set by law at 25 years. In cases of second degree murder,
the parole ineligibility period is 10 years, unless the trial judge
orders a longer period of from 10 to 25 years. Offenders cannot
have their parole ineligibility period reviewed until they have
served at least 15 years of their sentence.
[English]
The decision in a section 745.6 review is made by a jury of
ordinary citizens drawn from the community. Under the section as
recently amended by the government, the decision to grant an
offender a reduction of his or her parole ineligibility period can
only be made by a unanimous jury. Twelve members out of twelve
must be convinced that the offender deserves a reduction in the
parole ineligibility period before the offender can apply for parole.
(1140 )
After hearing evidence called by the applicant and by the crown
attorney the jury-and not the judge or the crown attorney or the
government-decides whether or not to reduce the parole
ineligibility period. Where the jury decides not to reduce the period
it may decide when the offender may apply again if at all. In any
case it is not before another two years has been served.
In cases where the parole ineligibility period is reduced the
offender becomes eligible to apply to the National Parole Board for
parole when the parole ineligibility period as reduced by the jury is
up. The parole board then considers the case and may grant parole
in appropriate cases. In making its decision the parole board must
consider whether the offender's release would present an undue
risk to society.
8810
The decision of the parole board has nothing automatic about
it. Just because a parole ineligibility period is reduced and as a
result an application is made to the National Parole Board, it does
not mean in any way, shape or form that the applicant would get
parole.
I emphasize a point that is crucial to an accurate understanding
of the issue which may not be well understood by members of the
public. The life sentence imposed on a person convicted of murder
or high treason continues literally for the offender's entire life.
Accordingly, even in those cases where such an offender is released
on parole, offenders continue to be subject to the sentence for the
rest of their lives and can be reincarcerated or put back in prison at
any time, should they breach the conditions of release imposed by
the parole board.
I repeat. The granting of parole by the National Parole Board is
not automatic. It could and often is rejected.
I also remind hon. members of the House of the legislative
history of what is now section 745.6. As some members will recall
the section was enacted in 1976 at the time capital punishment was
abolished. At that time a 25-year parole ineligibility period was
established for first degree murder and high treason.
The section was enacted after full and vigorous review and
debate of the legislation. It was not, as some critics of the section
have suggested, slipped into the statute books by stealth as a
surprise to the unwary. It was a fundamental aspect of the
compromise reached at that time by the House on the very difficult
question of the appropriate penalty for murder. It was enacted as a
response to the recognition the 25-year parole ineligibility period
was significantly longer than murderers were then serving before
parole in cases of non-capital murder and in cases of capital murder
commuted to life. I am told it was enacted in recognition of the fact
that 25 years without eligibility for parole was and still is longer
than comparable periods in many western democratic countries.
The section was enacted to offer a degree of hope for the
rehabilitation of some convicted murderers, as a protection for
prison guards, and in recognition that in some cases the public
interest would not necessarily be served by keeping offenders in
prison beyond 15 years.
[Translation]
We all know that the public has concerns about section 745.6.
Many have called for its repeal because they were worried about
the risks this section could pose to public safety.
Others have invoked the fact that victims' families are
victimized all over again when a judicial review is held 15 years
after the trial, just when the pain of the trial is beginning to fade.
Others would like to define an appropriate minimum period of
imprisonment for the most serious crime in our Criminal Code.
I share Canadians' concern for public safety. I am also moved by
the suffering experienced by families of the victims of brutal
crimes. The prospect of again victimizing these families during a
public review before a judge and jury, when the offender has no
chance of being granted a reduction in his or her parole ineligibility
period is one of the reasons the government tabled the recent
amendments to section 745.6.
(1145)
[English]
The government has struggled long and hard with this issue. We
have listened to all those who are concerned about section 745.6
and have considered all the perspectives of those who wish to retain
the section and those who want it repealed. In the end, the
government does not support the repeal of the section. We believe
that the reasons that justified its addition to the Criminal Code in
1976 are still valid today.
The section exists to recognize the possibility that at least some
offenders can change after serving 15 years of their sentence. Our
challenge is to find a way to ensure that the provision is applied
sensibly and in a way that reflects public concerns. Indeed, that is
exactly what the government's recent amendments to section 745.6
will do.
Members of the House will know Bill C-45, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, which received royal assent on December 18, 1996
and came into force on January 9, 1997, made three significant
changes to section 745.6.
First, the amendments eliminate any possibility of judicial
review under section 745.6 for all persons who commit multiple
murders in the future. For the purposes of the amendments a
multiple murderer is anyone who murders more than one person,
whether at the same time or not, and this would include serial
murders.
Second, the amendments create a screening mechanism whereby
the chief justice of the superior court or a judge designated by the
chief justice conducts a paper review of the application to
determine if it has a reasonable prospect of success before the
application is allowed to proceed to the review jury. If the offender
cannot demonstrate that his or her application has a reasonable
chance of success, the application will be screened out by the
judge. This change applies to all offenders eligible to bring a
section 745.6 application provided they have not already brought
an application before the amendments came into force.
By introducing this screening mechanism the government has
ensured that for applications brought after January 9, 1997 the
victims' families will not be forced to relive the offence through a
8811
public hearing before the jury where the offender has no
reasonable prospect of success.
Finally, the amendments require that for all applications brought
after January 9, 1997, the review jury must be unanimous in order
to reduce the offender's parole ineligibility period. Before this
change the jury had the authority to reduce the parole ineligibility
period if two thirds of the jury or eight members out of twelve
thought it should be reduced. Now the offender will have to
convince each and every member of the jury in order to get a
reduction.
The government believes that these amendments have responded
to legitimate public concerns about the section 745.6 review
procedure while at the same time preserving the essence of the
procedure in recognition of the hope that some offenders may be
able to change after serving 15 years of their sentence. However,
the government has not been content to leave the matter there.
[Translation]
During the process of developing and passing these
amendments, it was clear to us that one of the reasons for the
public's concern with section 745.6 was that many people were
unaware of the existence of this provision. Murder victims'
families often learn of the existence of section 745.6 through the
media, several years after the trial has ended and the murderer has
been sentenced.
(1150)
This belated discovery leads to a feeling of surprise and betrayal.
This feeling of surprise and betrayal is evident among the lawyers
of many victims who appeared before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the Senate
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when
these committees were examining Bill C-45.
[English]
On February 27 the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada announced that he had written to his colleagues, the
provincial attorneys general, to ask them to issue instructions to
their crown attorneys that victims' families are to be advised of the
existence and effect of section 745.6 at the time of sentencing in all
appropriate murder cases. At that time the Minister of Justice said:
``I am asking the assistance of my provincial colleagues to ensure
that this simple and practical step is taken to respond to the
legitimate concerns of victims' families''.
This government is doing what it can to ensure that section 745.6
is applied sensibly and in a way that reflects the concerns of the
public. I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, to set out
true facts about section 745.6, about how it works and about the
recent amendments and other steps this government has taken to
respond to legitimate concerns on this matter. I hope my remarks
will help set the proper tone for a more reasoned and thoughtful
debate on this important matter of public policy.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the comments made by the Solicitor General of
Canada. He made a number of comments but overall it is very clear
that this government has no intention whatsoever to respond to the
needs of the victims, the families whose children have been
murdered that will have to go through this painful experience
again.
The solicitor general indicated that he was deeply moved by the
realization of the pain and agony that those families will have to go
through again. But he was not so deeply moved that he would be
prepared to do anything about it, which is the problem with this
government.
There have been petitions and cries from victims across this land
who have said they have done nothing to violate the law and yet
they must suffer again and again and again. Where do they stand in
the scheme of things? That is what they are asking. Why are they
not being considered? Why are members of Parliament and our
government being deeply moved but not so deeply moved that they
are prepared to lighten the burden that these victims have to carry
for the rest of their lives? Why must they have that agony
reawakened time and time again?
According to the legislation the first 15 years is the longest
period they may have in order to get over this horrible trauma. The
murderers who apply and who take the victims through that agony
again may apply within perhaps one, two or three years, certainly
before 15 years again. There is a shortening of the period even if
they are denied by the courts to have their parole ineligibility
reduced, if they are denied day parole or early parole. If the
murderer's request is rejected the victims' families will still have
to go through that kind of torment again, and this government is
unprepared to do anything about it.
Being deeply moved is cold comfort to these people who are
seeking justice, a balance in our justice system, a balance between
the punishment of a murderer and the rights of the citizens of this
country, in particular families of victims.
He suggested that this bill was broadly debated and that
Canadians knew about section 745 at the time it was placed in the
Criminal Code.
(1155 )
We had a police chief appear before the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs who said that he did not know. He was a
member of the chiefs association and they did not know. He
apologized: ``We must have been asleep at the wheel''.
There was a lack of understanding. He made reference to the fact
that the 25 year minimum that was imposed at the time capital
punishment was removed from the bill was much more time than
what was normally being served by first degree murderers. Then
8812
why was it put there in the first place? Was it put there to deceive or
dupe the public while section 745 was slid in the back door quietly,
unbeknownst even to the police chiefs?
I have listened to the hon. Solicitor General of Canada. All his
comments tell me that the government is not prepared to move, in
spite of the fact that the justice minister said to the Canadian Police
Association ``we can do business; you support our firearms
legislation and we will support your effort to remove section 745
from the Criminal Code''. That is what he said on television. That
is what we heard him say.
Members of that association are now coming to us and indicating
they were betrayed, that the justice minister did not keep his word.
That is what the people of this country are saying to us as we travel
across the land, that the government is insensitive, that it is not
hearing our cries and that it has less concern for the victim and
more concern for the rights and privileges of the murderer, just as is
being demonstrated in the drama that unfolding in a B.C.
courtroom beginning tomorrow.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the record of the House of Commons is
there for everyone to examine. It will demonstrate, if one looks
back at the period when section 745 was debated in this House, that
the bill was fully debated. It was voted on in the usual manner. It
was considered not only in the House of Commons but in the
Senate. The idea that this was brought in by stealth is totally wrong.
If somebody in a population of 20 million people did not notice
it, that is inevitable. It happens with respect to every piece of
legislation. But the original section 745 bill was fully considered
and fully debated.
I submit we have responded to concerns of victims through the
amendments to section 745 which were adopted and proclaimed in
force recently. In addition to that the attorney general has asked his
provincial counterparts to make sure that victims in cases of
murder are fully informed of the possibility of section 745
applications so this will not come as any kind of surprise.
My hon. friend is mistaken when he suggests that if an
application to reduce parole ineligibility is rejected another
application can be brought immediately. This is not the case. The
applicant has to wait several years.
I point out that this does not lead automatically to parole if the
application is successful. It is only successful if there is a decision
by a jury of ordinary Canadians. This will simply lead to the
applicant's making an earlier application to the parole board which
does not have to and does not always grant the parole application.
I realize the difficulties here. This is not an easy situation. This
motion is being brought before the House at a time when there
could well be an application with respect to a very despicable
individual, but the law is made on the basis of general application,
not simply looking at one case, no matter how difficult it is.
I suggest that this government has given great consideration to
concerns of victims in the amendments that were passed and
declared in force recently. Therefore I submit that this motion
which is votable should be rejected.
(1200)
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general has missed the point again. Whether or not
Clifford Olson is granted early release there is a hearing taking
place tomorrow on the issue. The families of those who had their
children murdered by Clifford Olson will have to go through pain
again.
I would like to ask the solicitor general a very direct,
straightforward question. I hope he will give a very direct,
straightforward answer. Have any of the changes the solicitor
general and his government put before the House since coming to
power in 1993 prevented a situation which is painful to the families
of those victims who indeed are victims themselves? Have any of
the changes made it so that they would not have to go through the
pain of Clifford Olson having a hearing for early release?
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows as well as
anybody that the bill is not retroactive and does not apply to
Clifford Olson. It was our intention to have it apply retroactively. I
hope the Bloc will correct me if I am wrong. If there had been more
co-operation from the Bloc the bill might well have covered the
Clifford Olson situation but it did not turn out to be the case.
However the bill as amended will speak from and after the
beginning of this year. It will make it less likely that victims will
have the emotional and mental strain my hon. friend is speaking of
because of the need for screening by a judge before an application
can proceed, because it does not apply to serial murderers and
because any decision will have to be unanimous. We are taking
steps to help prevent the type of concern my hon. friend is talking
about in future.
Unfortunately for reasons we well know the bill is not
retroactive, but as I have said before and as difficult as it is when
we are making public policy we are dealing with the best interest of
the country as a whole. We cannot base legislative decisions simply
on one case. We are taking meaningful steps to deal with the
concerns of victims in these situations.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before starting on the motion as such, I would like to say a
few words about one of the Solicitor General's comments. He said
that if the Bloc Quebecois had not delayed the passage of this bill,
8813
Mr. Olson would have been eligible, in other words, he would have
been covered by the new bill, the new section on parole.
I think the Solicitor General should consider that his government
has been in power since 1993 and should have foreseen the
eventuality of Clifford Olson applying for parole under section
745. The Bloc Quebecois cannot help it if the government was
asleep at the switch, so to speak. When the government tabled the
bill, it was already too late in the case of Mr. Olson. We tried to add
a number of amendments to make the bill more in tune with the real
situation.
Before the Solicitor General made this remark, which was both
uncalled for and unwarranted, I agreed with his comments, his
position and his explanations on Bill C-45 and the amendments to
Section 745. However, I think that this brief flash of partisanship
from the Solicitor General was unwarranted, considering that the
government was responsible for the delay, if there was any.
That being said, to be sure everyone understands what this is
about, I would like to take a few seconds to read to you the motion
tabled in the House this morning by the hon. member for Crowfoot.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to
reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the
victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a
consequence, this House urge the Liberal Government to formally apologize to those
families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
(1205)
Obviously, it is not up to me to defend the Liberal government.
However, the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with the way the
Reform motion is worded. I am not trying to defend the Liberals,
but this goes against everything we have been asking for since
1993, we, as members of the Bloc Quebecois, whose approach to
the whole area of parole, social reintegration and rehabilitation is
quite different from that of the Liberals opposite, from what we
find in English Canada, and is, above all, the exact opposite of the
Reform position.
It is appalling. If we read the motion presented by the Reform
Party, and we consider everything they ever said about capital
punishment, they are getting pretty close to crossing the line.
The message I heard from the two Reform members who spoke
this morning reflects much the same attitude that Henry VIII, the
king of England, had to his former wives and some ministers who
were not to his liking. If they made any trouble, off with their
heads! That is more or less what the Reform Party is proposing this
morning. Remove section 745, reinstate capital punishment, stop
investing in social reintegration and rehabilitation, and if someone
is too dangerous, cut off his head or hang him or send him to the
electric chair or whatever.
Wake me up! Is this Canada? This is not the philosophy that for
years parliamentarians in this House have tried to get across to the
public. Indeed, section 745 was amended somewhat and, as I said
earlier, one can either support or oppose the amendments the
government proposed. We in the Bloc Quebecois said that section
745 was more than adequate as it was worded at the time of the
amendments.
Let us have another look at a case frequently cited this morning,
that of Mr. Olson. Although, as a lawyer who has practised only
eight or nine years, I may be wrong, I am convinced that Mr. Olson
will not be granted parole under the rules of section 745, although
there are certain acquired rights.
Clearly, with section 745 and the amendments of the Liberal
government, a case like Mr. Olson's would be blocked
immediately. He would not be able to even submit an application,
or, if he did, it would be immediately blocked, and there would be
no hearing. It is even better for the extreme cases, like that of
Clifford Olson.
Do we amend the Criminal Code every time there is a case like
this? Do we amend the Criminal Code only whenever we have a
mind to, because a particular event is so distressing?
Earlier, I listened as calmly as I could to the Reform member
accusing the Bloc members and the Liberals of being bleeding
hearts, but only for murderers. This is not what we have been trying
to show since 1993. I will speak for the official opposition, I will
speak for the Bloc Quebecois, the party I represent: we are indeed
sensitive. We think we have to work toward a fairer society, one
that is free, pluralistic and tolerant and that believes in
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
We have shown in a number of bills that we should educate not
pummel society's deviants. Perhaps we should find out why they
behaved the way they did.
When we look around the world, we see violence in society. We
turn on the television and what do we see? Violence. Some toys
encourage violence, even toys for children two, three or four years
old: ``Bonk your troll on the head, if you want to make him happy.
Do not feed him, if you want something else to happen''. We can
start with these problems first, that is, we can look for a way to stop
violence before it starts. As far as this whole issue is concerned, it
takes time to find a happy medium.
(1210)
As it stands, I think that section 745 was a compromise, which
was how it came to be. The Solicitor General referred to that just
now. This measure was introduced around 1976 under the Trudeau
government, when the death penalty was abolished. This measure
was introduced late in the debate in order to ensure a parliamentary
majority in favour of abolishing the death penalty.
8814
Much was said on this issue, and I imagine that Reform
members, if they had been around at the time, would have been
on the side of retaining the death penalty. Section 745 was aimed
at obtaining the approval of the highest possible number of MPs
in order to obtain the desired changes.
Section 745 was already an improvement. If memory serves, the
average length of the sentence served by those found guilty of first
or second degree murder was 13 years. With the introduction of
section 745, prisoners had to serve 25 years, with the possibility of
a judicial review still being referred to as the faint hope clause.
There was indeed such a possibility, but inmates had to meet a
whole series of conditions before obtaining their release.
Section 745 may have had its shortcomings, but if we look at the
cases of people who made use of it, before the government's
modifications, the results were not so catastrophic. I will give a few
statistics.
As of December 31, 1995, before the government amendments,
175 inmates were eligible to apply for a judicial review. Of that
175, 76 had done so, and 13 of the applications were still pending.
Of the 63 applications that had been processed, 39 inmates were
granted a reduction in their parole ineligibility period but there
were no immediate releases. As of December 31, 1995, there had
been only one repeat offence, an armed robbery, by a person who
had obtained a reduction.
You will say that even one repeat offender is too many. That is
true, but that is still a pretty good batting average. I am not saying
that nothing at all ought to be done. That is not what I am saying.
We ought perhaps to start with the existing system, and look for
alternative solutions. Is throwing prisoners into jail for the rest of
their lives without any possibility of release, even after 25 years, a
solution? I do not think so. I think this is going to extremes.
In spite of what people were saying and the position taken by a
number of legal experts, the government decided to introduce an
amendment. Perhaps under pressure from Reform members, who
were asking questions daily about repealing section 745. So what
has actually changed since the Liberals amended section 745 under
pressure from certain people in the field but especially from the
Reform Party?
The solicitor general was quite specific in this respect. I will not
go into every comment he made on section 745.6, but roughly, as a
result of the legislative amendments to this section, the two-thirds
of the jury rule will no longer apply. In the past, someone who
applied for parole had to convince two thirds of the jurors to obtain
permission to apply for a reduction in the number of years of
ineligibility for parole. This rule has now been changed. The jury
must be unanimous.
The government is more or less doing what the Reform Party
wanted to do. It did not repeal section 745, but the obligation to get
a unanimous determination from the jury will make it very difficult
to implement this provision. If a jury member does not like the look
of the guy who is applying for parole, that individual will not get
his parole.
(1215)
The other aspect that was significantly changed, and in a case
like Mr. Olson's, it would automatically be blocked, is the
application for judicial review. It would be blocked altogether for
perpetrators of multiple murders.
Third, a selection mechanism is created under which the chief
justice of the Superior Court or a designated judge will have to
determine, on the basis of written submissions, whether the
applicant has a reasonable chance of having his application
accepted by a jury.
If we add up the three criteria I just mentioned, one after the
other, the individual will have to appear before a judge, the chief
justice of the Superior Court or a designated judge, make his
application, and then the judge determines whether or not he would
have a chance before a well-informed jury of obtaining what he
wants in his application for parole. If the answer is yes, he submits
this to another judge who, assisted by a jury, will consider whether
the individual's application should be accepted or not. Here, the
jury must be unanimous.
All this applies to murderers who did not commit multiple
murders. The government says: ``No, we must keep section 745''.
Otherwise it would be like siding with the Reform Party or caving
in to the Reform Party's demands. But on the other hand, it has put
in so many criteria-the Bloc Quebecois was against this to start
with-that it is tantamount to repealing the section, since after this
screening process, nothing much will happen. In the end, there is
practically no hope of obtaining anything under section 745.6.
We said that, after 20 years, and I will conclude with this point,
because section 745 had already existed for 20 years, it was normal
to take a little time to consider and review proposals, but it was
most definitely out of the question to use the particular case before
us, that of Clifford Olson, as a starting point. It was absolutely out
of the question to start with such a distressing case, one in which
children are involved, to try to amend the Criminal Code. There is
perhaps a problem, but it is a problem inherent in the parole
system.
Instead of going for piecemeal amendments-trying to solve one
problem because a certain person is applying for parole, trying to
fix something else because of pressure from English Canada and
trying to correct some other problem because the maritimes are
putting on a bit of pressure-why not look at the whole issue of
parole?
Not all those in favour of a revision of the parole system are
fanatics and extremists. In Quebec, we have cases, very sincere
ones, where, for example, a father is even prepared to undertake
studies and try to come up with a way for murderers to be taken
8815
under the wing of the community and for them to be reintegrated as
quickly as possible.
These people have a problem. You do not kill 11 people in a row
for the pleasure of it. They certainly have a problem. We should
perhaps be looking for the cause of the problem and see whether we
can find a solution to prevent such things from recurring.
We will not solve the problem by trying to expand on one case
and frightening people. I am not saying this debate is not
important. I do think, however, that we are not in the right place. It
is more the job of a commission of inquiry, of a parliamentary
commission, to look at the problem in its entirety and review the
entire parole process, including section 745.
We could really debate the facts, with precise figures in hand and
not with the tabloids, the rags that give their readers far more than
they could ever want in an effort to sell papers. We could have the
figures, the exact statistics. People who have regrettably had a bad
experience could come and tell us what they really want: what
would be right and what would not be right.
It is not true to say that everything is wrong with the parole
system. Changes certainly need to be made to bring it more into
line.
(1220)
Earlier, I mentioned toys. Perhaps there are things we could do
as part of an overall assessment of this problem. The legislator
could make some changes, regulate certain things that are the
source of the problem. To do so, however, the matter has to be
looked at very seriously. It cannot be done simply on a whim. We
must not speak with our hearts alone on the atrocities we see in the
papers.
It is easy to do so, and perhaps it pays off politically. I do not
know whether it pays off in English Canada, but I do not think that
it helps the cause at all and it does not lead to a fair balance in
society, when the government takes it into its head to attempt to
move the Criminal Code always a little more to the right.
That said, you will understand why I am totally opposed to the
motion tabled this morning by the Reform Party.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member
for Berthier-Montcalm would pay a little more attention to
Reform members when they are speaking. Had he been paying
attention he would have noticed that of the two Reformers who
have spoken so far this morning one wishes the reinstatement of the
death penalty. The other one wants its continued abolition. This is a
50:50 split between the two speakers. However they both agree
strongly, and I agree, that section 745.6 is an abomination. It is
unfit to serve the criminal law of a country that values decency.
The hon. member seems to have missed the point of the motion.
We have debated the issue on two occasions in the House. We have
debated it when a private member's bill came forward to abolish
section 745. We debated it again in conjunction with Bill C-45. In
both those cases arguments were very wide ranging. Reference was
made to dozens and dozens of specific cases where section 745
allowed the most despicable of individuals to apply for parole and
ultimately get it.
Of the 43 who applied prior to 1994, 15 were granted immediate
parole after application. Let us not hear this nonsense about it being
a faint hope clause. It is a pretty good piece of hope if anyone asks
me.
What we are debating today refers specifically to the Clifford
Olson case. We are debating it from the point of view of the
families of that monster's 11 victims that are being dragged
through all this muck and mire again for no good purpose.
We know the man will not get out of jail, but why does the
system allow him to make the application? Why can he twist the
justice system to his own ends and get a bit of publicity?
Apparently he has an ego as big as a house. At the same time the
unfortunate family members have to relive the horror again. If he
does not get a review this time he will be able to appeal regardless
of what the solicitor general said.
There has already been an instance of a murderer who applied
for a review that was refused. He was allowed to appeal. We are not
talking about oddities. We are talking about real people and real
things that happen to real people.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, when I hear the statistics being
cited by members of the Reform Party, I am convinced we must
take a very serious look at this issue, with accurate statistics to
hand.
(1225)
I do not wish to question the hon. member's figures; I myself
have figures provided by Statistics Canada, and I think they are as
reliable as his. And they do not point to nearly as many parole
applications as the Reform Party member mentioned.
In Manitoba, four offenders obtained a partial reduction. One
was turned down completely; a grand total of five offenders
applied, in 1995, under section 745 as it then stood. In
Saskatchewan, two offenders obtained a partial reduction, while
another was turned down. A grand total of three offenders and
murderers applied under section 745. The only province where
there were more than seven people was Quebec, with 28; two were
turned down.
8816
Earlier, I mentioned cases of recidivism for 1995; there was one.
That is already too many, you will say, but there was only one.
That is the first thing I notice about the Reform Party, which does
not seem to have the same figures we do. Perhaps we will have
to sit down at some point and compare our figures and particularly
our sources.
The second thing is that, if the Reform Party took the trouble to
read the amendments introduced by the government, it would
understand why we were against these amendments. The reason is
that, for all practical purposes, the Liberal government's
amendments are almost the same as what the Reform Party is
calling for, which is the repeal of section 745.
Section 745.6 imposes so many criteria that, when all is said and
done, almost nobody will be eligible.
The last point I would make to my hon. colleague in the Reform
Party is that I read the opposition's motion very carefully and that
is why I oppose it. I also listened very carefully to the two Reform
Party members who spoke before me, and this only strengthens my
resolve to oppose the Reform Party's motion.
This motion calls on the Liberal government to formally
apologize to families for repeatedly refusing to repeal this section.
This is the same Reform Party the great majority of whose
members refused their support on a number of occasions, when the
Bloc Quebecois merely asked the House to recognize that Louis
Riel had been wrongfully executed. We were not asking for public
apologies or anything like that. We were asking for recognition that
Louis Riel was fighting for democracy and freedom and calling for
responsible government. The Reform Party members would not
give their support.
Now they go all teary eyed on us and move a motion completely
divorced from reality. They do not take the time to look at what is
really happening. They do not give the right figures in the House;
in any event, I have my doubts about their figures, and we are at
cross purposes.
I can assure the hon. member of the Reform Party that, before
taking a position, I read his motion very carefully, that I listened
with what for me was unusual calm to the discourse of the Reform
Party members, and I have reached the conclusion that my position,
the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which opposes this motion, is
the right one.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There are approximately two minutes
remaining with half going to the member for Crowfoot and the
other half to the time member responding.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be as
brief as I can.
Bill C-45 was the justice minister's bill that tinkered with
section 745 of the Criminal Code. We opposed it from the
beginning. We voted against it but we would not delay it. When a
representative of the government approached our caucus to ask us
to allow the bill to go through before the summer recess without
any delay tactics, we said certainly we oppose the bill and will vote
against it.
If the bill had gone through before the summer recess and were
passed by the Senate before August 11, 1996, Clifford Olson would
have had to appear before a Federal Court judge. The families of
his victims would have been screened. The judge would have made
a decision on whether or not he had a likelihood of succeeding and
could have stopped his application there.
However it was the Bloc that refused to allow the bill to go
through before the summer recess and allow Clifford Olson his full
court press before a judge and jury. That is the reason Clifford
Olson is now making his application for that full court press before
a judge and jury.
(1230)
I have listened to the Bloc members, as I listened to their
previous speeches on Bill C-45. I would ask the hon. member what
is a fair and just penalty in his mind. I hope he will answer that
question. Those who have been asked that question before have not
answered it. What is a fair and just penalty for the taking of an
innocent life, the premeditated murder of an innocent person? Is it
15 years? Is it 25 years? What is it? What value does the hon.
member place on the life of an innocent human being?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on two
things before I answer the hon. member's last question.
First of all, I believe that if the Reform Party member found that
the government was not moving fast enough with the desirable
amendments to section 745, under British parliamentary rules he
would have been free to table a private member's bill in this House
to amend that section. He could have done so as far back as 1993.
We must conclude, therefore, that the hon. member from the
Reform Party was asleep at the switch, dozing along with the
Liberals perhaps, and did not table any modifications at the
appropriate time.
Second, judging by the comments made by the Reform Party
member, it can be demonstrated to all Canadians that the Senate is
pointless. This we demonstrate daily, I think, but he is the one who
has just demonstrated that we could very easily do without the
Senate, since the time taken for examination in the Senate is time
wasted. If there were no Senate, Bill C-45 could have been adopted
faster and royal assent could have been obtained more quickly, so
that it could have taken effect much earlier. In a brief aside, we are
8817
certainly in agreement with abolition of the Senate; it is of no use
and costs the taxpayer a fortune.
In addition, the hon. member of the Reform Party is asking me a
highly complex question: What is a fair prison sentence, and do I
think a human life is important? Certainly, a human life is
important to me, but it is equally important to determine what a fair
sentence is, and this is not something that can be answered quickly
off the top of one's head.
One thing is certain, I am opposed to the principle of an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth, for this is not the kind of society we live
in. When someone is appointed to the bench, it is because he or she
has the capacity to examine the case, taking into account the facts,
the murderer's background, and a number of other elements, in
order to find the fairest sentence. If someone is sentenced to 25
years, but allowed to apply for judicial review under section 745, I
think that is starting to be fair. I could have said more, but I see that
I am out of time.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Vegreville.
It is sad that a motion such as this is necessary. It is also sad to
listen to members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party
drum up every imaginable excuse as to why this motion is
unnecessary. The latest excuse made by the Bloc Quebecois is that
because its private member's bill on Louis Riel was not supported,
it cannot support a Reform Party motion.
We are talking about real live families having to suffer through
the indignity of having all the facts dragged back into a court where
they can be cross-examined by the murderer himself. It is
disgusting that we even have to discuss these facts today.
(1235 )
I would like to know how anyone in this House cannot support
this motion today. The motion states that this House recognize that
the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain
and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the
victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal
Code. That is the first part of this motion.
How can the government not admit that is true? Tomorrow is a
sad day, a national day of disgrace that Clifford Robert Olson will
be on a telephone pleading his case that he should be released early
because he has done enough time, 15 years, and he should be
released early from his life sentence and is that not a good idea.
It is an absolute fact that the families of these murder victims are
going to have to relive that whole incident because this government
has not cancelled the provisions of section 745. The first part of
this motion is absolutely true in every way, shape and form.
Clifford Olson pleaded guilty to these 11 murders. He has
received a life sentence. He is in there for at least 25 years. We all
know and all hope and pray that he will be in there for life at the
very least.
Even after all the tragedy that went on, even though the
government paid $100,000 to find out where all the victims' bodies
were, even though he got 25 years instead of, as many people
would argue, an exchange of his life for having taken so many
lives, even after all of that and he is in jail where at the very
minimum he should be, what has happened? He is now before these
victims' families saying that he should be let off early.
He will be on a speaker phone from the Prince Albert
penitentiary in Saskatchewan. If the hearing takes place he will be
transported to Vancouver at taxpayer expense for the hearing where
he will interrogate the families of his victims, probably later this
summer if that goes ahead.
Unbelievably section 745 allows guys like Clifford Olson to
cross-examine the families of his victims because probably he is
going to be acting on behalf of himself as his own lawyer. We can
imagine what that is going to mean. As in the first part of this
motion, is it true that they are going to have to relive the pain and
fear of their experience? It is absolutely true. It is a disgrace but it
is true.
The second part of this motion states that this whole thing is
allowed because under section 745 of the Criminal Code the
Minister of Justice has not deemed it necessary to disallow it.
As the Canadian Police Association, CAVEAT and other
victims' rights groups have, we have supported the repeal of
section 745. There has been a groundswell of support for that
across the land.
When the member for York-South Weston brought forward a
private member's bill to repeal section 745, we supported it. We
supported him in committee. We supported that the bill come back
from committee earlier. We have tried to get it back in the House
for resolution. As the member for Crowfoot has mentioned, we
even agreed to hurry some legislation that was otherwise
ineffective through the House of Commons in order to specifically
cut Olson off at the pass, so that he could not get in there and grill
his own victims' families. We specifically did all of that.
What is going to happen? Because the minister will not deal with
this the Liberal government is going to allow this to take place.
This tragedy is going to start tomorrow.
How about an apology, something that the ethics counsellor
could possibly teach the guys across the way? How about an
apology to the families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section
8818
745? That is a small thing to do. Again, when we are looking at the
very least, and we do not expect a lot more when it comes to justice
issues from Liberals, but at the very least they could apologize for
what these families are going to have to go through.
The names on this ribbon that many of us are wearing today are
the names of the victims of that animal some years ago. The
families of those people are now going to have to relive the entire
horrible incident from beginning to end because of this
government's inaction.
It has already been mentioned that of the 43 murderers who have
applied for early release under section 745, 70 per cent of them
were successful and some who were not will be allowed to reapply
in three to four years.
(1240)
It is disgusting that is taking place. Furthermore, we now have a
double standard. Those who are convicted of multiple murders will
not be allowed but a single murderer can get away with that and
apply for early parole. It is a special status for single murderers and
this is disgusting as well.
I want to give a couple of quotes if members are wondering why
so many people are annoyed, outraged and enraged at the justice
system. When Joanne Kaplinski's brother Ken was murdered some
years ago, her request was denied to present a victim impact
statement. At the hearing the judge said: ``The pain and anger of
the Kaplinski family has no place in this court''. Imagine an
attitude that says the family, the victims, those who live on with the
tragedy cannot give their two bits worth but the perpetrator, the
murderer, can drag up every so-called character witness to testify at
the hearing. It is truly disgusting.
I want to bring forward something I can see happening in this
upcoming campaign. In my own constituency the local Liberal
candidate, John Les, has expressed his outrage at a horrible
paedophile in our area and has suggested that this man should be
hanged for his actions. This man is truly despicable. He has been in
the national papers. He is an animal and it is a horrible thing but I
do have to ask of my running opponent: who do you think you are
running for in his upcoming election?
The Liberals will not entertain, Mr. Les, the idea that capital
punishment is a credible alternative in these justice issues. They
will not entertain it at their convention. They will not entertain it in
a free vote in the House of Commons. They will not entertain it in a
national referendum. They will not entertain it in their caucus.
They will not talk about, they will not allow it. So get used to it
because you are going to take part in and run for a party that is not
going to listen to your view.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that we have a
procedure in here where all comments are supposed to be addressed
to whomever is in the Chair and not to somebody in a riding or
somebody on the moon or anywhere else. I would ask the member
to respect that.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I only bring this up because the
candidate is going to have to explain as the candidate for the
Liberal Party the position on section 745. Does he or does he not
agree with it? Does he or does he not agree with capital punishment
provisions of the Liberal Party? Does he or does he not agree that
there should be no free votes on this in the House of Commons?
Does he or does he not agree that if he were to become a member of
the Liberal caucus that he will be silenced and sent to the back row
where he will never be heard from again? That is the tragedy of
what is going on here.
The other day I debated on ``Ottawa Inside Out'' the necessity of
having occasional referendums in Canada to consult with the
people to allow them to make the decisions on important matters
like this. The professor I was debating with said members of
Parliament should be the ones who decide these things because
they have all the education for it and they have the credentials for
it. I said in essence balderdash, that is not true. The Canadian
people on issues as important as this should be allowed to be
consulted and their word taken as the last word on an important
subject like this.
Canadians should be outraged over what is going to happen
tomorrow with Clifford Robert Olson. That is a given. Canadians
should also think in this coming election how much say do they
want to have in the future of not only the justice system but of other
important things in the Canadian political realm. Canadians should
have the right to come to the politicians and say they are going to
bypass them, they want a right to say in a referendum whether
capital punishment should be reinstated.
The Reform Party will give them that right and it is the only
party to suggest that is possible.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
very interesting debate on a very important topic. I will be speaking
on it shortly but I would like to ask the member a simple question.
It is reasonable to assume that someone who commits a crime as
heinous as Mr. Olson's is mentally ill and does not care much about
the feelings, the beliefs or the attitudes of society.
(1245)
Are we not just feeding his pathology and giving him the very
thing he wants by having this kind of debate? Are we not
reinforcing the sick, sadistic pleasure that this individual takes in
these acts? Are we not, in fact, advancing him in a kind of
disgraceful way by even putting this on the floor of the House
today? I would like the member to answer that.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it does not give me a great deal of
pleasure to talk about this prisoner in this way. In one sense, the
member is right. Every time he sees his name in print, I bet he gets
his own little set of jollies out of it.
8819
However, we have tried for three years to pre-empt this very
thing from happening. Last year we went to the minister and said
that we would quickly pass a bill that was flawed just to make
sure that the debate we are having today did not take place. That
is exactly what we were trying to do.
If I could say: ``Let's not talk about it and it won't happen,'' I
would not talk about it. I would shut up. It would go away and it
would not happen. Will it happen? You're darn tootin' it will
happen. It will happen tomorrow whether we talk about it or not.
I am saying that enough is enough on this. It is time to put a stop
to this so that the victims of Olson can heal. It is not just Olson. I
could go down a list.
Let me take a list from Ontario. In May, it will be Jeffrey Breese
and it will be the same thing. Again in May, David Dobson; in July,
Daniel Wood; in August, Fernand Robinson; in September, Terence
Cooke will be up. I have pages and pages of names of people who
will be doing the same thing as Olson from now, right through the
summer, right through the fall for the next 10 years.
Someone has pointed out that before long, it will be the next
crop, the current ugly people in the press: the Bernardos, the
Homolkas. You name them and they will be up for their next dibs.
We are trying to point out with this debate today that this thing
should have been stopped three years ago. We had a chance. We
could have done it. We could have prevented the tragedy of the
gruelling court process that these victims will have to go through. It
could have been done and we did not. It was not because the
Reform Party did not do its share of begging. We begged and
begged.
The Canadian people are saying enough of this. It should not
have happened. We could have cut it off but we have to talk about it
today. Tomorrow it will be a national story, whether the Reform
Party brings it up or not. That is the disgrace. We should not have to
talk about it. I agree with the member. We should not be talking
about it. However, it is time now to raise it so that it will not happen
again.
If the justice minister will not listen to the House surely he will
listen to the cries of millions of people in Canada who say that
section 745 needs to be repealed. Listen. Get that out of the
Criminal Code. It should never have been there to begin with.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, normally I
say when I start a speech that I am pleased to rise to debate the
issue that we are talking about but I cannot honestly say that today.
Had the government done what it should have done, what
Canadians said it should do again and again, what we have said it
should do again and again, it would not have been necessary to
have this debate. I too feel bad that it is necessary to talk about this
and to give Clifford Olson the delight that he seems to take from
being talked about and being in the media but we have to talk about
it.
We have to let the surviving victims of Clifford Olson, the
families of those killed, know that we are trying our best to do
something that will allow them, as well as they can, to put this
aside so that their lives are not totally consumed with memories,
with the thoughts, with reliving the horror that they have lived as a
result of what Clifford Olson has done. Somebody has to tell them
that they care and that they are trying to change things so they will
not have this dragged through their lives again and again.
(1250)
Unfortunately here we are. There are so many things I would like
to say on this issue but there are two things on which I am going to
focus. The first has become very obvious just from listening to this
debate so far. It is the issue of balance in the justice system, the
balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of citizens
and victims to be protected. That balance is clearly out of whack.
The second issue is in response to the solicitor general's
statement in response to my question where he dumped the blame
for Clifford Olson having the opportunity to once again present his
case on early release on the Bloc. I will deal with that issue first
because I want to be sure I have time to do that.
It is true that the Bloc did prevent the bill from going through the
normal course and it did prevent changes that would have
prevented the fiasco that will be taking place tomorrow of Clifford
Olson having a chance to apply for early release. Therefore, the
Bloc deserves some of the blame.
However, when we look at what has happened in this place again
and again, we know that we cannot allow the Liberals to dump the
blame on the Bloc. If things are looked at realistically, the
government has again and again used closure to force legislation
through the House. The latest closure was on the tobacco bill which
was supported by Reform members and most of the government
members. Yet the government saw a need to use closure and
override the democratic process to force that bill through the
House. That was last week.
The Liberal government has done this again and again. It has
often used closure to force legislation through. If closure is
something that should have been used on Bill C-68, the so-called
gun bill, then why was not this change important enough to use
closure? I am not advocating the use of closure. It should not be
used. It has been abused terribly. However, when we look at the
way the government puts legislation through the House, it is clear
8820
that it could have forced this through unamended. It has absolute
power.
We do not have democratic process in this House. For example,
about 60 Liberal MPs did their homework on the gun bill. They
talked to their constituents. They was debate. In many cases they
did surveys and found that their constituents did not want them to
support Bill C-68. How many actually at third reading voted
against the bill? I believe there were three. What happened to
them? They were thrown off their committees and punished for
doing what their constituents told them to do. That is not
democracy.
Then the Prime Minister publicly said that any government MP
who ever dared to vote against a government bill again, no matter
what their constituents want, will be punished. He will not sign
their nomination papers. Their political careers will be over. That is
the kind of power the government has. With that kind of power it
could have put the bill through in any form it wanted. Therefore,
the government cannot dump the blame on the Bloc. It cannot do
that in good conscience. The solicitor general knows that.
The second issue I want to raise is the lack of balance in the
justice system. We have a justice system that gives too high a
priority to the rights of the accused and the criminal. Their rights
are put higher than the rights of citizens and victims to feel safe and
be safe.
Since Reforms have been here we have been calling for is to
rebalance the scales of justice so that the rights of the citizens and
victims are to be protected and given a higher priority than the
rights of the accused and the rights of the criminal. We want to
rebalance the system. It is clearly needed and Canadians have been
calling for it for some time.
(1255)
If the House needs evidence that the system is out of whack, let
me use as an example one I have used many times of a women in
Montreal who was viciously raped by a criminal who was out on
early release. He had viciously attacked women before. All she
asked from the justice system was for the criminal to be forced to
give a blood sample so she could determine whether he had the
HIV virus and then should would know whether she was likely to
contract AIDS from this violent criminal. What was she told? She
was told the answer was no, because in our justice system the rights
of the criminal are placed higher than the rights of the victim. I
could cite example after example that would demonstrate this exact
point.
Why have we come to this? I can very honestly say that it is as a
result of Liberal governments over the last 30 years and
Conservative governments did not fix the problem when they were
given the time to do so.
I will paraphrase what Solicitor General Boyer said in 1972 in
Hansard: ``For too long we have put the rights of the citizens too
high''. He did not even mention the rights of victims. ``It is time
that we place as a top priority in our justice system the rights of the
criminal and the rights of the accused''. A very deliberate change
was made over the years of Liberal governments and the
Conservative governments refused to fix the broken system.
We have been calling for changes that would fix the system. It is
clearly out of balance and it must be rebalanced. At present in our
justice system, victims have virtually no rights. We have been
calling for the rights of victims to be given a higher priority than
the rights of the criminal or the rights of the accused. Certainly the
rights of the criminal and the accused are important. I want to make
it clear I recognize that. We are just looking for a better balance.
A Reform member has put before the House a victims' bill of
rights. It passed second reading but has not gone any further. It has
not become law because it has not been given a high enough
priority by the government. If it had been given a higher priority it
could have been passed by the House. It specifies their rights in our
justice system.
Some of those rights are worth noting. First, it is important to
define victim. When we talk about Clifford Olson and early release
and the hearing, the victims we are most concerned about are the
families of those who are longer with us, the children who were
murdered.
In this victims' bill of rights, a victim is defined as anyone so
suffers as a result of an offence, physical or mental injury or
economic loss or; any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the
individual against whom the offence was perpetrated or; anyone
who had an equivalent relationship, not necessarily a blood
relative''.
Then the 10 rights that the legislation will give to victims their
proper place in the justice system are:
First, to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process,
including being made aware of available victim services. In regard
to section 745 we found that many victims, the surviving families
of murdered people, had no idea that this vicious murderer would
be allowed to apply for early release after 15 years. So that is an
important one.
Second, the victim should be informed of the offender's status
throughout the process, including but not restricted to plans to
release the offender from custody.
(1300 )
Third, choose between giving oral and/or written victim impact
statements at parole hearings before sentencing and at judicial
reviews. Give the victims a say in sentencing throughout the
process.
Fourth, to know why charges are not laid if that is the decision of
the crown or the police. It seems absurd to most Canadians to know
that in many cases the victims are not even given any notice. The
other important points and rights that we would give to the victims
to help balance this justice system are written in the member's
8821
victims bill of rights which has received second reading support
from all parties in the House.
The solicitor general cannot lay the blame entirely on the Bloc
for the failure to amend section 745 in time to prevent Clifford
Olson from receiving these hearings. It is so important to rebalance
the justice system where the citizenry and the victims can have a
place of higher priority.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listen to the Reform Party members with interest as they make the
assertion over and over again that if section 745 were repealed
today, individuals who have lost loved ones through brutal and
tragic acts would somehow be spared the pain of section 745
applications.
It is the correct and predominant view of the law that even if
section 745 were repealed today it would not prevent people from
applying for a section 745 hearing. All the people currently in the
system would have that right which cannot be taken away.
Why do Reform members keep insisting and telling people that
somehow their pain will be spared when it will not be? Why do
they keep using victims in this shameless manner?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I have a different solution for not
having this thing brought up again and again so the victims,
members of the surviving families of murder victims, do not have
to feel the pain as deeply again and again. I am in favour of capital
punishment. I believe that for premeditated first degree murder we
should have capital punishment reinstated. That is the first thing. I
believe that would help to some degree, but nothing is going to ease
the pain.
This member who is a lawyer talks about the law as though the
law cannot be changed. The government seems to forget and to
hide behind the current law. It forgets that this House is exactly the
Chamber that can change the law. It astounds me that we hear again
and again that the common view of the law is this or that. We can
change the law in this House, which is exactly what should have
happened with regard to section 745. We should have changed the
law. We had the chance. The government still has the chance to do
that if it wants before the election is called. It should do that or
Canadians will make it pay the price.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to
say that I agree with the member for Vegreville on very many
occasions but I certainly agree with his opening sentiment that he
did not really wish to be participating in this debate. I think many
of us in the House share that preoccupation. This is not a debate we
wish to participate in. It is a debate, however, that has been brought
by his party and it is incumbent on us to challenge and at least look
at the real reasons behind this motion and what we should be doing
as responsible parliamentarians about it. Let me take the last matter
first.
(1305)
Many members have expressed a deep desire to see a proper
balance in criminal law, as the hon. member for Vegreville said. We
all must achieve that balance.
I am not a criminal lawyer but I had the opportunity to study
criminal law many years ago. I remember being taught that the
purpose of criminal law was threefold. First was to punish, not with
a view to punishing for the sake of punishment but with a view to
deterring crimes for the protection of society. Second was to serve
as an example. This too was for the protection of society so that
others would not follow a bad example. Third, equally important in
any civilized system, was that of rehabilitation, to rehabilitate
those people who had committed crimes. This too is in the long
term interest of society. Criminals should be rehabilitated and not
incarcerated forever at a cost to society.
The hon. member for Vegreville brought up a new preoccupation
in criminal law and one equally worthy of weight. What about the
interests of those who are victims, those who must suffer as a result
of terrible crimes such as those committed by Clifford Olson? We
owe to those people the best concern we can develop in the context
of creating a system that has integrity and guarantees a stable
criminal justice system which will achieve all the objectives I set
out at the beginning.
If we look at the history of this matter we can see that 745 was
designed to do that. Until 1976 Canada had the death penalty for
first degree murder. In 1976 Parliament abolished capital
punishment and replaced it with mandatory life sentences for high
treason, first degree murder and second degree murder. Parole
ineligibility periods were established at the same time. They were
25 years for high treason and first degree murder and 10 years for
second degree murder, with the judge having the power, after
considering any recommendation from the jury, to increase the
period up to 25 years.
[Translation]
Why did Parliament consider it was necessary to provide for a
reduction in the ineligibility period in certain circumstances? The
first reason given was that at the time the minimum sentence of 25
years was longer, and I stress the word longer, than the average
prison sentence served by murderers whose death sentence had
been commuted to life.
Until 1976, the average sentence served by these offenders
before parole was about 13 years. For non-capital murder, it was
seven years. Parliament was also aware that in other countries with
values similar to ours, the average time served before parole was
8822
15 years. Even in the United States, individuals convicted of
murder who were not executed served an average of 18 years.
Subsequently, to make the law more balanced, last January we
adopted Bill C-45. Until this bill came into force, an offender
convicted of murder could apply to the chief justice of the Superior
Court of the province in which he was convicted for a review of the
parole ineligibility period. The odious nature of the crime, the
anti-social behaviour of the murderer in prison, the fact that he was
practically certain that the period would not be reviewed, all this
did not exempt the chief justice from the obligation to empanel a
jury to hear the application.
[English]
It was exactly for that reason that the Minister of Justice
introduced Bill C-45 in June of 1996. The solicitor general
discussed with the House the background of Bill C-45 and its
important provisions. I would like to just very quickly speak to
those issues as well, to remind the House that Bill C-45, which we
recently adopted, has tightened the process in three important
ways. It has denied the application of section 745 to multiple
murderers, it has added a screening process before a convicted
murderer is allowed to apply to the chief justice for judicial review
of the ineligibility period, and it has substituted the rule of
unanimity for the rule of two-thirds decision by the jury.
(1310)
In all three areas, multiple murderers will no longer have the
benefit of this early release or even to apply for it. A screening
process for all section 745.6 applications means that before
proceeding to a hearing before a section 745.6 jury, applicants will
be required to persuade a superior court judge to whom the
application is made that the application has a reasonable prospect
of success. The screening is conducted on the basis of written
materials only in order to spare the victims' families the ordeal of
testifying in cases that are manifestly undeserving. I will come
back to that because I think that point is capital in the debate that
we are having before the House today.
Both the crown and the applicant are allowed to submit evidence
by affidavit. Where the applicant is screened out the judge may
decide whether and when the applicant may apply again but it can
never be before two years. Any subsequent application will be
again subject to the screening process.
The third point is all members of the jury must be unanimous in
their decision. Obviously a unanimous decision is much more
difficult to obtain and where the application is denied the jury may
decide if and when the applicant can apply again but under no
circumstances would an applicant be allowed to apply within two
years of the application.
Clearly it will be much more difficult to meet the requirements
of the new section 745.6 than it was before Bill C-45. It will be
more difficult to get a hearing. The hearing will be much less likely
to be successful. As a result, only successful applicants will have a
public hearing and at that point the unanimity rule will apply.
The member for Crowfoot specifically said that the reason the
hearing for Mr. Olson tomorrow is being held is precisely that Bill
C-45 did not get through this House in time to deny that hearing.
He laid the fault of that at the foot of the Bloc. That is all very well
for him to say but what he forgot was that he is basically
undermining the whole purpose of what he is standing up here
today to say. He admitted clearly before the Canadian public that in
fact if we had been able to get Bill C-45 through in time Mr. Olson
would not be having his hearing tomorrow and we would not be
having this debate.
This brings me to my question of the leaders in the Reform Party.
Why are we having this debate today? We are not having this
debate today because I, as the member for Crowfoot suggested
when he introduce his motion, when I asked him a question, was
somehow duplicitous, not interested in the true justice system and I
was some sort of evil person trying to benefit from victims. That
would be totally ridiculous.
The real people who are calling this debate today are Reformers
who clearly by the debate have demonstrated that they know that
now under Bill C-45 a type of hearing such as Mr. Olson will have
will never be held again because of the changes that have been
made. Yet they persist on crying across the House suggesting that
we are culpable and guilty of some conspiracy to do exactly what
they are doing today, which is to stir up people's emotions and
create grief for the victims.
The real crime of today's debate is that it is being held on the
backs of the victims of people like Clifford Olson to give the
Reform Party some political credo for the next election. That is the
real reason for this debate today.
It has nothing to do with the reform of the criminal justice
system. The criminal justice system has been reformed by Bill
C-45. It has been reformed by this government. It would render any
such application of Mr. Olson's tomorrow absolutely impossible.
Reformers have admitted that in the House today. Yet they chose to
bring this debate. Why did they choose to bring the debate? They
chose to bring this debate because they wish to profit from the
suffering of families of innocent victims of Clifford Olson. That
upsets me a great deal. I am shocked that is the reason for it.
(1315 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I heard
what the hon. member opposite said. I really find it offensive that
he is suggesting that Reform is trying to make political hay with
this issue. If he would look at what Reform has done and what it
has proposed on this issue since coming to Ottawa and since this
8823
party was started in 1987, he would see its members have pushed
criminal justice issues. We have pushed this issue specifically. We
have made our position clear.
The government has refused to take the tough stand that would
have prevented Clifford Olson from having his hearing tomorrow.
We are going to use that date and that event to try to force the
government to take the action it should have taken from the start.
We are using that event to help focus on this change that should
have been made. We are trying to have the change made.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question and I would like a
direct answer if I could possibly get one on this issue. In all of the
changes his government has made, has it made it so that the
families whose children have been murdered will not have to once
again deal with all of their feelings because of an event that is
allowing Clifford Olson to apply for early release? Have any of the
changes done that?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear in my
remarks that is precisely the purpose of Bill C-45. I thought that the
member for Crowfoot made it very clear in his remarks. I am sure
the member for Vegreville would agree that if Bill C-45 were
applied in this case, Mr. Olson would have applied to a judge. I
cannot believe that a judge would have granted the success of such
a hearing and of course this would not have had the terrible impact
that it is having on the victims and the families of the victims of
Clifford Olson.
I have no sympathy for Clifford Olson whatsoever. He is
repugnant in every way. I have every sympathy with the families of
his victims. I understand the terrible turmoil they are going
through. We have tried to adjust the criminal justice system in a
way to take into account that which represents the integrity of the
whole criminal justice system.
In answer to the member's question: Will the members of the
families of Clifford Olson's victims never again be troubled by this
matter? That is something that is outside of the power of the state.
It is a terrible thing for people to live through. Any of us who have
had to deal with people who have had to live through these sorts of
tragedies know there is no end to the pain and suffering one suffers
as a result of this situation.
The criminal justice system has been mended in a way to ensure
that the best possible protection for families of victims in these
circumstances. I genuinely believe that Bill C-45 does precisely
address that. We will work on it to make sure that it does address it
and it addresses it in humane and proper ways.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not answer the
question. The solicitor general earlier in response to my question
acknowledged that he had wanted to make the change that would
have prevented this hearing from ever happening. If he had wanted
it badly enough we know that he could have made it happen. The
government has forced changes through the House completely
against the will of the Bloc and Reform opposition many times.
The government could have made the changes.
Again I ask the hon. member, why did it not?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, is the member from the Reform
Party asking me why the government did not apply time allocation
to this bill?
(1320 )
I do not know that, but I find it singularly reprehensible on
behalf of the member for the Reform Party, who screams about the
use of time allocation when it is used by the government, to be
encouraging its use at this time. It reminds me of the member's
statement when he was talking about the gun control bill.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
certain that I take any pleasure in joining in today's debate because
the only person being served today is Clifford Olson and I am
deeply saddened about that.
I am a father. I come to this point in life somewhat later than
most. My children are four and two. I cannot find within myself the
ability to imagine how I would feel if my children suffered what
some of the families of the victims of Clifford Olson and some of
the others have suffered. I cannot imagine the visceral pain and
rage I would feel having been a victim to that. However, I want to
ask the members of the Reform Party to stop and think a little bit
about what they are doing.
Some years ago I was involved in a survey in the area that I now
represent, just talking about issues that were important to people,
how they felt about their community and things like that. One of
the things we noticed early on was that elderly people, particularly
elderly women, and young women, felt unsafe walking the streets.
They identified a fear of going out after dark. This surprised us
because the area that I represent and live in is a very comfortable,
respectable and quite a decent community with a very low crime
rate.
After I became the member for the area, we repeated some of
this survey just to see what was happening. We found that it had
gone up. Women were locked in their houses because they were
afraid to walk down the street in what, by any standard, is one of
the nicest residential communities in this country.
A little while ago I had dinner with the new police chief in
Winnipeg. I was talking to him about this. He pointed out that in
the last few years crime in Canada, certainly in my community, has
gone down. Instead of there being an increased reason for people to
feel unsafe in their communities there was a reduced reason.
8824
When we got into this and looked at what was happening at
home and on the streets in the southern part of Winnipeg, we found
that there was no evidence at all to support the kind of outrageous
allegations that the Reform Party brings to the House on a daily
and weekly basis. However, the people in the riding feel fear
because the chamber that they look to for some leadership or some
sense of what is happening in the country is seized ever so often
by the members of the third party talking about the most
gruesome, horrible, nasty, violent events that they can possibly
bring here, giving an illusion or a sense that we are awash in
crime.
The situation with Clifford Olson is a serious and despicable
one. I think the member for Vegreville put it very succinctly when
he made his comments to the member for Rosedale. He said: ``We
are going to use that event. We are going to attempt to profit from
the pain, the suffering and emotional feelings that circle around
someone's killing of children''. I personally feel that is wrong.
There has been a debate. A great deal of work has been done and
a great many changes made. The members know that they cannot
have the change that they want.
(1325 )
It is not that members do not want to have it happen but because
it requires a constitutional change. Despite this, the day before a
day when we will be one more time forced to be dragged through
the most unfortunate point in our history, the members choose to do
everything they can not to soften the impact on the victims but to
heighten it. It is time that we reflected on what we are here for.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I feel I
must respond to the accusations made by the hon. member who has
just spoken. He accused me, first of all, of saying that we would use
this event tomorrow, that of Clifford Olson applying for an early
release hearing, to profit. Personally, I did not say that.
I said that we would use that event to try to get this law changed
so that victims do not have to suffer through reliving crimes, these
terrible events again and again. That is what I said.
I do not think Canadians will tolerate that kind of misleading
representation. It is not something we must have. We should stick
to open, honest debate on the issues. The member has chosen not to
and that is a sad moment.
Second, the hon. member said that it would require a
constitutional change to prevent Clifford Olson from receiving his
hearing. That is a debatable point. It is not clear one way or the
other. The government, to which the hon. member is a part, has
passed legislation many times where there is real question whether
it would fit within the Constitution or not. Those members have
chosen in those cases to go ahead with the legislation anyway.
I wish the members in the House would stick to open and honest
debate. The Reform Party, in all good faith, is honestly trying to get
a change to the law that it feels should be made. Reformers feel
very strongly. We have called for that again and again in every way
we can. This is one more way.
We will keep calling for that change until the government either
makes it or until we become government and we make it. It is a
change that has to be made. I want to make those comments. I
really do not think there was anything in the member's comments
that warrants a question.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I wrote down the quote as the member
was speaking when he was asking the question of the member for
Rosedale. He said: ``We are going to use this event''. He said it
two, three times. The whip for his party talked about how they were
going to take advantage of this event because of what was going to
happen tomorrow and the fact that this was going to be front page,
tomorrow.
There are lots of times when a party can bring forward issues to
debate, but to choose to do it at this time serves only one purpose. It
is a rather shabby, thinly disguised attempt to grab headlines and
further create fear in the community in the hopes of furthering their
own political objectives. This is not the kind of issue from which
anyone should profit.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, once again we have the accusation that
we are doing this for political reasons. How could the member say
that when we made clear in our speeches the change we want to
have made.
He knows well that ever since we have been here, and for years
before, we have been pushing for changes along these lines and for
this specific change which would have prevented Clifford Olson
from ever having this hearing.
The reason we want this change is exactly so that the families of
the children who Clifford Olson so viciously killed, and the
families of other victims of other murderers, will not have to suffer
through reliving the events again and again. The families will bear
that pain as long as they live, but at least we could try to change
things so that it will not be brought to the forefront again and again.
(1330)
The hon. member should acknowledge that is the reason for the
debate today.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have certainly generated some debate in the House. It
occurs to me that some of the debate among members is quite
different from what victims often look for when they look to the
House. They are looking for a voice to represent their concerns.
Today we are trying to offer our voices because victims feel that
8825
very often the government does not represent their points of view,
certainly not on a priority basis.
We had a good description this morning of Reform's concerns.
The victims bill of rights went through the House and we have yet
to see it come back as substantive legislation. It is unlikely to
happen before an election despite a moral obligation on the part of
government to do exactly that.
We are talking about section 745 today. A private member's bill
was put before the House by a Liberal member who is now an
Independent member of the House. That bill was to repeal section
745. It went through. Legal counsel of the day did not advise the
member that the bill was somehow out of order because it would be
unconstitutional. Nor did I hear much in the way of debate that the
bill would be unconstitutional at the time. All this argument has
come up because we put a motion before the House today. This is
valuable debate.
If this is really the way members of the government feel, why did
they not say so earlier? The reason is that the government does not
believe the concerns of victims should overwhelm the concerns of
an intellectual elite who believes it knows better what is good for
the public.
I an not a lawyer but I understand legalese reasonably well. I am
appalled by some of the comments I heard this morning from
members of the House. An earlier comment was made about the
rights of prisoners under section 745 and how they should not be
taken away retroactively.
What are we talking about? It is the same type of thinking where
prisoners were given the vote. The government does not have the
jam to appeal the decision of the court on the rights of prisoners
under the charter. If that is the case and the public does not buy it,
there is an obligation on the part of the government to try to change
it.
Then there is the argument that even if section 745 were repealed
today somehow things would be different. What took the Liberals
so long? Reform has been asking for this piece of legislation since
1994. Why did it take so long?
(1335)
Other legislation has been brought forward in this Parliament.
We had Bill C-55 concerning high risk offenders. The Reform
Party warned that if conditional sentencing were allowed under
dangerous offender legislation, which means they would not serve
one day in jail, it could be a real door opener for violent offenders.
Our words had no effect in this place. They certainly had an
effect in the courts of the land. The message sent to a rapist in
Abbotsford, British Columbia, because of that bill was that the first
one was free and there would be no jail time.
We also heard the solicitor general blame the Bloc this morning
for the loss of retroactivity on the bill as it affects Clifford Olson.
First there is an argument about retroactivity. To blame it on the
Bloc is nothing less than intellectually cute. The minister waited
too long and did not make it retroactive.
It is a moot point to talk about closure in the House of Commons.
I do not believe this type of hearing in the Clifford Olson case will
not happen again. There are other applicants in the pipeline and
there will be for some time.
Some of the tinkering done by Bill C-45 that amended section
745 made things worse than they previously were. Under the rule
changes, at the preliminary stage a supreme justice or his or her
designate decides whether an application can proceed to a jury
based on expectation of success. What message does that send to
the families if it goes to a jury? The expectation is even greater that
it will succeed. What a travesty.
We would not be dealing with this despicable section if in 1976
the Liberal government and an out-of-touch solicitor general had
listened to reason when they were told of the havoc it would wreak
on the families of victims. The Liberal government then did not
care and the Liberal government now does not really care about all
this. Their track record on high risk offenders, as I described, is
testimony to their bizarre view of compassion and fairness.
On the eve of the processing of the application for early release
of Canada's most horrendous dirt bag, Clifford Robert Olson, the
families of the innocent victims he savaged are sick to their
stomachs. Mr. Olson, from his condo at Prince Albert penitentiary,
is having another laugh at the expense of the victims and their
families. It is a constant reminder of the naivety of Canada when it
comes to rights of prisoners.
The Reform Party, the Canadian Police Association, parents,
victims and millions of Canadians have begged this complacent
and insensitive Liberal government to repeal section 745. It is as
simple as that. The minister's response has been insulting.
Over the next decade and a half we will have 600 similar killers
who will presumably be eligible for judicial review which will
once again expose their victims to the horrors they try to forget.
The Reform Party and sensitive, fair-minded Canadians are not
mute. We will fight for the repeal of section 745 for as long as it
takes. It not only applies to Olson. It also applies to all of Canada's
worst killers, no matter whom they killed, how they killed or how
many times they killed.
As of 1994 there were 60 hearings of the kind that will take place
tomorrow at the Vancouver court house. With the rules of evidence
set up as they are now, 43 of the 60 hearings have given killers a
chance to get out early. That is a 72 per cent success rate from the
killers' point of view. The rules of evidence at these hearings are
8826
harebrained. Do we really think that Clifford Olson is not
laughing?
(1340)
As hard as this is to believe, at these 15-year review hearings
victims are not allowed to give evidence. Correctional Service
Canada is selective about information it gives the crown and the
jury about the inmate. Unlike the trial, the verdict at the hearing
only needs to be two-thirds in favour and the Clifford Olsons of the
world win and walk.
We have heard a lot of talk about unanimity, that unanimity is
talking about the future. Mr. Olson is still two-thirds as are others
in the pipeline. Only in Canada they say. According to the
Canadian Police Association, to date the experience of these
hearings indicates that Correctional Service Canada is not exactly
forthcoming about what evidence it hands over, especially if it is
negative toward the killer. It is double jeopardy. This has the effect
of ganging up on the families of victims one more time. Will it
never end?
The Canadian Police Association confirms the unbalanced
nature of the hearings to date, pointing out four major unfair
elements. First, there is no oral testimony evidence of the offence.
Instead it is done by agreed on facts. Yet the offender is allowed
oral testimony regarding his or her rehabilitation. Which kind of
testimony has a greater impact?
Second, no victim or surviving family evidence is allowed. It is
deemed irrelevant. Are we getting the picture?
Third, Correctional Service of Canada supplies one person of its
choosing to present what it chooses to release to the crown and to
highlight for the jury. In the experience of the Canadian Police
Association in one case this produced grossly unreliable,
unjustified and on occasion wrong factual conclusions on the part
of the Correctional Service of Canada.
Fourth, if the list were not already stacked enough, Correctional
Service of Canada currently invokes the federal Privacy Act to
disallow crown access to what it deems to be privacy matters. As
the Canadian Police Association indicates in one case the originally
concealed material turned out to contain information that this
``model prisoner'' inmate was a member of a lifer's group in prison
known as the controllers that ran drugs, muscle and extortion in
prison. This only came out when the judge ordered it released and
admitted into evidence.
On more than one occasion privacy information has turned out to
be ongoing criminal activity of the inmate while in prison. While
CSC is no doubt embarrassed by this it does not justify concealing
the truth, especially considering what is at stake.
The son of one of my constituents, Marjean Fichtenberg, was
killed by Paul Butler. Paul Butler was on parole although he had
committed 40 wrongdoings in prison which included a stabbing.
That is the record of our parole board. The principle of section 745
may be out of touch but the process is an outright sham.
Let me add further insult to injury. In 1981 Clifford Olson
pleaded guilty to the murder of 11 children. He received one life
sentence for 11 murders. However a life sentence does not mean
that a person will spend the rest of his or her life in jail as it would
imply. A life sentence equals 25 years in prison, but 25 years in
prison does not really mean that the offender will spend 25 years in
prison. It means that he or she might only spend 15 years in prison.
It is very confusing and misleading to say that a person receives a
life sentence when it might only be a 15-year sentence. That is how
the Canadian legal system works. Fifteen years for the taking of a
human life, is that justice? In the end if Olson did get out in 15
years, which is unlikely but not impossible, he would have served
1.1 years for every child he was convicted of murdering. The only
change in this travesty known as section 745 was the September
1996 amendment which excludes first and second degree
murderers who are multiple murderers, but only for those who
commit after the amendment was enacted in January. That still
leaves the group of 600 on the path to parole.
(1345)
In 1976 the then solicitor general for the Liberal government of
day, Warren Allmand, felt that keeping an offender in prison for 25
years was the waste of a person's life and that it cost the taxpayers
too much. Really, what about the 11 plus lives Olson took? Since
when have Liberals become so conscious of taxpayer dollars?
The same solicitor general, Warren Allmand, argued in the same
year that a person who commits a crime in the heat of the moment
would not have to spend 25 years in jail because they probably
would not commit another crime again. As of April 1994, 43
murderers had applied for early release under this section. Fifteen
received immediate parole, 18 had their minimum terms reduced
and 7 were denied early release. The rest are able to reapply in
three or four years.
Over 70 per cent of these killers have been successful in
obtaining early release at their hearings. Hearings in Quebec have
had a high rate of release; in B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
moderate release rates; in Alberta and Ontario, low release rates.
A report put out in 1991 by Correctional Services Canada
surveyed 495 offenders entitled to judicial reviews. It said that
those offenders with sentences of 15 years or more committed
crimes that ``involved extreme violence and were of a rather
gruesome character''. So much for Allmand's concern over crimes
of passion. The report went further, saying that the treatment
participation level as a whole for these kinds of offenders was low.
More than 68 per cent never took part in any treatment programs.
8827
Less than 5 per cent participated in a program that specifically
dealt with violent personalities. Over 65 per cent did not take part
in any professional training while in prison.
Yet despite the fact that very few violent offenders get any
treatment, over 70 per cent have been successful so far at their
judicial reviews.
In Ontario over the next five years over 211 murderers will apply
for early release. In Canada between 500 and 600 murderers could
get early release and be walking Canada's streets.
The Canadian Police Association has spearheaded debate on
section 745 with the Reform Party and calls for its repeal. The
association calls for this repeal based on five elements. The
original sentence requires a discretionary parole system after a
number of years set by a court, so why add a new discretionary step
at all? Fifteen years is an insufficient specific or general deterrent
for those most serious crimes. Fifteen years does not adequately
express the principle of denunciation which these crimes merit. It
is wrong to revictimize a victim's family by allowing these
hearings where killers seek up to 40 per cent discounts off their
court sentences. The preparation and hearing process is expensive
and these dollars could be better put to use for public safety.
(1350 )
I remember well remarks I made in October 1996 during debate
on the high risk offenders bill surrounding a constituent of mine. I
referred earlier to Mrs. Marjean Fichtenberg who lost her son
Dennis to a career criminal. I would like the justice minister to face
her, see her grief and explain why he sees this high risk offender
and section 745 foolishness as being fair, responsible and
compassionate to the victims and their families. Tell her the deck is
not stacked and have her believe he is out to prevent crime.
Since we struck down capital punishment, Canadians believed
life imprisonment meant a minimum of 25 years at the state
country club. They were deceived. A human life is worth more than
15 years. There is no parole or judicial review for murder victims
and their families.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to react to the Reform Party's exaggerated stance. The motion
before us is typical of the Reform Party, which wants to reinstate
capital punishment in Canada. They take isolated pitiful cases in an
effort to have section 745 of the Criminal Code on parole repealed.
They want excessive repression to be used in our society against
offenders. They do not consider that offenders can be rehabilitated.
I would like to ask the member if we could not go after the
causes of crime, which, I would point out, is on the decrease in
Canada, and fight poverty and unemployment instead of going after
section 745 of the Criminal Code?
[English]
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of preliminary
things here. We are not out to establish or re-establish capital
punishment in this country. We are out to create a binding
referendum whereby the public would decide whether that is
appropriate for Canada in today's world. We think the public
should be the determining factor on that very divisive question.
In terms of the broader question dealing with causes of
criminality, I agree there are some very substantive things we can
do to go after root causes of criminality. However, we do have to
look at something under 10 per cent of our criminal population who
are violent offenders. That is what we are dealing with in this bill.
We want to deal very harshly with that small percentage of the
criminal population which wreaks so much havoc in our society.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to have an opportunity to also add my concern that this
motion has come before the House. It saddens me when a party will
cloak itself in the grief of families of victims for political
opportunism. It is shameful. It saddens all Canadians.
The Reform Party continues to say that what it is trying to do is
eliminate the grief for the families of victims so they do not have to
go through this over and over again. However, the fact remains that
again today the Reform Party has invoked all the pain and suffering
of those families by somehow suggesting that the Reform Party can
make it all go away simply by a little motion in the House of
Commons. The member will know that the changes to section 745
provide for an initial review by a judge. It does provide for a
unanimous requirement from a jury and then parole.
(1355)
The member has also not been totally factual with the Canadian
public when he implied that section 745 is an automatic 15 years
when in fact the members knows it is after 15 years. It may be 20
years or 25 years. Does he really believe that the pain and anguish
of the families of victims will go away simply by eliminating
section 745?
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I do not want to
put a fine point on some technical items. This victims bill of rights
is there. The Liberals can do themselves a great favour by doing
something with it.
In terms of being proactive on making our streets safe again, we
have done a lot in this area. We would like to enact a victims bill of
rights that puts their rights ahead of those of criminals. It is very
basic. We want to reform the parole system so that violent
offenders serve their full sentence. We would like to eliminate the
Young Offenders Act and replace it with laws making juvenile
offenders accountable for their actions.
8828
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we have people in this House who
find this all rather disgusting. I am not certain why I am getting that
kind of reaction.
The Speaker: The member for Vancouver Quadra can put his
question right after question period. This way we can get into
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
8828
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Internet is the system linking computers all over the world,
allowing the free flow of information. Now the new chair of the
CRTC, Madam Bertrand, has stated that her commission intends to
regulate the Internet to ensure adequate levels of Canadian content.
If information is flowing freely how and why is Madam Bertrand
going to measure its Canadiana?
Rather than spend our money in such a fashion perhaps a
suggestion of redirecting her cash to libraries, book publishing or
literary programs would be infinitely more meaningful. Regulating
the flow of information is in a historical sense an extraordinarily
dangerous step. I would suggest that regulating the flow of
information is in fact censorship.
As parliamentarians I suggest that we stop the CRTC's flight of
fancy before it takes one further step.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to Saskatchewan last week
on a pre-election campaign tour. Talk about a public relations
nightmare. That is what happens when you send your chief spin
doctor to Miami.
He had hoped to talk about jobs during a photo op. Unfortunately
the stats for February came out the very same day. Unemployment
is stuck at 9.7 per cent. The story was ``depression level of
unemployment continues for yet another month''.
Then he told farmers he could not or would not do anything
about the grain transportation disaster on the prairies. It was so
arrogant, reminiscent of Pierre Trudeau when he gave farmers the
finger and told them to sell their own wheat.
Shunning protesters who challenged him on broken promises, he
then finished off the day telling school kids it was okay to gamble
so long as they did not overdo it.
A goodbye and thank you to the Prime Minister for campaigning
in my province. Come back soon and help us elect more Reformers
in Saskatchewan.
* * *
(1400)
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after long months of uncertainty, a miracle has occurred:
the Laval Cosmodome has been saved.
Thanks to major financial commitments by a number of partners
in Laval, such as CIMA+, the Dessau group, Gendron-Lefebvre
and Multimarque, Ottawa and Quebec City have agreed to be part
of the Cosmodome's revival. The National Bank, another major
participant in this salvage operation, has agreed to forgive a $4
million debt.
I would like to draw attention to the important role played by
Alain Contant, the chairman of the Conseil de développement
régional de Laval, who never stopped believing in the viability of
the Cosmodome. A hard driving manager, he proved that the
Cosmodome has all the elements of success. As we can see,
solidarity moves mountains.
To the young and the not so young who want to find out about it,
I extend a welcome to the Laval Cosmodome.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
NDP leader, Alexa McDonough, and the federal NDP caucus joins
with the Saskatchewan NDP government in expressing outrage at
the news that the federal Liberals are giving the railways the right
to charge more for hauling grain by increasing the cost of capital
formula by 1.5 per cent.
The federal Liberals have failed to defend farmers' interests
again. In fact, this Liberal government sat silently as the railways
let farmers' grain accumulate into an unprecedented backlog
costing farmers $65 million.
The Prime Minister said last Friday that his government would
not force the railways to speed up the movement of grain. Instead
of holding the railways accountable for poor performance, the
Liberals have the gall to reward the railways with a raise of $15
million for their bad service record.
The Liberal government is allowing the railways to boost their
profits for poor service at the expense of farmers. This is yet one
8829
more example of the federal Liberals' arrogance which will come
back to haunt them in the upcoming federal election.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian cable
subscribers are currently being ripped off by large cable companies
with negative option billing. Right now, the cable monopolies are
adding new specialty channels to existing services with a big price
hike. The problem is that consumers do not have a choice in the
matter. This is wrong.
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton for getting Bill C-216 passed in the House of
Commons. This bill prohibits the crime of negative option billing
by cable companies and defends the rights of Canadian consumers.
The great cable revolt is still going on and the citizens of Kent and
across the country are sick of being cheated by the cable
companies.
As this bill sits in the unelected Senate, I would hope all sides of
the House strongly encourage senators to get this important bill
passed. If the rights of consumers are once again compromised by
the lobbying of big business, Canadians will lose their faith-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the 1997 Juno awards were held last night at Copps Coliseum in
Hamilton.
The 10,000 people attending the show, and the thousands who
worked on the event, meant that the hotels and restaurants in
Hamilton were booked solid for the weekend. The city organizers
can be proud of bringing this economic boost to Hamilton.
This event provides a great showcase for the tremendous talent
of Canadian singers and Canada's vibrant music industry. The
organizers of the Junos are to be congratulated on producing a
wonderfully entertaining program.
Many awards were handed out last night. The recipients included
Celine Dion, Shania Twain, the Tragically Hip, Bryan Adams and
the best new band was the Killjoys from Hamilton.
I am sure all members will join me in congratulating last night's
winners and in saluting the great achievements of all Canadian
artists.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over this
past weekend, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada
had an extended stay at my constituency office in Hunter River
over the issue of pay equity.
As a government, we have supported and continue to support the
principle of pay equity. I understand that currently the issue is
before the Human Rights Tribunal and, as such, the government
cannot interfere. The dispute is not on the principle of pay equity
but on the methodology of calculating the amount of pay equity.
Government believes that the PSAC request is too high,
especially in light of the fact that other unions have already settled.
I personally believe we must settle as soon as possible but in a way
that is fair to the public as well.
(1405)
I would therefore urge the minister responsible for Treasury
Board, as soon as the tribunal reports, to act on this in a reasonable
and fair fashion as quickly as possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
just learned that the new Abitibi-Consolidated, a merger of Stone
Consolidated and Abitibi-Price, has decided to locate its head
office in Montreal.
Abitibi-Consolidated is thus joining other companies like
Avenor, Donohue, Tembec, Cascades and Kruger, which also have
their head offices in Montreal. This good news means that
Montreal can consolidate its role as a major player in the pulp and
paper industry.
The new company, whose annual sales top $4 billion, becomes
the world's top producer of newsprint; 54 per cent of its jobs will be
divided among 14 plants set up in Quebec.
In addition, the presence of numerous other head offices of paper
manufacturers, forestry research and training centres, and the
Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, is a clear indication of
Montreal's strong position in the pulp and paper sector.
We are delighted at this news and welcome Abitibi-Consolidated
to Montreal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Junos
were awarded in a gala ceremony in Hamilton last evening.
Congratulations to all those who were nominated and to the
winners of this most prestigious award.
Last evening we saw the depth of the pool of Canadian talent.
However, it is unfortunate that the heritage minister continues to
8830
exhibit her lack of faith in the development of the great Canadian
spirit in our artistic community.
On February 10, in a CBC radio interview, the minister stated:
``Canadian artists essentially would not be where they are today if
not for the policies, particularly the Canadian content rules, of this
government''. To which I say shame.
These performers are talented and successful because of their
hard work and perseverance and determination. They are stars
nationally and internationally because Canadians and people
around the world recognize their talent for what it is. Canadians
support these people not because of this minister's bureaucratic
Canadian content rules. Canadian support these people because
they are good.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government and the hon.
Minister of Natural Resources for releasing the government's
response to the House standing committee's final report on
streamlining environmental regulations for mining.
The response is an impressive demonstration that the
government is making significant progress toward the reform of
environmental regulations affecting mining. These reforms will
improve Canada's investment climate, not only for the mineral and
metal sectors but for all natural resource sectors.
Canada is an excellent place to invest. It is estimated that some
30,000 direct and indirect jobs related to mineral development may
be created over the next five years. These high paying, high tech
jobs will benefit every region of the country including Manitoba.
The economic, environmental and social benefits that come from
the mineral development managed in the context of sustainable
development will contribute to the prosperity of all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the members of the St. Norbert sociocultural
centre committee. They have worked tirelessly in recent years to
revive this old Trappist monastery, which was the centre of
community life in St. Norbert in the last century.
With support from the federal and provincial governments, these
very creative people have renovated this lovely building so as to
revive the social and cultural activity of the fine community of St.
Norbert.
[English]
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
Commonwealth Day and this year's theme is ``Talking to One
Another''.
I have a children's poem written by Joseph Nancoo, and I will
read some of it.
Children of the Commonwealth,
In countries large and small,
Children of the Commonwealth,
We are brothers, sisters all.
Children of the Commonwealth,
Of every creed and race,
We are God's creation
We share his love and grace.
Children of the Commonwealth
Let's Talk To One Another:
Our unity in diversity;
A model for humanity.
Children of the Commonwealth,
A new century challenges you
To be the best-only you can be,
And respect each other's dignity.
Children of the Commonwealth,
Remember those who led the way,
Again, our Affirmations let us say,
This glorious Commonwealth Day.
* * *
(1410 )
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in the House today to draw your attention,
somewhat belatedly, to International Women's Day and comment
on the place of women in politics.
In the latest study by the Interparliamentary Union about men
and women in politics and ``unfinished democracy'', we read that
women today have only 11.7 per cent of the seats in parliaments
throughout the world. Here in this House we are not doing much
better, since women have only 18 per cent of the seats.
Much remains to be done to remedy the under-representation of
women in politics, a situation that is one of the most serious flaws
of our modern democracies.
To improve the situation, all political parties should follow the
example of Scandinavian parties and adopt measures to promote
the integration of women in politics. The Scandinavian experience
has been successful, since that region has the highest percentage of
female parliamentarians at over 37 per cent.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, March 11, will be a day of shame for the Canadian
8831
justice system as Clifford Olson's application for early release is
filed. Tomorrow, March 11, will be a day of sorrow for the parents,
relatives and friends of the 11 innocent children who were so
sadistically murdered by the same Clifford Olson.
Many Canadians believe that the Liberal government has failed
to take the actions that are within its power to stop the
revictimization of those that suffer from the evil deeds of vicious
criminals. Liberal governments over the past 20 years have shown
too little sympathy for victims of crime and have placed far too
much emphasis on the rights of criminals.
Canadians are protesting the inaction of this government.
Tomorrow protest demonstrations will be held in Vancouver,
Saskatoon, Terrace, B.C. and Edmonton in support of the parents of
these murdered children.
A Reform government would enact a victims' bill of rights that
would put the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of those of
criminals.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I speak for all my colleagues when I congratulate the
Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Daniel Johnson, on the
tremendous vote of confidence he received from his supporters.
At their convention in Quebec City on the weekend, the
provincial Liberals discussed and adopted a series of innovative
resolutions that will form the nucleus of their next election
platform. They also reaffirmed their faith in Canadian federalism
as the only valid alternative for Quebec.
The only fly in the ointment was the totally inappropriate and
uncalled-for attempt by the Conservative Leader to approach
Liberal supporters. His attempt to attract the attention of Liberal
supporters can only be explained by the panic and fear that are
rampant in his party.
* * *
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
residents of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have reason to
celebrate the latest intervention by the Government of Canada in
their region.
This morning, before an audience of representatives of the
socio-economic community, the Secretary of State responsiblefor the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec andthe Liberal member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
announced $3 million in assistance for the purchase of the
Chandler-Gaspé line.
This amount, which will go to the Gaspé railway corporation,
will be used to cover the estimated $2.6 million needed to buy the
line, as well as the costs of development activities for the first two
years of operation.
The Canadian government recognizes the importance of
transportation for the economic development of regions like the
Gaspé and that is why we are happy to provide assistance.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker,
La bande à Gilet, a popular radio program on
FM 93 in Quebec City, is at it again. Last Friday, the BOLO award
for blunder of the week went by popular vote to the federal health
minister.
The member for Rimouski-Témiscouata will award him the
prize in the House of Commons foyer after oral question period.
Bravo to the public and way to go, minister of health.
_____________________________________________
8831
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this government got elected by making Canadians believe
that its priority was job creation. However, since the beginning of
1996, the unemployment rate has gone up instead of down,
although there was a significant drop in the number of unemployed
who said they were seeking employment.
Would the Minister of Finance confirm what was said by
economist John Lester of Wood Gundy, who indicated that if the
labour force participation rate of Canadians were the same as it was
in 1989, the current unemployment rate in this country would be 14
per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt there is a connection between the participation
rate and the unemployment levels reported by Statistics Canada.
This is why we talked mainly about job creation. The Prime
Minister has said many times, and so have I, that since we came to
power, we have created more than 790,000 jobs in the private
sector alone, the vast majority of which were full-time jobs.
Even with last Friday's figures, if we consider the past five
months, we created more than 70,000 jobs, most of them in the
private sector, and these are full-time jobs, precisely for the reason
mentioned by the hon. member. We must mention job creation,
because the unemployment levels only tell us part of the story.
8832
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, 14 per cent unemployment based on the 1989
participation rate is hardly something for the Minister of Finance
to be proud of. The government has certainly nothing to be proud
of. And if it does not mean a thing to the Minister of Finance,
it has a particularly cruel meaning for the families of those who
are looking for work.
The Minister of Finance bragged about creating full-time jobs.
How can he brag about full-time jobs when, according to Statistics
Canada, 40 per cent of the new jobs created in the last 12 months
are part-time jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows perfectly well that figures are very
volatile, that the situation changes from month to month, and that
since we came to power, the vast majority of jobs have been
full-time jobs. In fact, if we consider the five past months, that is
what the situation is.
The hon. member would probably be able to find another period
with figures to suit him. However, when we look at the indicators,
we see that consumer spending increased 5.6 per cent during the
fourth quarter, that investment in housing is rising. In January,
housing resales rose 3.8 per cent. In February-and this is very
important because of the multiplying effect-housing starts
reached their highest level in two and a half years. Fixed
investment by business rose to 23 per cent.
My point is, yes, we are concerned about the employment
situation, and yes, we are concerned about the job situation for
young people, but when we consider Canada's financial situation at
the very beginning and the improvement in the employment
situation since we came to power, the indicators show that Canada,
despite its shortcomings, has one of the strongest job creation rates
of any industrialized country. There has indeed been tremendous
progress.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance made a number of appalling
statements that deserve some comments at the very least.
He said that I could always find figures to suit my purposes. We
know he specializes in finding figures to suit him over the short
term, to try and justify the government's poor performance. He also
said that figures were volatile. Well, I would say it is not the figures
but the jobs that are volatile.
What justification does he have for the fact that, always
according to Statistics Canada, between February 1996 and
February 1997, young Canadians lost 64,000 jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are of course concerned about the employment situation among
young people. In fact, less than a month ago, the Minister of
Human Resources Development announced a very detailed
program to help young people, a summer job program, a program
creating internships with large corporations. That is why the
government also encouraged the private sector to make the
announcement they made last week about creating internships for
young people.
It would also be very helpful if the Bloc Quebecois voted with
the government. The Leader of the Opposition seems to object
when I quote economic indicators. But I can him that the economy
is recovering, and the broad indicators show that we are already
seeing the results of our policies. Retail sales are reaching record
highs, exports are picking up, manufacturers' deliveries are
resuming and interest rates have dropped. So all the conditions are
there, and next year we can expect an economic upswing.
Now, Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: Thank you very much. The hon. member for
Mercier.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Not only is there reason to despair at the low number of jobs
created in Canada, the increasingly low quality of jobs created
moreover, but also the unemployed have had increasingly less
access to unemployment insurance since this government came
into power.
How can the minister explain that, when the Liberals came in, 60
per cent of the unemployed were drawing unemployment insurance
while, according to Statistics Canada, in 1996 the figure for the
percentage drawing benefits was no longer 60 per cent, but only
41? How does he explain this?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier is
drawing to our attention a problem that is of concern to the
government, and it is true that the number of people who can make
use of the employment insurance system has dropped.
I do, however, question the figure the hon. member for Mercier
is giving out. Unfortunately-or fortunately, I should say-that
figure excludes people who are in the EI system and who can work,
which was not the case until now. This raises the numbers
considerably, when those who are working for a time as well as
drawing EI are included.
8833
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
past six months the employment insurance figure has been, not
41 per cent, but 36 per cent. If the minister is satisfied, I do not
know what he can be satisfied with.
Leaving fine speeches aside, will the minister admit that, in fact,
the true impact of the reform is not that it makes it possible for
Canadians to get back to work, as the minister has tried so often to
tell us, but rather that it condemns them to falling back onto
welfare, a provincial responsibility?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon.
member for Mercier concerned with what is going on at the
provincial level as well. I have noted recently that she has been
keeping an eye, not only on our government and its ideology, but
also on the Government of Quebec, and that she is beginning to be
concerned about certain decisions that have been taken by it.
I would like to reassure the hon. member for Mercier, in the
enthusiasm she is manifesting once again, that where employment
insurance is concerned, we have, as a government, acted with a
great sense of responsibility.
(1425)
This is the greatest reform in 25 years, one with which we
wanted to help Canadians break out of the cycle of dependency into
which too many of them had fallen. We wanted to create conditions
that would help them break out of the cycle of dependency while
continuing to provide assistance with their income, so we created a
transitional fund in order to create jobs, and wage subsidies in
order to help people set up their own businesses.
We have brought about a major reform and are most pleased with
it, because we are helping first and foremost with current
conditions.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
over the weekend we learned of a defence department memo that
advised the minister to shut down the Somalia inquiry because it
was not in the national interest to investigate allegations of a high
level military cover-up. It is no surprise that defence headquarters
would think it is not in the national interest to investigate defence
headquarters. What is a surprise is that the minister accepted this
very biased piece of advice and shut down the inquiry.
My question is to the minister of defence. Why is it not in the
national interest to get to the bottom of a high level military
cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
things that is a requirement for the minister of defence as well as
for any other minister who is involved in serious problems that
confront the government and the nation is to take advice from as
many sources as possible.
It was not very long ago that the hon. leader of the third party
was asking the Prime Minister of Canada to guarantee that the
commission of inquiry on Somalia end its work before the next
federal election.
I have tried to take advice from as many sources as possible, but
in the final analysis the Government of Canada made the decision
to extend the Somalia commission of inquiry for a third time and to
ask it to please report by the end of June, which would be in excess
of two years after it began an inquiry that was scheduled to finish in
December 1995.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one
of the sources the minister could have listened to was the
commissioners themselves who said that shutting down the inquiry
early amounted to a cover-up and a whitewash. He could have
listened to them.
The national interest is not the reason the Somalia inquiry is
being shut down. It is being shut down because of political
interests. It is not in the Liberal interest to have inquiry
commissioners look into allegations of cover-up that occurred
under this Liberal government.
Again, why does the minister not want Canadians to know the
truth about a high level cover-up that occurred under this Liberal
government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to find out as
much as possible is in everyone's best interests as long as the
information available is of some contemporary utility.
As recently as September of last year the hon. leader of the third
party felt it was appropriate to try to get to the recommendations of
the commission of inquiry before a federal election. As a
government we have extended for the third time the mandate of this
commission. We recognize that not everyone is satisfied with that
decision.
The hon. member speaks about the recommendations of the
commissioners of inquiry. I recall there were three
recommendations in the last letter. As I remember the text of the
letter, one recommendation clearly indicated that the ultimate
scenario would be that the commission would not finish its work
until at the earliest the end of 1998. At some point you have to
decide what you think is in the best interest.
If the hon. member would check with members of the Canadian
forces and with most of the people who have been observing the
8834
work of the commission of inquiry, he would find there is a fair
amount of support for the decision the government took.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today at the Somalia inquiry Major Vincent Buonamici raised
further questions about a cover-up at the highest levels of national
defence. On Sunday it was revealed that the former defence
minister's office participated in a departmental smear campaign to
discredit Dr. Barry Armstrong. A lot of people seem to be working
very hard to ensure Canadians do not get the truth about what
happened in Somalia and in the subsequent events.
Why does the minister not want Canadians to know the truth and
does the minister really believe that hiding the truth will bring a
just resolution to what happened in Somalia and the subsequent
events?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the need to
determine what happened and why it happened in Somalia and
what occurred subsequent to the very unfortunate events in
Somalia is obviously very important.
What I think is of equal importance and what Canadians have
come to accept as being absolutely essential is what we are going to
do to ensure that the kinds of situations that occurred in Somalia do
not reoccur and that what happened after those incidents occurred
be an appropriate response to those kinds of incidents.
(1430)
Obviously the hon. member and members of his party have not
yet decided how they want to address matters relating to the
Canadian forces because, as the hon. member would know, by the
end of this month we will be reporting to the Prime Minister, to the
government and to the people of Canada on what we think should
be done with the Canadian forces. We have yet to hear from the
Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The opposition has joined with demonstrators in the maritimes
and Quebec criticizing the new employment insurance plan, which
clearly, makes no sense. The program has barely been implemented
and already the minister is having to rush in and make adjustments,
because things are not working, and this morning once again, the
Minister of National Defence was taken to task in Tracadie.
How can the minister justify the fact that the new measures
apply to only certain regions-primarily those that fought his
reform the strongest-other than for electoral purposes?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is quite simple: we
obviously brought the solution to where the problem existed.
These are the regions that demonstrated the most clearly and
drew our attention to the importance of changing the system.
My two predecessors, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister of National Defence-my immediate
predecessor-and I have always recognized, in undertaking a
reform as enormous as the one involving unemployment insurance,
which is 25 years old, that we would monitor the transition and
implementation of the new system very carefully.
We knew that inevitably minor adjustments would be required
here and there. My attention was drawn in the Atlantic caucus to an
anomaly in the system relating to short weeks. The Government of
Canada worked hard to correct the situation satisfactorily for the
location where the problem arose.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the minister justify choosing the criterion of 10 per cent
unemployment, when it will mean that the people of Westmount
will be entitled to the new measure and the people of
Saint-Hyacinthe will not?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the demagoguery of
those opposite. No doubt they are talking about the committee-
Mrs. Tremblay: You are not allowed to say that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw the
word ``demagoguery''.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was referring to
Saint-Henri, is she-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to withdraw the word
``demagoguery''.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word
``demagoguery'', but I would say with pleasure that we worked
hard to solve the problems brought to our attention. Where
unemployment is at 10 per cent, there is less likelihood of finding
work that would give people longer weeks. The aim of our system
is precisely to encourage people to accept as much work as
possible.
So, in Saint-Henri, where unemployment is above 10 per cent,
the situation is remedied. Where unemployment is less, people are
8835
more likely to work a full week. That is the logic and that is the
sort of logic that promotes work.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
like the Canadian public, I found it extremely difficult to know
exactly what went on Somalia and even more to know what has
gone on here in Ottawa with regard to the events in Somalia.
The minister of defence made it quite clear from his first day as
minister that he wanted to get the inquiry over as quickly as
possible.
Why did he want it over last September and now why does he
want it over? Is it for the good of the armed forces? Is it for the
good of the country or is for the good of the Liberal Party?
(1435 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously these
events and much of what took place around the situation the hon.
member refers to occurred under the watch of the previous
administration.
To the hon. member, because of his background and his respect
for the Canadian forces, in direct response to his question, he has
finally recognized on behalf of his party that I indicated
immediately upon coming to my position as Minister of National
Defence that it was my fervent hope and the government's that the
commission of inquiry would end its work as scheduled in March.
When he asks why I felt it should be ended in March, although
we have subsequently extended it to the end of June, it is because
everywhere I have gone in Canada and abroad, speaking but mainly
listening to members of the Canadian forces, I can tell the hon.
member that if he spoke with many of his former colleagues he
would know that in great part it was time to turn the corner and
there is no question that the decision in part was because it is in the
best interests of the Canadian forces.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly share with the minister the interest of the Canadian
forces.
As a former member, I have really looked on with a lot of
anguish. I have seen members of the airborne regiment, especially
the junior ranks, persecuted, prosecuted and otherwise vilified. So I
agree with the minister, at least let us clear the air.
But how can we clear the air if the full testimony of the likes of
Kim Campbell's staff, Bob Fowler, Major Buonamici and Major
Armstrong is not out? What will the minister do specifically to
clear the air and get those unanswered questions answered?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member was a valued member of the Canadian forces for many
years and I understand his anguish.
I have never commented, nor will I, on the roster of witnesses or
how the commission of inquiry conducted its work. It was entirely
within its prerogative to set out its work schedule the way it wanted
to. It has done that for over two years.
The hon. member has asked a very pertinent question. He has
asked how we intend to move on and how to clear the air. I have
undertaken to submit to the Prime Minister, to the government, to
the people of Canada and to the Canadian forces by the end of this
month a very comprehensive and substantial set of
recommendations on the future of the Canadian forces. We have
sought and received the input of literally hundreds of Canadians
who feel very strongly about the future of the Canadian forces.
I still look forward to hearing that kind of input from the Reform
Party, but regardless of that we will make public our position and
our recommendations by the end of this month.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government has decided to transfer to the private sector the
management of the 150 casual employees who were working for its
regional cheque printing facilities. These 150 people, who hold
precarious jobs, will now have to decide whether to accept a 40 per
cent salary cut or stay home.
Given that, in a release dated August 2, the President of the
Treasury Board stated that he wanted to act responsibly and in a
spirit of fairness regarding the cuts affecting government
employees, what does he intend to do to correct such an unfair
situation?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will have to look into the facts of the situation to which the hon.
member is referring. I am not aware of that situation right now.
However, I can assure the hon. member that, in the public
service, we have put in place the necessary systems and procedures
to make sure government employees are treated properly.
Whenever transfers have been made from the public to the private
sector, we have strived to respect the rights of all our employees
and to treat these employees fairly.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says he will look into the facts, but how can he claim to
care about the fate of these former public servants, who used to
earn $11 per hour and who, because of the minister's agreements
with companies such as Drake International, will only get $9 per
8836
hour in Ottawa and $7 per hour in Quebec City, for exactly the
same work? Why such an injustice?
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, I ask the hon. member to send me the facts of the case he is
referring to, so that I can look into the matter, because I am not
aware of this case. I will then be pleased to provide him with a
reply.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow in
Vancouver hearings begin into Clifford Olson's application for
early release. This man brutally murdered 11 Canadian children.
Will the minister who is responsible for letting this hearing take
place take action to ensure in the future that families of murder
victims will not have to relive their pain and agony over and over
again?
The Speaker: Today we are debating this very motion. I thought
perhaps the member would ask a more general question. However
it deals directly with what we are discussing today, that is section
745.
If the member can rephrase the question so that it is acceptable, I
will permit it.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not I can do
that. Therefore I will withdraw my question.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 15
and a half years ago Clifford Olson was convicted in the most
horrible crime imaginable-
The Speaker: Because I do not know where the preamble is
leading, may I ask the hon. member to please put her question and I
will decide whether it is in order.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, does the justice minister believe it
is fair and just to innocent victims, parents, relatives and friends for
murderers to be allowed to plead for early release after serving only
15 years of their sentence?
The Speaker: Go ahead.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the question.
As the hon. member will be aware, the Minister of Justice has
brought forward significant changes to section 745 of the Criminal
Code.
The Speaker: Order. I find myself in a quandary. I found the
question to be acceptable but now I get into the response and it
deals precisely with what we are dealing with today.
If I cannot accept a question for that reason then I surely cannot
accept an answer. I am really in a dilemma. Those questions would
be quite in order on virtually any other day.
I will pass and go to the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On February 14, the Quebec finance minister wrote the Minister
of Human Resources Development, seeking financial support from
the federal government for UBI SOFT, a multimedia product
project. Although time is of the essence in this matter, the minister
still has not written back.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us
whether or not his government plans to financially support UBI
SOFT, an innovative project that could generate more than 550
high technology jobs in the Montreal area?
(1445)
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, the hon. member may or may not be aware of the fact that
there have been discussions between FORD-Q, Human Resources
Development Canada and Quebec government officials regarding
UBI SOFT.
Before getting involved in this project, we must determine
whether it is worthwhile and whether the jobs that will be created
are long term jobs and justify the request submitted to both
governments. I think that even the Government of Quebec would
want to know that much.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer, but while the letter
from the Quebec minister was sent to the Minister of Human
Resources Development and our question was directed to the
Minister of Human Resources Development, we have the Minister
of Industry answering.
Given how important this matter is, the number of jobs at stake
in Quebec, and the fact that UBI SOFT is growing impatient and
thinking of setting up operations in China if Canada does not show
interest, could the minister give us the assurance that there is
someone, somewhere, in his government who will at least indicate
8837
what Ottawa's intentions are in this respect, so that the Quebec
government can get UBI SOFT to wait a little longer?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to remind all
members that we, on this side of the House, are a government team.
When a project deals with industrial matters, it is only natural that
the Minister of Industry offer his views.
Since one aspect of this matter is of interest to the Department of
Human Resources Development, and considering that I indeed
received a letter from the Government of Quebec, we did act with
due diligence.
Mrs. Picard: Answer.
Mr. Pettigrew: Of course, we will answer. We already met with
Quebec government officials and local stakeholders last week and
we have agreed to work together with the Quebec government and
the Federal Office of Regional Development in this matter. The
three parties involved met last week.
We want to assess this very important issue together, but it raises
all sorts of questions, precisely because it is so important.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Co-operation.
Daily we see the plight of women throughout the world who are
living in poverty with their children, in abject poverty and in
horrible conditions.
Saturday marked International Women's Day. What is our
government doing to improve the standard of living of women and
their children to ensure a brighter future?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is one of the world leaders on issues related to women in
developing countries. We support projects throughout the world to
assist women.
From Sri Lanka to Namibia to Bolivia we have established
mother and child health institutions. In Africa, the Canadian
International Development Agency has a number of projects. In
Nicaragua more than 5,000 women were able to become land
owners thanks to a program supported by our government.
Canadians can be proud of the work we do in international
development, particularly the work we do to assist women in other
parts of the world.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not
long ago the Prime Minister told the Toronto
Star that he wanted to
run in the next election on his jobs record. Friday's job numbers
should give him pause. There were 38,000 fewer jobs than in the
previous month; 44,000 women lost their jobs; and for 77 months
in a row unemployment was over 9 per cent.
Does the Prime Minister really have the nerve to run on his jobs
record?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us take a look at the situation in 1993 when we took office. Taxes
were rising. The deficit was increasing. Interest rates were on the
increase. Total insecurity was reigning throughout the land.
Let us take a look at the situation today. The deficit is down.
Interest rates are down. There have been no personal tax increases
in the last budget and $2 billion worth of selective tax decreases.
We see a set of economic indicators that can match those of
anybody in the world. We see that virtually every economist in the
country is predicting 300,000 new jobs will be created this year.
No other country can ascertain that record and the fact is that
will happen.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
may go over well down at the yacht club, but for a guy who does
not have a job on Main Street it is pretty hard to swallow. There are
1.5 million unemployed Canadians, two million to three million
underemployed and 800,000 who are moonlighting just to make
ends meet. That is the Liberal job record.
(1450)
What is the Liberals' answer to this crisis? It is a 73 per cent hike
in payroll taxes that their own bureaucrats say will kill jobs.
With an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent and with 1.5 million
people unemployed, why is the government hiking a guaranteed
job killer by 73 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
anybody wants to take a look at the debates in the House over the
last three years, when the government has been bringing in job
programs, whether it be cleaning up the nation's finances, short
term job programs such as the infrastructure or longer term
programs such as investing in education and R and D, they will see
one thing, that the Reform Party has opposed every job creation
measure brought in by the government.
If the member is sincere in his statement that he does not want to
see the 9.9 per cent increase in Canada pension plan premiums,
why has he brought forth a proposal that would increase those
8838
premiums by 13 per cent? Why does he not lay the numbers out and
tell Canadians what he and his party are really after?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
For a little over two years now, in a relentless effort to abide by
the new rules of the WTO, the federal government has been
slashing its various farm support programs. For instance, dairy
subsidies will be completely abolished as of August 1, 1997,
without any financial compensation.
Can the minister tell us how our farmers will benefit from the
fact that the U.S. government is planning to cut its overall farm
support by 23 per cent over a period of seven years, while Canada
will cut its support by 21 per cent but over only three years?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's preface made
reference to the implications of world trade agreements with
respect to Canadian dairy policy. While there are some
implications of world trade agreements for Canadian dairy policy,
the particular connection that he draws in terms of the dairy
subsidy is not a connection at all.
The reductions in the dairy subsidy that have been announced are
taking place over a seven-year period, two years of which have
already gone by and five years of which are yet to come. We
consulted with the dairy industry very closely in terms of the best
possible way in which to manage the issue. The phase down
approach we have adopted is quite consistent with the advice we
received.
As the dairy industry deals with the reductions in subsidies I am
hopeful there will be good co-operation between the producers and
the processors in terms of how pricing issues and a variety of other
issues are handled within the framework of a long term dairy
policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
remind the Minister of Agriculture that we are talking here about
the total reductions expected. Overall, Canada will reduce its
subsidies by 21 per cent over three years, while our neighbours
south of the border will take almost twice as long, seven years in
fact, to cut their subsidies by 23 per cent.
Since the level of farm support in Canada is now among the
lowest in the world, except for Australia and New Zealand, can the
minister at least approve the dairy producers' request to postpone
the next reduction in dairy subsidies from August 1, 1997 until
February 1, 1998, as this would give them another six months to
adjust to the austerity measures taken by the Liberal government?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to that
question. The latter point was about a change in the timing for the
period during which the phase down of the dairy subsidy would
occur.
(1455 )
That request was put to me a number of weeks ago by the dairy
farmers of Canada, I understand with the support of the National
Dairy Council. That request is under active consideration as we
speak. I hope to be in a position to respond to the dairy industry
within the next short while.
On the other point, the comparison between the Canadian
situation and the American situation, I point out to the hon.
member one fundamental distinction. In the United States there is
essentially an open market system with respect to the dairy
industry. In Canada we have a supply management system which
was instituted by a Liberal government and not three months ago
was thoroughly, totally and successfully defended by the
government before the NAFTA commission.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all Canadians are now facing a 73 per cent tax hike
because of the government's decision to double CPP premiums, all
Canadians that is except federal public servants. Due to the
government's delay in amending the public service pension plan
they are exempt from this huge tax grab.
If private sector employers could get their act together to adjust
their pension plans, why couldn't the government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Superannuation Act for the public service is not negotiable.
A committee of people have for the last few years been looking
at ways to amend it. A way to amend it to deal with the increase in
CPP premiums is part of the discussions which should be
concluded within the next few months.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is an interesting answer. If the act is not negotiable I
wonder how the government intends to change it.
8839
The government just like its Tory predecessors has been talking
forever about overhauling the federal public service pension plan.
For years it has lacked the political will to tackle the issue.
How does the government intend to convince public servants
that an increase in premiums is justified when the government is
benefiting from using the $24 billion surplus presently in the
account?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
way in which the pension plan is accounted for is according to the
rules of the Canadian chamber of actuaries and accountants.
Not only that, but it is done with the approval and support of the
auditor general. Would the member want us to start breaking the
rules just to satisfy his biases?
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.
The people of my riding of Elgin-Norfolk are horrified by
recent images of child labour in the developing world.
Could the secretary of state tell us what were the results of a
recent international conference on child labour and, furthermore,
what Canada is doing in general to deal with the issue of child
labour?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending a
conference in Amsterdam a few weeks ago that dealt with the most
serious abuses of child labour worldwide.
Canada, along with the Dutch government, the International
Labour Organization and other members of the international
community, is working to put together a convention in 1999 which
will ban the worst cases of child labour abuse.
Examples of this are the exploitation of children in hazardous
work including military service, the sexual exploitation of
children, and the exploitation of children when they work in
indentured and slave labour.
Legislation has been brought into the House this past session
which would make it possible for Canada to bring to court
Canadian citizens involved in sexual tourism abroad to face the
same charges they would face if the situation had occurred in
Canada.
As well a subcommittee on sustainable development has brought
in a report with several recommendations and we look forward to
responding to those valuable recommendations.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the acting Prime Minister.
On Friday the secretary of state responsible for women's issues
said the Liberal government had over three and a half years
strengthened employment equity for women by targeting women as
a key group for employment, creating opportunities for women in
construction and addressing women's jobs in a comprehensive and
holistic way.
(1500 )
Today the Minister of Finance says he is proud of his jobs'
record as it pertains to women. How does the Acting Prime
Minister explain the so-called economic priorities to employ more
women with the fact that 44,000 women saw their full time jobs
disappear last month?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
terms of the public service, it is incorrect to say that women are
being discriminated against in terms of numbers. The percentage of
availability of women in the workforce is 47 per cent. For this year
our report indicates that women make up 48.7 per cent of the public
service, more than their actual number in the labour force.
In the public service in the last few years of downsizing we have
been careful to maintain the number of women to at least what they
were as a percentage of the total labour force and we have more
than succeeded.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Dr. Benita Maria Ferrero-Waldner, State
Secretary in the federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the
country of Austria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Before I hear the point or order I have notice of a
question of privilege from the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
[Translation]
Is the question of privilege related to something which happened
during oral question period?
[English]
I will take the question of privilege first.
8840
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during Oral Question Period, the Prime Minister called
members on this side of the House, members of the Bloc
Quebecois, racists and fanatics. I ask the Prime Minister to
withdraw these unacceptable and unparliamentary terms.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the Prime Minister is not here right
now. I did not hear him say that, but I will review the blues and, if
necessary, I will get back to the House.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it is in the blues, the
Leader of the Opposition and I asked the Prime Minister on three
occasions to repeat what he had said, and he did. You might want to
ask the Prime Minister himself.
The Speaker: As I told the member, I will review the case. I will
look at the blues and the video tapes to see what happened. If
necessary, I will get back to the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order with regard to the hopefully raised questions of my
hon. colleagues from Crowfoot and Calgary North. The point of
order I want to raise is with regard to consistency in judging how
questions can be asked and what the content of those questions can
be.
The Speaker: I explained to the hon. member for Crowfoot the
decisions that were taken today and the dilemma I was having
because of the specific nature of his question. At that point-
Mr. Benoit: What about the tobacco bill? What about that?
What about fairness?
(1505 )
The Speaker: I hope I did not hear the words ``what about
fairness'' because if I did, and if they were directed to me, then that
is another matter altogether. However, I am going to let that pass.
I permitted the hon. member to rephrase his question and he
withdrew. He decided not to go on with his question. I proceeded to
another member from the same party. I thought the preamble to the
question was going down the same road, but I permitted the
question to go ahead. I thought the question was marginal but
permissible. But then I got into the answer and the answer dealt
directly with that subject matter which is going on today.
I want to give members as much room as I possibly can in
formulating questions at all times and I want to give the
government as much room as possible to answer the questions that
are put because I think they are important.
However, if we are dealing with that precise subject matter and it
is not general enough, in my view, then I would hope that members
in turn would be fair enough to accept my decision that the question
is out of order. I judged the questions to be out of order and that
decision stands.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: If this is on another point of order, I will
recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. Is this another
point of order? It is.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
trying to formulate when an answer from the government side
makes us out of order, you can see the dilemma this places us in.
When we were discussing the tobacco bill last week, the
government answered in terms of amendments proposed for the bill
being discussed that day in the House, specific amendments, and
that was okay. But now when we have asked questions and the
answer comes back in such a manner that you, Mr. Speaker,
consider that answer out of order, then it rules everything we are
doing out of-
The Speaker: Now members see the dilemma into which the
Chair is put. Now you see the dilemma that the Speaker is put into
because if the question-
Mr. Strahl: You let them go with seven questions in a row on the
tobacco bill. Two days in a row they had seven questions in a row.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: At best you are putting your Speaker virtually in
an untenable position. I would invite hon. members to discuss this
with me if they like in my Chambers, but this is surely not the
place.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): What's the point?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would like to let this point rest right now and we
will proceed from here.
8841
8841
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1510)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to 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 four
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day. It is
observed every year on the second Monday in March by all
Commonwealth countries to celebrate the Commonwealth, its
values and principles.
[English]
The theme for this year's Commonwealth Day is ``Talking to
One Another''. Communication has always been an important
feature of the Commonwealth whether it is between governments,
non-governmental organizations or simply interested individuals.
Although the Commonwealth consists of 53 diverse countries, it is
a family of nations with many shared values and beliefs. By talking
to one another, whether at intergovernmental meetings or
increasingly through the Internet, we in the Commonwealth have
advanced the causes of democracy and human rights and the fight
against poverty and injustice that are extremely important to us.
Last year was an important year for the Commonwealth. Canada
played an active role in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action
Group on the Harare Declaration, CMAG, which has met seven
times in the last 15 months to discuss serious and persistent
violations of the Harare declaration.
CMAG was created as a result of the last Commonwealth heads
of government meeting in New Zealand in 1995 to study the
situations in Nigeria, the Gambia and Sierra Leone. This was part
of a wide ranging plan adopted by leaders for increased action to
promote democracy, development and consensus building.
The action group will be presenting its report to the heads of
government in Edinburgh in October. At the Edinburgh meeting the
Harare declaration will be consolidated and strengthened as we
revisit the issues of democratic development in our member states.
In addition, for the first time, the broader economic issues of trade,
investment and development among our member states will be a
major focus of our discussions. A non-governmental organization
forum and a business forum will be held in conjunction with the
governmental meeting, which will draw together the vitality of the
private and public spheres.
The Commonwealth is much more than governments and
officials. It is also a vibrant and growing association of ordinary
people in every part of the globe. Thousands of Canadians are
active in the professional, development and service associations
which are the strength of the Commonwealth. The relationships
built between Canadians and individuals through these
organizations are an important force in developing international
understanding.
This year we went one step further by looking beyond
governmental meetings to actively consult with both the private
sector and the Commonwealth NGO community on how
government can best promote and preserve democratization and
human rights. The round table sessions were successful and several
good initiatives are being developed as a result. We look forward to
more consultative sessions in the future.
The Commonwealth is a force in the world for the values
Canadians cherish, and I urge all members to join me today in
saluting the Commonwealth.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
impossible not to notice the paradox between this theme,
communication, and the lack of transparency and information that
characterizes this government.
Why is it so difficult if not impossible for members of
Parliament, who are the elected representatives of the people, to
obtain the right to take part, even if only as observers, in
consultations with various groups in our society? Why is it that the
government, which is constantly promoting communication,
especially through the Internet, has cut subsidies to the NGOs
responsible for making the Canadian public aware of the
importance of development? We know that the key to gaining
support for our efforts toward sustainable human development
depends mainly on raising public awareness in donor countries.
Why is silence the only response we get when we try to find out
what is happening within the ministerial action group since the
disguised failure of the special mission sent to Nigeria to examine
the situation with regard to democracy and human rights?
(1515)
In the meantime, General Abacha's regime continues to hold
sway with complete impunity. The Commonwealth is even
considering welcoming that country back as a member although the
situation has not improved in any way since the execution of Ken
Saro Wiwa and eight other Ogoni political opponents.
8842
The Commonwealth is indeed a valuable forum to discuss
important issues as long as the political will is there. Canada has
succeeded in distinguishing itself in the past when it fought against
apartheid in South Africa. Despite this positive example, which
shows that communication is possible, it remains extremely
difficult to reach a consensus when it comes to democracy and
human rights, even within a group as limited as the ministerial
action group.
Canada can and must exercise strong leadership within the
Commonwealth in order to promote democracy and human rights.
There are signs of a tendency to use all multilateral forums,
including the Commonwealth, to deal with trade issues as
separately as possible from human rights and democracy.
In these times of increasing globalization, there is a great risk
that vital questions will be overlooked. Canada must not give in to
this tendency and must continue to defend human rights and
democracy, as it began to do in the case of Nigeria, with the support
of Parliament and of the people of Quebec and of Canada.
That having been said, I would also call on the government, next
year and in subsequent years, to implement one of the unanimous
recommendations of the report by the Sub-Committee on
Sustainable Human Development. The committee recommended
that the Canadian government play a leadership role within the
Commonwealth and elsewhere, in order to raise the issue of child
labour and to bring about concrete solutions.
Given that the problem of the exploitation of child labour is one
that affects a number of Commonwealth countries, including India,
Canada must seize the opportunity provided by this multilateral
forum to help move the cause of children throughout the world
significantly forward.
In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois intends to keep an eye on the
results of the next meeting of Commonwealth heads of
government, scheduled to take place in Edinburgh next October 24
to 27.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
certainly a pleasure to respond to this noble day called
Commonwealth Day and the remarks that have been made in the
House.
I have listened to what the minister and the member from the
loyal opposition said. I take note of the fact that one of the
messages trying to be transmitted throughout the Commonwealth
at this point is talking to one another. That is certainly a good
message, very idealistic and is an attempt to bring these countries
that form the Commonwealth together so that they can have some
common aim or purpose. I think we should have that.
However, as a nation and a participant in the Commonwealth,
one of the responsibilities we have when we are talking to one
another is to make sure we are not just talking about things that are
politically correct and somewhat acceptable. There are times when
we must talk about human rights and the actions taken by some of
our fellow countries in the Commonwealth that are not appropriate
as such, and if they are not appropriate we should clearly say that in
the most positive critical to bring them to task to live up to the
expectations that we have in Canada where human rights is
certainly an item of top priority.
I would think, in speaking with regard to this more noble idea of
countries in the Commonwealth talking to one another, that the
same thing should apply in this assembly where we talk to one
another in an open and fair manner, where we have the opportunity
to speak on behalf of western Canadians, central Canadians and
eastern Canadians equally and where it is heard. Sometimes we
forget that in this major partisanship forum, as is the case today.
Question period today was no exception.
(1520)
Certainly the noble cause to talk to one another in the world is
good. To keep peace and harmony in the world is good. However,
let us remember the lesson right at home as well.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the
report of the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Conference
of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers held from
January 2 to 8, 1997 in Cape Town, South Africa.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 58th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pertaining to the list of
associate members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in the
58th report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-381, an act to amend the Competition Act
8843
(protection of those who purchase products from vertically
integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present and
table this bill entitled Act to amend the Competition Act
(protection of those who purchase products from vertically
integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail).
[English]
The evolution of this bill follows the recognition that small
business is the backbone of our economy and the recognition that
there is certainly ample evidence of abuse of dominant predatory
pricing going on in this country but we seem to have a lack therein
or a shortage of legislative levers in order to address this reality,
particularly in the oil industry.
This enactment will give a basis for the enforcement of fair
pricing for a manufacturer who sells a product at retail, either
directly or through an affiliate, and also supplies the product to a
consumer who competes with the supplier at the retail level in
order to give the customer a fair opportunity to make a similar
profit.
[Translation]
As I indicated, other provinces, such as Quebec, are proposing
the same bill in their jurisdiction. The text also states that a supplier
forcing or trying to force a client to establish a retail pricing policy
or a marketing policy for retail sales is guilty of anticompetitive
practice.
(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
leave of the House, I move:
That the 58th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1525)
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the tragic events that occurred in the city of Disraeli, in
the Eastern Townships, I wish to table a very important petition
bearing more than 22,200 signatures.
The promoters, André Beaulieu and Jeannot Talbot, supported
by the petitioners, call upon the government to ensure stricter
enforcement of conditional release legislation and increase
surveillance. I support these 22,200 people in their undertaking and
I hope the Minister of Justice will be attentive to their demands.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today.
The first petition comes from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The
petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our police and
firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the
emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many
cases the families of police officers and firefighters killed in the
line of duty are often left without sufficient financial means to meet
their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Edmonton, Alberta. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home
and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present today pursuant to Standing
Order 36. The petition comes from constituents in Regina,
Saskatchewan.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our police
and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they
serve the emergency needs of all citizens.
The petitioners call on Parliament to establish a public safety
officers compensation fund for the benefit of the families of public
safety officers killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present a petition signed by many of the constituents of my
riding from Pickering, Ajax and Whitby who call on Parliament to
adopt legislation which would require gasoline companies to give
30 days notice to the appropriate minister of an impending
8844
significant increase in the price of gasoline and that such notice
also contain the reasons for the increase and when it will take
effect.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with
signatures of Canadians collected at a filling station on the
Trans-Canada highway in my riding.
The petitioners draw attention to the fact that 38 per cent of the
national highway system has fallen below accepted standards, that
Mexico and the United States are upgrading their national highway
systems, and that the national highway policy study identified job
creation, economic development, saving lives, avoiding injuries,
lower congestion, lower vehicle operating costs and better
international competitiveness as benefits of the proposed national
highway upgrading program.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with provincial governments to make the
national highway system upgrading possible in 1997.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege to present to the House a petition signed by 125
concerned citizens from my riding of Cambridge and southwestern
Ontario.
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada
enact legislation prohibiting convicted criminals from profiting
financially from writing books, setting up 1-900 numbers or
producing videos which detail the stories of their crimes.
The petitioners also request that legislation be enacted which
would prohibit convicted criminals from selling their stories to
others for publication through books, movies or videos, and from
selling details of their crimes to publishers and producers outside
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 100.
[Text]
Question No. 100-Mr. Simmons:
Could the Minister of Health indicate what will happen to the existing national
AIDS strategy due to finish in March 1998 and in particular the existing HIV clinical
trials network?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Health
Canada remains committed under phase 2 of the national AIDS
strategy to support the infrastructure of the Canadian HIV trials
network (CTN). The decision regarding future funding of the CTN
and the appropriate level and distribution of funds will be made
following the completion of the evaluation of the CTN, which will
take place in 1997. Health Canada is prepared to continue to work
with the CTN to support opportunities for Canadians to participate
in collaborative research on a national international basis.
AIDS will continue to be a critical public health issue in Canada
and the world for some time to come. A future national strategy
will require the co-operation of other governments,
non-governmental organizations and other interested parties such
as the CTN and must be undertaken within current fiscal resources.
The Minister of Health is continuing to meet key stakeholders in
the AIDS field including the CTN to consider future national
approaches on HIV/AIDS.
[Translation]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other questions be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1530)
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, I wish to inform the
House that, because of the ministerial statement and responses,
government orders will be extended by 10 minutes.
_____________________________________________
8844
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for North
Island-Powell River has four minutes in questions and comments.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in questioning the
hon. member, may I say as a preface that I became acquainted with
these cases 15 years ago when one of the victim's families asked
for my advice on constitutional issues relating to the ability of the
attorney general of B.C. to renege on the so-called ``blood money''
contract paid for information leading to solution of that case.
I have followed with great interest the development of the debate
and his own valuable intervention. However, I would ask him
whether he has considered the impact of section 11 of the charter of
rights, particularly subsections (g), (h) and (i) on retroactivity and
8845
in particular section 11(i). Does he not consider it creates major
constitutional difficulties for the establishment retroactively and
the denial to persons like Olson, already convicted, of the right to
proceed under existing provisions?
Would he not be better advised to direct his feelings about the
obscenity of the particular person concerned-which I think are
shared-and suggest closer attention by the tribunal hearing the
matter to abusive or frivolous use of a device, the existence of
which on most constitutional authority cannot be retroactively
taken away?
I ask that question seriously because I think there is room for
representations to be made in the tribunal hearings.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we dance around these questions a
lot. We make presumptions about whether something will be
acceptable under the charter or not.
I mentioned something very basic in my earlier response about
whether prisoners have the right to vote or not. My memory is that
was not challenged at the federal level. When the decision was
made that prisoners have the right to vote, as a federal presence we
chose not to appeal the decision. Why would we do that? Is it
because we agreed that prisoners should have the right to vote? I
would go so far as to say that the vast majority of the population
does not think so.
When it comes to the constitutional difficulties the member for
Vancouver Quadra mentioned, yes there will be difficulties. Does
that mean we create convoluted legislation that does not address
the nub of the problem or do we go for the nub of the problem and
then deal with the fallout on the constitutional end? We have
mechanisms such as notwithstanding clauses.
Are we ever going to deal with the problems in some of these
documents, particularly the charter of rights which has its own
baggage? It has been in place for some time now and we know
there are inherent problems in it. Are we ever going to deal with the
problems if we continue to dance around them? I do not think so. I
think we have to do the right thing and hope the right answer comes
out of it.
(1535 )
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the member for Burlington.
To restart this debate, members opposite from the third party
have called on the government to apologize to families of murder
victims. One cannot appreciate nor can one understand what sort of
grief and suffering the families of those who have been murdered
go through.
At the same time it is a sad commentary if this debate has been
raised today simply on the basis of scoring some political points if
that is the only motive. There is no reason for this government to
apologize. And I do not think there is any reason why the
government would want to get involved in all of this to make these
people, the families, political pawns.
We know from earlier debate raised by my friend from Rosedale
that criminal law is not there just to punish. Punishment is part and
parcel of the criminal law but it is not the sole factor. Punishment
does not bring back victims. Locking up offenders is not the sole
answer and there is a cost factor attached to it. We also believe that
while people are incarcerated we should look at rehabilitation with
a view that some of these people may be put back into society.
The law requires that those who are convicted of first degree
murder must serve a minimum of 15 years. We also know that most
people convicted of first degree murder serve a full life sentence.
We do know that after 15 years release is only possible after a very
thorough review process. This is not just a review by the Minister
of Justice or by the courts. Ordinary Canadians have a say as well.
The Criminal Code requires that offenders must serve their full
25 year sentence unless a jury decides that they should be allowed
to apply for parole. First they have to serve at least 15 years of their
sentence. Then they must go to the jury and if and only if that jury
approves can they apply to the parole board in the same way as
other inmates. This is not a green light from the beginning and this
is not an easy process.
We on this side of the House believe that Canadians are best
served by a complete criminal justice system, not by a system that
says the only factor in sentencing is punishment. The criminal law
has greater width than that and the ultimate purpose of criminal law
is to make Canada a safer place.
We have talked about punishment and we have heard about
deterrence but we also believe that we are here to protect Canadians
from violence and by preventing violence. Every murder that we
can prevent means that one less family is victimized. A criminal
justice system is not just about deterrence and incarceration.
Everything possible must be done to prevent crimes from
happening in the first place and to deal with those who commit
them so they will not reoffend again.
The safety of Canadians requires that offenders be rehabilitated
if possible and if it is not possible then they will not be released.
The possibility of release after 15 years instead 25 years is a part of
rehabilitation. It offers a reward to those who modify their
behaviour. The strict review process ensures that those who do not
change will serve out their sentences.
The interests of all Canadians are better served by preventing
crime than simply by punishing people. That is why we have
brought in legislation to prevent murder and other violent crime.
In Canada one-third of all homicides are committed with
firearms. In recent years more Canadians have been killed with a
gun than any other type of weapon. We listened to the families of
8846
young women killed at the Montreal University Ecole
Polytechnique in 1989 and the families of victims of firearms
violence all across Canada. We believe that the families of these
victims want more than anything to see that it does not happen to
someone else.
That is why the government has enacted new gun control
legislation. If someone is shot the whole family is victimized but
Canadians are also victimized.
(1540 )
Unfortunately the new decorum in the House means they keep
talking but we have to keep the killer in jail. It also costs about
$50,000 a year which is over $1 million for every offender. If
murders can be prevented from happening everyone benefits. Sadly
the members opposite disagree. They voted against gun control.
They would rather lock up murderers than prevent people from
being killed in the first place.
I ask: who voted against measures that would allow us to identify
illegal firearms so that the guns could be seized and those who
import and sell them to Canadian criminals could be prosecuted?
Who voted against measures that would ensure that police officers
could find out whether a gun is in the house before they knock on
the door? Who voted against laws that would control imports to
ensure that guns that enter Canada are sold only to those who have
been screened and have been issued a permit for them? Who voted
against measures that would make sure that only those who owned
their guns legally and had them registered could go into a store and
buy ammunition for them? Where do the members opposite stand?
Earlier in debate today, members talked about accountability.
Earlier today they talked about how they stand in solidarity on this
issue. Yet they also talked about accountability. We also heard the
talk, and it is only talk, of how they are accountable and how they
go out, in this infinite wisdom of theirs, and discern how people
feel.
However, members opposite know that three of their members
voted for the gun legislation. They spent taxpayers' money to do a
poll in their ridings. They knew all along that this was a way of
preventing victims, of protecting families and of preventing
murder.
Does the hon. member and his colleagues opposite, with the
three exceptions who spent the money to do a poll, oppose all of
these things because they think it will cost too much money? It is
okay if it is out of the member's budget. They want to spend money
on prisons but not on preventing crime. They are not willing to
spend money on saving lives. They also oppose it because it is
inconvenient for their supporters. They oppose holding gun owners
responsible for gun storage requirements that would help keep
guns from being stolen and keep them out of the hands of children.
Some of their supporters object to registering their firearms.
They object to the idea that they should have to keep their guns
locked up. They think that they should all be allowed to have
assault rifles and machine guns. They think they should have the
right to have any kind of gun. They would like to see everyone with
a loaded gun to protect themselves from criminals. They have
adopted the American principle of the right to bear arms. Those are
simplistic and unrealistic policies.
The hon. member and his colleagues do not seem to be very
concerned that we would also have the kind of homicide rates that
would inevitably result from their policies. They would like to
repeal gun laws. They say they would do it all if elected. They say
they care about the families of those who were shot yesterday but
they do not seem to care very much about the families of
tomorrow's victims.
One-third of Canadian homicides are committed with guns. That
means that one-third of the families about whom the hon. members
opposite are so concerned lost their loved ones to gunshot injuries.
However, they do not worry about that as long as the killer spends
25 years in jail. In that way their consciences are clear and their
supporters are happy. What about the families? They are still
victims. Their loved ones are still dead and their lives are still
devastated.
I would suggest that the shame is on that side. They should be
embarrassed for calling on the government, which is trying to
prevent similar killings in the future, to apologize fully to the
families of the victims. If anyone should apologize it is those on the
other side of the House, not here.
(1545 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member talked at length about previous legislation the House
had dealt with such as gun control. He correctly pointed out that
two-thirds of all homicides were caused other than by firearms. I
am thankful he pointed that out.
My question for the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton concerns
the subject of the debate today, the whole issue surrounding section
745 and whether or not scum like Clifford Olson should have the
right to come before the public and revictimize the families of the
children whom he slew. My question also concerns how his own
constituents feel about the issue.
He mentioned that some of the Reform Party members in the
past went to their constituents on extremely important issues. He is
right. We certainly have. We have a duty to represent our
constituents on very important issues.
8847
Dealing with Clifford Olson, somebody who slew 11 children,
could he tell me that his constituents support his stand to allow
such people to come in front of the public again and revictimize
the families of the children whom he killed?
Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, there is a really interesting
philosophy going on here. They take one issue and stake their lives
on it. I was elected in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton because
people knew what I stood for and what I could do. People also
knew what the government stood for on a whole range of issues.
Members opposite love to talk about how they have the only
method known to mankind of consulting with their constituents. I
will put my method of consulting with constituents against theirs
any day.
In any event, let us examine the way they consulted with their
constituents on gun control. Their method of consulting was to
have their constituents fill out a questionnaire they received in their
mailboxes and send it in to them. I am certain there were little clubs
and groups who were Xeroxing these, stuffing them in envelopes
and mailing them off to their local Reform member of Parliament.
Of course it can be sent free, without any charge.
From the mailbag they said they learned how their constituents
felt. A bunch of anonymous people had mailed in forms. It was like
clipping coupons from a newspaper. This was supposed to be a very
scientific process. It was the way the Reform Party discerns how
their constituents feel.
Out of that came a policy they said represented the views of their
constituents. Yet, three of their members dared to go into the
communities and say they wanted to engage a professional polling
firm. They wanted to find out exactly what the people in their
ridings were saying. They did not want a bunch of anonymous
people mailing in clippings and flyers. They wanted to know what
the people in their ridings truly felt. They were willing to spend
2,000 or 3,000 bucks of Government of Canada money to find out
the people of Canada supported Bill C-68.
They are using the same kind of logic in the most wondrous
fashion to tell us that Canadians are opposed to section 745 and
therefore it must be repealed. Let us have a little clipping service.
Let us have a discount. Let us find out what those nameless people
who are responding to the Reform polls are saying.
It is nonsense to discern or gauge public opinion that way. They
do not have a stand. They are like willow trees. They blow with the
prevailing wind, and the prevailing wind comes from the little
coupons people clip and mail to them.
That indicates why they are sitting where they are in the polls.
They are devoid of any opinion other than what is in their mailbags.
It is an indication of how special interest groups seize such minds
and propel what they discern to be public opinion. I do not agree.
(1550)
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, judging by the
wording of the motion I get the impression the Reform Party is
accusing the government of being insensitive to the concerns of
victims regarding section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Let me
assure hon. members of the House that nothing could be further
from the truth.
In developing the amendments to section 745.6 which were
recently passed by the House the government had the concerns and
perspective of victims squarely in mind. I am referring to the
amendments introduced in the House on June 11, 1996 as Bill
C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act, now S.C. 1996, chapter 34. These
amendments received royal assent on December 18, 1996 and were
brought into force on January 9, 1997.
Turning to the substance of those amendments I note for hon.
members that as of January 9, 1997 any person who commits
multiple murders will no longer be entitled to bring an application
under section 745.6. Judicial review of the parole ineligibility
period will simply not be an option for anyone who commits more
than one murder. This would include those offenders, fortunately
few in number, who have become known in the popular media as
serial killers.
In these cases the offender will be required to serve the full 25
years with no eligibility for parole and no chance under section
745.6 to review that ineligibility period. This means that for future
cases of this nature victims' families will not be forced to face the
prospect of a section 745.6 review.
The second point I note about the amendment is the introduction
of a mechanism to screen out applications that have no merit. As of
January 9, 1997 any application brought under the section
regardless of when the offence was committed will be submitted to
a superior court judge for a paper review of the case to see if the
case has a reasonable prospect of success.
During the paper review the judge will consider written
materials presented by the crown and by the offender. If the
offender cannot show that his or her application has a reasonable
chance of success-and the legislation places the onus on the
offender to prove this point-the application will be stopped there.
It will not be permitted to proceed to a hearing before the jury.
The amendment will prevent the type of revictimization the
Reform Party motion refers to in any case where the application
has no reasonable prospect of success. These applications will be
screened out at any early stage. They will not be allowed to proceed
to a full and public hearing before a judge and jury.
8848
The third point to note about the amendments is that a
significant change has been made concerning the number of jury
members that must be convinced before an offender can obtain
a reduction in the parole ineligibility period. Before these
amendments were passed an offender only had to convince
two-thirds of the jury or eight members out of twelve. As a result
of Bill C-45 an offender will now have to convince each and every
member of the jury to get any reduction at all in the parole
ineligibility period.
To recap the effect of these important changes to this section and
to the review process, as of January 9, 1997 no person who
commits multiple murders will be allowed to apply for a review
under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. All applications brought
after this date, whether the crimes were committed before or after
January 9, 1997, will be subjected to a paper review by a superior
court judge and may well be screened out if the offender cannot
show a reasonable chance of success. For those applications that do
not get screened out, the offender will have to convince all 12
members of the jury to get any reduction in the parole ineligibility
period, not merely eight members of the jury as was previously
legislated.
(1555)
The government listened. It listened long and hard to the
concerns of victims before and during the development of these
amendments and during their passage through both Houses of
Parliament.
During this process it became apparent that one of the reasons
for the concern about section 745.6 was that until recently many
people were unaware of the existence of this provision. For
example, the families of murder victims often find out about
section 745.6 through the media many years after the trial and
conviction of the offender. This late discovery leads to a sense of
surprise and betrayal. It reopens old wounds.
The sense of surprise and betrayal was evident in the testimony
of many of the victims who appeared before the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and
the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs when these committees considered Bill C-45.
As a result of listening to this concern, on February 27, 1997 the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada announced that
he had written to his colleagues, the provincial attorneys general, to
ask them to issue instructions to their crown attorneys that the
families of victims were to be advised of the existence and the
effect of section 745.6 at the time of sentencing in all appropriate
murder cases.
By implementing this simple and practical procedure we can
ensure the families of victims are never caught by surprise by the
existence of section 745.6 again.
Sadly there are people sitting in the House who would rather
muddy the waters with half-truths than come out with what exactly
happened in the amendment of the legislation.
I am delighted the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton was here
at the beginning of this afternoon's debate to set the record straight.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the brief comments of the member opposite. She referred to the
reasonable prospect of success. That is rather an ambiguous term
which has not be defined.
It reminds me a little of the relativity of medical and other
information as contained in Bill C-46 wherein sexual assault
victims will now be protected. Any information they might have
granted or given to a doctor, a counsellor or whomever will be
protected and will be denied to defence counsel unless the relativity
of the evidence is established in the mind of the court.
Professional witnesses appeared and told us that the courts,
without any question, were considering the relativity of
information. They are not willing to leave out any information so
relativity is a matter of speculation from their point of view.
We are faced with the same thing. What judge would say
whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of success? All the
applicant has to do is create a doubt in the mind of the judge as to
whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of success. We will
have as many different definitions of that as we have judges sitting
on the cases.
Does Clifford Olson have a reasonable prospect of success? I do
not know. There are some judges who might say yes to that. He
would not have in my mind. He would not have in the mind of the
victims. He very well may find judges who will not take the onus of
responsibility but will leave it to a judge and jury to hear the whole
of the evidence and view it from stem to stern.
By relying on the second level or another level of appeal in Bill
C-45 is unproven. It is untested.
(1600 )
Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on that,
bearing in mind the evidence that was submitted before the
standing committee on Bill C-46 with respect to the judges simply
saying any evidence might be relative to the defence.
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am of course to delighted comment
on the hon. member's comment.
I would first like to say that I was slightly confused by his
comments at the beginning with respect to the theory of relativity,
but realizing that the hon. member is not Einstein I was soon
reassured. I suspect he meant relevance, but we will see.
8849
As to his worry about the judges of the various courts across
this land being loath to make decisions, I can only say that
certainly has not been my experience. I would go to my colleague,
the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, and suggest that probably
is not his experience either. Judges, when they are put on the
bench, wish to make decisions based upon their considerable
knowledge and ability, which is the reason they were put on the
bench in the first place.
If the hon. member has no faith in judges, if he clearly has no
faith in governments, if he has no faith in anyone, why is he here?
Why bother to take part in a process that he thinks is totally
irrelevant, or should I say irrelative?
I have come forward to attempt to allay some of the wilder
theories about this legislation. I think I have done so. I know that
the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has done so. I would
suggest that comments such as the ones we have just been
subjected to come more under the heading of sour grapes than they
do the theory of relativity.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to also speak to an issue that has been dealt with widely and
at length during the 35th Parliament, that is section 745 of the
Criminal Code, and I would say, the Criminal Code in general,
because this Parliament will go down in history as one of those that
legislated the most with regard to criminal law.
We may have opposite views on section 745, as did my
honourable friend from Charlevoix, who voted in favour of Bill
C-234 that was introduced by our colleague from
York-South-Weston and that called for the repeal of section 745,
while others voted against it. I will come back later to the bill
introduced by the hon. member for York-South-Weston.
I must first give some historical background to show how section
745 is neither fish nor fowl. These things sometimes happen in the
Criminal Code. As we pointed out when Bill C-45 was introduced,
this provision is somewhat peculiar.
Let us go back to 1967, 30 years ago. Since you were a young
attorney at the time, you probably recall, Mr. Speaker, that the
Criminal Code of Canada provided that capital murder was
punishable by death. As a matter of fact, there had been no
execution in Canada since December 6, 1962.
Using the royal prerogative, the government had systematically
commuted the death sentences, the hanging sentences, one of the
most infamous being that of Wilbert Coffin, in Quebec, who had
been sentenced to death for murders committed in the
Murdochville area, in the Gaspé region, after a trial that had left
people with a bitter taste. At the time, people were not quite sure if
Wilbert Coffin was really guilty.
I would say that Wilbert Coffin's execution in 1956 triggered the
abolition of the death penalty in Canada, since it was one of the last
times a person was sentenced to death and executed in Canada after
a superior court trial that was never reviewed on its own merits by a
court of appeal or by the Supreme Court of Canada.
(1605)
It is somewhat disquieting to see a man deprived of the most
basic right he possesses, the right to live, by the judgment of a
single court, under circumstances that are a matter of concern, to
say the very least.
In 1967, the federal lawmakers intervened in order to
temporarily abolish the death penalty, for five years. There was no
longer any need to use the royal prerogative, which had already
been used an nauseam, to commute sentences.
People of my generation will recall the Léopold Dion case in the
early 1960s. He was found guilty of the murder of a young child,
and was apparently guilty of three other child murders as well, but
the death penalty was not applied. It thus became unthinkable for
that penalty to be applied to lesser cases in future.
The government of the day introduced a bill to suspend the death
penalty for five years. Theoretically, it was revived briefly for a
few months after that, until the House passed another bill, again for
a five year moratorium, if I can use that word in this context.
This brings us up to the spring of 1976. The Trudeau government
did promote certain human values. On constitutional issues, there
is nearly universal agreement that his administration was a failure
and a similar argument could be made in other areas as well, but in
criminal matters or matters of criminal law, it certainly did
promote such values. That must be said, all partisan considerations
aside. Let us think, for example, of the reforms that abolished
whipping, the reforms that enabled people taken into custody who
were without assets to be released without having to post a cash
bond, as they had had to in the past. Between 1970 and 1980,
persons under the jurisdiction of the courts-in other words, all of
us-saw their rights improved as far as criminal law was
concerned.
Another Liberal government, the one we have during this 35th
Parliament, has succeeded in virtually undoing everything the
previous government had accomplished. We have seen the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, a former Liberal cabinet
member, vote against this legislation, as very few others did. I
believe that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands also did,
a few times, even on section 745, the object of today's motion
before the House.
To put ourselves back in context, here we are in the spring of
1976, and the government is introducing a bill to definitively-I
nearly said sine die-abolish the death penalty in Canada. Howev-
8850
er, the government realized it did not have the majority it needed in
the House to pass the bill. It was supposedly a free vote, although
members of cabinet were expected to toe the government line, but
it seems they were short five or six votes. Not all historians agree,
but it was less than ten votes.
That is when the Trudeau government, which had not included
section 745 in its initial bill, negotiated an unlikely compromise.
To buy, or should I say obtain, the consent of some reluctant
members, who with a little arm twisting could be persuaded to
adjust their consciences accordingly, the government moved an
amendment.
The amendment provided a minimum prison sentence of 25
years for a person sentenced to the maximum for first degree
murder-in other words, life-before becoming eligible for parole.
For second degree murder, the offender had to serve a minimum of
ten years, depending on the court's decision.
However, since this was a concession to the hard liners, the
government added a sweetener elsewhere for in the bill. The
sweetener was section 745, which allowed offenders sentenced to
more than 15 years imprisonment-which means all those who are
convicted of first degree murder and second degree murder and
have to serve a minimum of 15 years-to apply, after 15 years, to a
judge of the Superior Court of a province, not just any judge but the
chief justice, asking him to empanel a jury.
(1610)
The judge has no choice, he has to empanel a jury, two thirds of
which make a recommendation. No decision is even made. Before
being amended by Bill C-45 in this legislature, section 745
provided that two thirds of the jury made a recommendation.
If the jury recommended parole, the inmate was not
automatically freed, he could simply apply to the Parole Board. It
was a stage allowing him to go to another door, and, with the time it
takes in our legal system, the inmate could spend several months
behind bars before being denied parole.
And then we had in this legislature Bill C-234, introduced by the
hon. member for York-South-Weston, which proposed the
repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Everyone in opposition
supported a review of section 745, given the circumstances of its
creation and the fact that it had been in effect for 20 years. This is
why we agreed to its review.
We did not agree to much else. Bill C-234, however, was clear at
least; section 745 would be removed from the Criminal Code. You
could agree or disagree. It was a free vote, because it was a private
member's bill. In our party, most of the members were opposed. As
I mentioned earlier, our colleague from Charlevoix voted for Bill
C-234. Whether we agree with it or not, Bill C-234 takes an honest
approach in that it is unequivocal: either section 745 goes or it
stays.
At second reading, the government let the House vote
overwhelmingly for Bill C-234 to go forward, only to let it get
buried and die in committee as most private member's bills do. The
government itself came back with Bill C-45.
To all intents and purposes, Bill C-45 repeals section 745 of the
Criminal Code. Why? Because the criteria set in 1976 would now
be much more difficult to meet, because they have been changed
and the mark is definitely set much higher.
From now on, any inmate who wants to apply for early release
under section 745 of the Criminal Code after serving 15 years,
inasmuch as 15 years can be considered as early, will be required to
first apply to a superior court judge, a modern day judge as
appointed under the Constitution, and satisfy the judge that, at least
on the face of it, there is a reasonable chance for his application to
successfully be submitted to a jury.
Before, all inmates had to do was to apply to the chief justice of
the province's superior court or supreme court and a jury had to be
empanelled. Now, a judge designated by the superior court must at
least consider written evidence. Because the common law is quite
liberal in that regard, the judge may decide to hold a hearing if the
court so pleases.
How much of an onus of proof will be borne by inmates? We
cannot tell yet, because this particular provision has not really been
challenged in court. We do not have jurisprudence to guide us in
this matter; time will tell how much evidence our courts will
require.
As I pointed out repeatedly at the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs, I fear this legislation might be applied
differently in different regions of this country, depending on
whether, where the judge is from, people do not put much faith in
rehab or whether the circumstances of the crime for which the
inmate is doing time are particularly aggravating, the judge could
be tempted not to allow the case to proceed in the first instance.
(1615)
It is also more difficult to get a recommendation under section
745, since each and every member of the jury must now be
convinced, as opposed to only two thirds of them. This unanimity
rule works well, for the purpose of determining guilt, when it is
used in conjunction with the notion of reasonable doubt. Under our
legal system, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This
is why a jury's guilty verdict must be unanimous.
In our provincial courts, which deal with civil matters, it is not
necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There must
merely be a preponderance of evidence, and a jury is not required
to make a unanimous decision. Generally speaking, civil courts use
the two thirds rule, as it was applied in Quebec until 1976, when
civil trials by jury were abolished. Under that rule, it is enough to
get four out of six jury members to agree. In a civil trial, it is
8851
money, not the life or the freedom of a person, that is at stake, and
the burden of proof is different.
But here the more strict criterion is used, the one that usually
applies to the determination of guilt, and only for the purpose of a
recommendation. This is wrong. Using the two thirds rule seemed
quite appropriate and did not appear to pose any problems. We
made a strong plea in committee to allow the victims, or those who
represent them, to be heard when an application is made either
before the jury, or before the National Parole Board, so that the
board or jury members can have all the available information,
including the views of the victims and their families and how they
were affected.
The hon. member for Crowfoot explained on several occasions
in this House that he has confidence in the jury system, provided
members of the jury have all the facts. I agree with him. Jury
members must have all the facts so they can render a fair and
logical decision.
The bill that was passed, C-45, does not, in my opinion, allow
enough information to be made available to the jury making the
decision, to the judge authorizing procedures, or to the National
Parole Board.
Finally, an additional condition Bill C-45 imposed that did not
exist before is that, in the case of multiple murders, an offender is
not eligible to apply under section 745.
At first blush, one might say this was a good change, because
section 745 is not for serial killers. But someone who has
committed more than one murder is not necessarily a serial killer,
someone who enjoys killing for money or some other form of
remuneration. It could be someone who has held up a bank and
killed two people while doing so. Such an individual is no longer
eligible for parole; he must serve his 25 years.
I think that Bill C-45 was an awkward attempt by the
government to keep everyone happy by telling hardliners: ``You
see, we have, to all intents and purposes, repealed the provisions
regarding release after 15 years'', while saying to those who are
more liberal, with a capital L: ``Look, we believe in rehabilitating
offenders, because we are still letting them apply after 15 years, if
their behaviour has been good''.
(1620)
What I say is that a law that does not apply in the same way in
Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec City and Halifax is a bad law. For
once, we have the jurisdiction to take action; nobody is questioning
the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over criminal law. It
would be interesting not to have to speak about the Constitution
today, because it is clear in our law, in section 91 of the Canadian
Constitution, 1867, that criminal law is a federal responsibility. I
say that the federal Parliament should have given more thought to
the equality of application of the new section 745 as amended by
Bill C-45.
There may be recourse under the equality provisions of section
15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if someone is
treated differently, if statistics show that people in Quebec are
systematically released after 15 years, while those in Edmonton are
not. Is there inequality? I think they have opened a Pandora's box
of challenges, constitutional challenges.
But I would rather have seen them go with the vote on Bill
C-234. That bill was clear and we would not have been in the
convoluted situation we are in now.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the member for his thoughtful comments on the motion. It
demonstrates how there are real issues to be discussed and
dimensions and complexities which have to be looked at very
carefully.
Clearly the position of the law prior to the amendments under
745, which only required two-thirds of a review panel to provide
for consideration for early parole, was dealt with in the revisions.
Now, as the member well knows, there is a provision for the judge
to stop the process even before it gets to that review panel. Now it
requires the unanimous consent of the 12 member panel before an
application can be made to the parole board.
I just want to thank the member, although I do not agree with all
of his points, for being thoughtful and constructive and not pulling
the same kind of approach that others might have chosen.
The question I have for the member has to do with the
description and insinuation the member made that somehow at the
end of 15 years the prisoner can get out. I think the member will
know, as he has probably done his homework, that 15 years is the
point at which one can apply but the reality is that the time at which
a person might get out under the provisions could be as late as in
the 22nd or 23rd year of their sentence.
Would the member please confirm and not leave the impression
that it is 15 years and a person is out and that there really is a period
during which consideration might be given to some measure of
control.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga
South has touched on an important point.
He will allow me to point out that in 1976, when section 745 was
adopted, the average length of detention for capital murder in
Canada was 13.2 years. The penalty for what was later to be called
first degree murder had, therefore, been made far more severe.
In my opinion, then, those trying to prove that sentences have
got lighter are barking up the wrong tree, or else I have a poor
understanding of the history of our Criminal Code. Perhaps I need
someone else to explain it to me, but since 1976 sentences have
8852
become harsher, given that there has been no death penalty since
1962.
From 1962 to 1976, however, the length of time a person was
imprisoned for capital murder, premeditated murder, or murder in
the first degree, was barely over 13 years.
(1625)
We now have a formal guarantee that the minimum is 15 years. I
am convinced that, with the present wording of section 745, it will
be much more, in the order of 20 or 25 years. So people must stop
circulating this false idea that sentences are getting lighter.
Personally, I am an abolitionist, having assumed in my own life,
as well as in the lives of those I have had a hand in educating, that
killing someone to teach him that murder was unacceptable was no
way to teach anyone anything. A second execution, even in the
name of the state, makes no positive contribution. More people are
left to mourn, more wounds are opened, and I cannot morally
support the way things were done in the past.
Times have changed, and fortunately things are different today.
But we are still faced with the problem of section 745, because this
is what today's motion is about. It is not settled. This debate will
probably turn into an endless one, to be started up again every time
it is necessary.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank our colleague from the Bloc for his comments. He is a
member of the justice committee and I have always appreciated his
participation on that committee.
Very quickly, the question for the hon. member is when will the
families of the victims ever have peace of mind? The first shock
comes when they lose a child. The second shock comes during the
lengthy court hearing. And 15 years later all that is reawakened
with the third shock.
Following that, if the application is not successful, the shocks
can come in rapid succession every two or three years or whenever.
When are the families entitled to peace of mind?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot
asked a perfectly legitimate question which, to all intents and
purposes, I answered in my 20-minute speech just now when I said
victims must be heard.
The problem today is, when are the victims included in the
process? At the trial, when the evidence is heard and they are asked
to testify, but afterwards they are dropped, just when they need the
support of society. They have suffered the loss of a dear one who is
irreplaceable.
Of course, just attending the hearing provided under section 745
may be stressful. I realize that, and you may rest assured I have
every sympathy for the victims.
However, after hearing the victims and giving them the broadest
possible hearing and every facility for making themselves heard,
both by the jury and the National Parole Board-that is where the
problem is, in my opinion-when the process is finished, we must
rely on an impartial body, in my opinion the jury, and ultimately
the National Parole Board, to determine whether or not the offender
should be released.
Notwithstanding the grief and pain of the victims and their right
to show that pain and to be heard, the decision is not up to them.
They cannot distance themselves. They are too involved
emotionally. But as long as we do not give victims and their
families a better chance to be heard and to explain their personal
grief and that of their family and their friends, and how this has
affected their lives, to be heard by the National Parole Board and
the juries empanelled under section 745, we will not be on the right
track, because these people will be frustrated, and rightly so,
because of what can happen to them under the present rule of law.
That is why I say the Bill C-45 has solved nothing and we must
keep fighting for victims' right to be heard.
(1630)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, very quickly so that the hon. member from the Bloc will
have a chance to respond, the point that we are trying to make here
today is that we are dealing here with first degree, premeditated,
cold blooded, planned murder. That is what we are dealing with.
We are saying that those types of criminals do not deserve to
have any hope of getting out of jail before 25 years. If we look at
Olson's crimes, they were certainly first degree murder. I would
question anybody who could dispute that.
In light of that, why is section 745 still in place to give those
types of criminals the hope of early parole?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Prince
George-Peace River is asking the right question. Our answers
would be different. I say that there will always be an exception. If
the law does not provide for an exception, there should be recourse
to royal prerogative to allow people to go free, as had to be done in
Quebec City.
A 62-year-old was sentenced for first degree murder-a crime of
passion obviously. The jury, however, felt that there was enough
8853
vidence for a sentence of first degree murder, with the individual
having to remain in prison until the age of 89, before release. The
individual was released through royal prerogative.
There will always be an exception. If there were only to be a few
exceptions, our laws should provide for certain release
mechanisms.
Obviously, in cases like those cited by the hon. member, where
the evidence speaks for itself, there would simply be no parole.
And I have every confidence in the jury system and in the
procedure in place to ensure this never happens.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a
fine tradition that usually when members rise on a bill they say it is
their pleasure to rise. It is with great sadness that I rise today to
respond to this motion urging the government to apologize to the
families of murder victims for not repealing section 745.
Mr. Ramsay: Why?
Ms. Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. My sadness is-
The Deputy Speaker: Will all hon. members please refer to
each other by the names of their ridings rather than by their last
names, first names or middle names.
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, duly chastised. To the member for
Crowfoot I was going to explain why I have sadness. It is actually
on three points. It is with great sadness for the victims, for the
families of the victims who have experienced pain in the past. It is
with great sadness that the Reform Party has given a media
platform to Mr. Olson, which is something I am sure he is very
happy to have.
I speak with great sadness because the opposition parties are
exploiting the pain and suffering, knowing full well that legislation
could not have stopped this hearing from happening this week, that
no one can go back in time and change the rules under which
somebody was convicted. I have great sympathy for the families of
the murder victims. No one in our society should suffer such
violent and tragic loss.
It is interesting that today we are debating a piece of legislation
that only affects those who are victims of murder and yet when the
Reform Party is called on to enact other legislation it votes against
it, legislation which would be hate crimes prosecuted with a
heavier length of sentence, measures like gun control, something
that was asked for by victims.
Section 745, unfortunately one of the members opposite
misunderstood, also affects those who are convicted of second
degree murder and had a lengthier sentence imposed on them.
Section 745 will not address the loss that the victims are feeling.
We have taken appropriate measures to address the issue. In all our
considerations we have been made aware that victims must be
included in the process, that we cannot exacerbate the pain and
indeed our awareness of victims' concerns has prompted action on
many concerns. As I have already mentioned, Bill C-45 affects not
just the victims of that crime but all the people who are victims
around that crime.
This government has done a great deal to address the concerns of
victims of crime and to facilitate their participation in the criminal
justice system. Government has responded and will continue to
respond to a trend to be more responsive to victims. It did not start
with the Reform Party's coming to this House. It has come up many
times before. Almost a year ago the government and all its
members responded with overwhelming support to a motion to ask
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to consider
the issues of national legislation to provide for victims' rights.
(1635)
In lending support to a national bill, which I assume suggests
some federal legislation, we must be careful not to prescribe rights
which the federal government has no jurisdiction over and no
authority to enforce. Our actions speak louder than words. Setting
out principles and calling them rights which could not be
effectively enforced would be pointless and likely more frustrating
than beneficial for victims. Rather, we should direct our energy at
addressing specific issues we have the power to address.
Colleagues and viewers should know that recommendations for a
victims bill of rights are not novel. This debate has been ongoing
since the mid-1980s. Ever since the American Congress passed a
federal victims bill of rights, many Canadians have advocated that
we follow suit. It is difficult to disagree with a victims bill of
rights, but we should ensure the victims of crime will benefit from
such a bill before we enact it.
We have had this discussion at the federal level and at the
provincial level. In a report to the ministers of justice of the
federal-provincial task force on justice for victims of crime in
1983, the federal government, the provinces and the territories
engaged in ongoing consultation. They have continued consult with
regard to improvements to the criminal justice system that would
benefit victims of crime within their respective areas of
responsibility. These consultations have squarely addressed the
enactment of a victims bill of rights. However, the time has come
to revisit the issue.
Much has happened in the last 10 years to improve the victim's
role in the criminal justice system. In 1985, as many will know,
Canada co-sponsored the United Nations statement on basic
principles of justice for victims of crime. Canadian listeners can be
8854
proud that Canada's justice system already reflected those
principles in 1985 and will continue to do so into the 21st century.
In any event, the UN declaration prompted the federal and
provincial governments to re-examine the issue of a victims bill of
rights. While all the provinces and the federal government were
sincerely committed to making changes to the justice system, it
was recognized that certain concerns could only be addressed by
provincial legislation and that other concerns could be addressed
by federal legislation. The majority of the concerns cannot be
addressed in legislation at all but by changing attitudes about the
role of the victim in the process and about the basic human values
of dignity and respect.
When we consider the role of victims in the justice system we
also have to think about a meaningful mechanism to enforce their
rights. Rights without remedies cannot truly be said to be rights.
For instance, if a bill of rights states that victims have the right to
receive timely information about the status of an investigation or
about the prosecution of an offender, what is the remedy if they feel
they have not received timely information? Who is responsible?
Likely the police and/or the crown, but is it reasonable to expect
that a single piece of legislation can assign obligations to different
participants in the justice system that play distinct roles and are
employed by separate ministries? Moreover, what is the remedy?
Should the prosecution be called off because the victim did not get
their information?
What we can do is prescribe in our justice system a set of
principles to guide the players. We can continue to encourage them
to adhere to those principles of our criminal justice system that
deserve the utmost consideration at all stages of the process.
The federal government is responsible for the enacting of
criminal law while the provinces are generally responsible for the
enforcement of the law, the prosecution of the offences and the
administration of justice in the province. We opted among
ourselves for a statement of principles to recognize the need for
joint action and co-operation.
In 1988 the federal and provincial governments at a meeting of
justice ministers endorsed the Canadian statement of basic
principles of justice for victims of crime. The notion of a statement
rather than a bill of rights addressed both the jurisdictional and
practical concerns. All jurisdictions would ensure that whatever
initiatives they pursued would reflect these principles, whether in
policy or in legislation.
Since 1988, all provinces and both territories have enacted
victim legislation which does refer to these principles. I will not go
through all the principles as I am sharing my time with the member
for Simcoe North. It is important today for us to reflect on the
changes to section 745 and how victims will be brought into that
process.
(1640)
It is important to know that Bill C-45 has changed the judicial
review process. It established a judicial review so that it will
eliminate frivolous cases. It also went further. If you do go before a
judge and jury there must be a unanimous jury decision and if more
than one individual has been killed there will be no process for you.
The provincial attorneys general have been communicated with
and have been instructed to ensure that upon application, a notice
will go out to all the victims and they will be called on to attend so
that they are not surprised, as some members opposite have
suggested. These are exceptional cases and I think we need to be
aware of the issues.
It was raised earlier that the faint hope clause was a sure thing
and that everybody gets out in 15 years. I thought it might be
helpful to have some information from one of the practitioners in
our criminal law system, someone who has been on both sides, the
crown and defence, my constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Manishen, with
the firm of Ross, McBride and Hamilton.
When he came to committee he said: ``Practically speaking, you
cannot start the process until the criminal has done 15 years. In
most jurisdictions by the time he goes through his application there
is a judge appointed, they have the preliminary inquiry, they have
the day scheduled for the hearing and they have a hearing with the
parole eligibility report prepared along the way. It is not 15 years
but now that whole process is 16 years. Even if the parole
eligibility was reduced right to 16 years, and it is not, we would go
through at least 2 to 3 years of graduated release from unescorted
temporary absences to day parole before ultimately getting full
parole''.
It is also important that when the people came before our
committee to testify on Bill C-45 they described another factor
which the party opposite has refused to discuss. It is selective in its
choice of victims. The victims who want this section repealed, it is
willing to talk about; the victims who want gun control, for some
reason it was not able to address their concerns. Maybe there needs
to be some reminder about the other victims who are out there.
Mr. Partington, who has worked in correctional services for a
number of years and has done section 745 applications, said:
``When you sit in a courtroom trial, on one side you have the
victim's family, the deceased's family, and on the other side you
have the offender's family who has spent 15 or 16 years as victims
of the same offence, I suppose the forgotten victims. Their
perspective is somewhat different. They still have a son or a
daughter to visit with, to celebrate birthdays and so on. Yes, they
still have him alive but they are as victimized in some ways as the
deceased. I think it is important to keep the balance''.
8855
To members opposite, we have to make some changes that go
forward. We now have victim impact statements in our legislation
for sentencing and those are considered. Members need to realize
that if that is what victims want, to stop at that process and not
come back to a hearing 15 or 20 years later, and in some cases
like the Olson case that would not occur, those statements will
serve in the consideration and that if the victims do not want to
testify, they do not have to come forward. Their statements will
stand.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the energy my hon. colleague across the way always devotes to her
efforts. I find that she does not support our proposal or our position
that we want to eliminate section 745 completely from the
Criminal Code and yet she stood in this House and voted to do that
very thing when the private member's bill submitted by the
member for York South-Weston was voted on.
Over 70 members of the Liberal Party joined Reformers in
support of that bill. She has made a turnabout and she is quite
satisfied now with something that is much less, something that is
watered down and something that has allowed and will continue to
allow the families to suffer and have their agony relived over and
over again. She might want to comment on that turnabout.
I was surprised and pleased when I saw her and her colleagues
standing and voting for what I think they know the vast majority of
Canadians support and would like to see brought forward. I am sure
that the discipline within her party has simply caused her to vote
along party lines and reject the private member's bill that she
originally supported. She might want to comment on that and give
the people of her riding and the people of Canada an explanation
why she did that.
(1645)
She criticized the Reform Party for bringing the Olson disgrace
to a public forum. I suppose she would have the same criticism for
Mike Duffy of CTV television who devoted almost his program
yesterday airing this very issue, the absurdity of the Olson
application. People like Michael Harris appeared on that program
to express their dismay and outrage over this kind of an application
being allowed to proceed under the law. She might like to consider
that as well.
We are providing a platform for public debate, representing the
views and concerns of the victims and their families. The Liberals
have provided a platform for Clifford Olson. They have provided
the platform based in law where he can bring those families back
into court, cross-examine them and put them through the hell they
suffered when their children were kidnapped, raped and murdered
one more time. I would like her to comment on that.
Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comment on
that.
As the member for Crowfoot has quite rightly recognized, I did
vote for a bill to go to committee and be heard at committee
because there has been so much misinformation on this section of
the Criminal Code that I thought it needed to be properly aired.
It was not to give Clifford Olson more publicity, not to give the
multiple killer more publicity as the Reform Party has done by
choosing today, of all days, to debate this. I did it to make sure that
the facts get on the record so that people will recognize it is not a
sure thing and that it is a faint hope and the facts about what time
people get out of our jails do get out of our jails.
It is absolutely paramount that all of the legislation I have been
involved with has been trying to ensure that more people are not
victimized. We must work on high risk offender legislation. We
must work to prevent more people from being victimized in our
communities. That is my number one goal.
I was not here 15 years ago when this legislation was enacted. I
am not responsible for it. I have worked to change it by voting for
Bill C-45 and by making sure that when this issue came to
committee it had a full and fair hearing and a reasonable approach
was found.
I am trying to ensure, in those cases where somebody does not
need to be in a maximum penitentiary, we can devote those
resources to crime prevention rather than waste them needlessly.
I am concerned that there remains an opportunity for people like
Leo Rocha. His family had a victim and the family members said:
``No, we think he should get out at this point''. It was their sister
who was killed by their father. It is important that we recognize
they are victims too.
If there is a potential for someone to be rehabilitated we should
not waste resources when those resources could be working to
ensure crime prevention. We must ensure there are not more
victims in our communities. That is what I am trying to do.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party
motion implies that the government has not paid attention to the
needs of victims of crime and that it has been generally so
negligent and insensitive that it should formally apologize to the
families of victims, presumably for its inaction. This criticism is
unjustified.
There are two kinds of actions a government can take to help
unfortunate victims of crime and their families. First, it can
implement laws, policies and programs which are directly focused
on the needs of the families and the victims themselves, for
example, by giving them information, by allowing them to partici-
8856
pate in the prosecution of offenders through victim impact
statements, et cetera.
The second way a government can show solidarity for crime
victims is by enacting laws that prevent crimes in the first place,
that deter criminality and, when crimes do occur, impose tough
sentences of imprisonment that will keep chronic offenders away
from potential future victims.
(1650)
[Translation]
Some colleagues talked about murderers, their eligibility for
parole and the legislation recently passed by this Parliament, but it
seems to me that today's motion gives us an opportunity to address
another government bill, which is before us, since it recently came
back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I
am referring to Bill C-55, concerning high risk offenders, and the
tools it provides to fight the most serious and violent crimes
provided for in the Criminal Code after murder.
[English]
Bill C-55 is responsive to the demands of victims' rights
organizations for tough measures. Let me briefly touch on the
highlights of the bill because it is proof that there is no need for the
government to apologize to anyone for its anti-crime strategies.
The legislation will create a new sentencing category to be called
the long term offender. This measure targets sex offenders. It will
allow courts to impose a regular penitentiary sentence on those sex
offenders. Then if the judge decides to designate the offender as a
long term offender, he can add up to 10 years of supervision to the
sentence.
I ask colleagues to think about this. Someone who commits the
offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm might normally
receive a sentence of say 10 years, but under Bill C-55 the court
could find him to a long term offender and add 10 more years of
intensive supervision, thus effectively doubling the period of
control over the offender by the correctional system.
This period of supervision will only begin when the offender has
completed his full prison sentence. This long term supervision
period has teeth. It will have conditions attached to it similar to
parole conditions. These could include, for example, staying away
from specific past victims and staying away from potential victims
such as children. They can include a range of reporting and
treatment requirements, all of which will allow authorities to keep
very close tabs on the long term offender while hopefully
encouraging his rehabilitation.
Moreover, Bill C-55 creates a new offence of breach of a long
term supervision order. If the offender breaches one of the
conditions, the supervisor can bring him into custody and bring
charges for the new offence.
[Translation]
Some may argue that criminals should be locked up indefinitely.
In some cases, this can be done. There has been a dangerous
offender provision in Canadian law since 1976.
Since then, this provision was used approximately 186 times and
it still is successfully used to deal with about 15 new cases every
year, where offenders are found to be dangerous offenders.
Dangerous offenders are covered by part XXIV of the Criminal
Code, which contains a special procedure whereby individuals
sentenced for a serious personal injury offence, who have
previously committed similar offences and are likely to reoffend,
may be locked up indefinitely.
This extremely severe sentence is justified not only by the past
actions of the offender, but also by an observation made at a special
hearing that the offender poses a constant threat to the community.
[English]
I would also point out that a recent study revealed that 90 per
cent of the successful dangerous offender applications involve sex
offenders, those who prey on women and children. The dangerous
offender law certainly is severe but the Supreme Court of Canada
has upheld it as a well crafted, legitimate form of sentencing. Bill
C-55 does not tamper with the core concepts of the dangerous
offender procedure but it does strengthen it with a few strategic
amendments.
As the law presently stands, a judge who finds the offender to be
a dangerous offender would normally hand down an indeterminate
sentence, in effect indefinite confinement, but he can in
exceptional circumstances impose a sentence for a definite term. A
federal-provincial task force which reviewed the law concluded
that it makes little sense for the crown and the court to go through
the special lengthy dangerous offender process only to obtain the
same kind of sentence that would have resulted from a normal
prosecution.
Bill C-55 will require the court to impose an indeterminate
sentence in every instance. This will ensure that these very serious,
high risk offenders are detained indefinitely.
(1655)
Although these offenders fall into a high risk category, it is still
important that they receive periodic parole reviews. The current
law provides for the initial parole review of a dangerous offender to
occur at the three year point of the sentence with subsequent
reviews every two years thereafter.
8857
Bill C-55 will change that initial period review to the seventh
year. An offender who is sentenced to indeterminate detention
because of his ongoing dangerousness is unlikely to achieve parole
after only three years. In fact, the average parole release date for
dangerous offenders is closer to 14 years.
[Translation]
The new provision regarding long term offenders and the
improvements to the dangerous offenders legislation will provide
invaluable tools against violent offenders. We also introduced a
provision dealing with sexual offenders, as victims rights groups
had been demanding for a long time.
I should point out that the expression ``dangerous or violent
offender'' includes those who commit crimes of a sexual nature.
Indeed, sexual crimes are among the crimes for which someone
may be designated as a violent or dangerous offender. Bill C-55
provides not only that a person convicted of a sexual crime may be
designated as a dangerous or violent offender, but also that, if there
are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be
found to be a dangerous offender, the court may still designate that
person as a long term offender.
What do victims rights groups have to say about Bill C-55?
During consideration of Bill C-55 by the Standing Committee on
Justice, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
commended the government for its initiatives.
As for Victims of Violence, it was pleased by the proposed
amendments to the legislation on dangerous offenders. This group
also commended the minister and the government for their
proposed changes.
Jim and Anna Stephenson, whose son was murdered, are well
aware of the needs of victims' families. They stated that the
amendments to the existing provisions on dangerous offenders and
the creation of a long term offender category, as proposed in Bill
C-55, are major government initiatives. According to them, these
initiatives will fill significant gaps in the current legislation, thus
reducing the potential threat posed by violent sexual offenders.
[English]
These are examples of what the government has been doing. I
reiterate that there is certainly no reason for the government to
apologize for its crime policies.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
our colleague across the way. When the families of victims
appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-45 none of them
agreed in testimony with the position of the government. I am sure
my hon. colleague who just spoke knows that.
When the member makes statements such as those he has made
today, that the government is doing a good job in this area, the
question is for whom? Certainly none of the mothers, who lost
their children and grandchildren to murderers and who appeared
before the committee, thought the government was doing a good
job. None of the hundreds of thousands of people who have written
and signed petitions opposed to section 745, think the government
is doing a good job.
(1700 )
Inasmuch as my hon. colleagues have attacked the Reform Party
for exploiting emotional issues surrounding the issue they are
mocking, scorning and insulting the victims, the family members,
the mothers, grandmothers, fathers, aunts and uncles. They are not
represented by the government side. I have not hear a speaker from
the government side represent the victims, the families.
In view of the concerns and in the view of the opposition, those
who were able to appear before the justice committee and the
people of Canada who wrote to us and signed petitions that were
tabled in the House, how could the member honestly state the
government is doing a good job in this area?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, it is very clear the government
has made the proper amendments to section 745 by the screening
process and by making it not apply to multiple murders such as Mr.
Olson who has caused the debate today and by requiring unanimity
of the jury.
Up until now under section 745 it only took two-thirds of the
jury to allow a reduction in the ineligibility of parole. The
amendments deal with those three items. They would cover each
and every one of the situations the Reform Party is complaining
about today.
Reform members complain about a lack of respect. I have a great
deal of respect for our judicial system. Even more important, I have
respect for the Canadians who sit on juries and hear the full
evidence in those cases. As has been pointed out, approximately 78
per cent of the cases before the court on 745 application receive
some reduction-they are not all released on to the streets-in their
ineligibility for parole.
I have faith in the Canadian people, something I do not think my
friends in the Reform Party share.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, why
did the solicitor general, earlier in response to a question from me,
say that he would have made the changes we were pushing for
except the Bloc prevented it from happening? The solicitor general
said he was in favour of the changes we are talking about.
Does the hon. member opposite support the position of the
solicitor general on this issue?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I am at a disadvantage. I did not
hear the comments of the solicitor general. I doubt very strongly
that he said he agreed with the position of the Reform Party.
He was likely indicating the amendments to section 745 would
have been through the House to preclude Mr. Olson from making
8858
the application that will be dealt with shortly except that we did not
receive the co-operation of the Bloc.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, at the outset I would like to say I am splitting my time
with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for bringing forward the
motion. Unlike the Liberals opposite, I do not believe this is a sad
day or that the Reform Party is somehow a villain for bringing
forward the motion. Rather, I believe tomorrow will be a sad day, a
day of national disgrace for which the Liberal government will be
held accountable in the next election.
(1705)
We are debating the following motion put forward by my hon.
colleague from Crowfoot:
That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to
reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the
victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a
consequence, this House urge the Liberal Government to formally apologize to those
families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I wish the Liberal government had paid the attention to the rights
of victims and to repealing this offensive section of the Criminal
Code that it has paid to going after legitimate firearms owners. If it
had put in that type of effort this clause would no longer be there
for the use of people like Clifford Olson.
I quote from an article in yesterday's Vancouver Province. I do
not think it can be said any better than an unnamed staff reporter
wrote in yesterday's paper:
Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt cannot celebrate their wedding anniversary.
Christmas dinner with the family ends in tears. Their life is a quiet struggle with no
nights out for movies or dinners. They go to bed thinking how it would be if their
son, Daryn, was around. Daryn was only 16 when Canada's worst mass murderer
claimed him as a victim 15 years ago.
On Tuesday, from the recesses of Canada's most secure prison in Prince Albert,
Saskatchewan, Clifford Olson will begin a process to say he is a changed man and
deserves the right of parole.
The Rosenfeldt's know that he will be lying. On their wedding anniversary several
years ago the mailman delivered a letter to them from their son's killer. It detailed the
killing and Daryn's last words snuffing out what little joy the Rosenfeldt's had left in
their lives.
``We go to bed at night every night thinking about Tuesday's hearing'', says Gary
Rosenfeldt. ``It takes us back 15 years. It is as simple as that''.
The article went on further:
Olson, sentenced to life in jail with no hope of parole for 25 years for his killing
spree, has exercised his right to move his parole hearing forward by 10 years. The
murderer is owed his early hearing under section 745 of the Criminal Code, commonly
known as the faint hope clause.
The Rosenfeldts, along with those families who have chosen to bear witness for
their children at this week's hearing, will appear at a painful press conference
tomorrow to remind the world there is not a faint hope in hell that their lives will
ever be the same.
As I said at the outset, I do not think it could be said much better
than that staff reporter in the Vancouver
Province said it. As a
parent of three children I cannot imagine the horror of having to go
through something like that, of losing a child to someone like
Clifford Olson. I cannot even begin to comprehend what those
families have gone through.
To have those families relive that horror tomorrow is a national
disgrace. This psychopath is a man that rehabilitation cannot even
touch. He cannot be salvaged. He can never live in the community
again.
The chance of Olson getting early parole is about as good as the
proverbial snowball's chance in hell. In my opinion that is where
this man belongs. The point is that there is something very wrong
with the Canadian justice system when a man like Clifford Olson is
allowed to waste Canadian taxpayers' money strutting his stuff in
the courtroom.
Make no mistake, that is what will happen if he is successful
tomorrow and is granted a hearing later this summer. The very
thought of it is an offence to the memory of his victims. They did
not even get the opportunity to really live. Clifford Olson took that
away from them.
We are talking about a cold-blooded killer who is living in a
federal institution with more perks than many Canadians have in
their homes, including 24-hour access to cable TV in his cell.
(1710)
Section 745 has a shady past. It was quietly slipped by Canadians
in 1976 without any real discussion. The existence of the provision
is linked to what I would describe as one of the greatest political
scams of all time. In July 1976, in a fit of political correctness, the
Liberal government of the day abolished capital punishment
despite the fact that the majority of Canadians supported the death
penalty.
It was abolished by a margin of only six votes. The trade-off
offered to Canadians was so-called life in prison. Canadians were
told that even though murderers would now be allowed to live they
would at least be put away for 25 years. Then section 745 was
quietly slipped in and the effect of section 745 gave a new meaning
to the word life: 15 years. It is a mere drop in the bucket in terms of
an average person's life. All this was done quietly in the hopes that
Canadians would not notice that convicted killers were being let
out of jail after only 15 years.
There is more than just a moral issue here. Tied to that is the
financial issue. The procedure involved in applying for early parole
8859
is a costly three-stage process. First a judge screens the application.
Then a jury hears the application. If a jury decides that early parole
is appropriate the offender can apply to the National Parole Board
for early release.
The jury is not even given the whole story about the crime. All it
hears is an agreed upon statement of facts. To top it all off, the jury
makes its decisions based on a lower burden proof than is used in
criminal trials. There is no need to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the offender is not a risk to the community.
It is truly disturbing to think of all the financial and human
resources that go into this joke of a process. Section 745 is called
the faint hope clause, but when we look at the figures it is not such
a faint hope after all. As of March 1996 figures show that 78 per
cent of murderers applying under section 745 had success in either
getting early parole or having their sentences reduced. That is quite
a success rate. Even if it is truly only a faint hope provision it is a
lot more than Clifford Olson ever gave any of his victims.
It terrifies Canadians to realize that in the next five years
between 500 and 600 murderers could get early release and be out
and about in their communities even with the new changes. If the
minister really wanted to send a message to multiple murderers
maybe he should have proposed consecutive sentencing instead of
the minor changes he made in Bill C-45. At least this would have
put a value on each and every human life that has been taken.
To make matters even more offensive Bill C-45 only applies to
applications made after September 1996. It is ironic that these
amendments were only two days late in stopping Clifford Olson
from applying for early parole. I see my time is up. I could go on
and on.
Let me close by saying that most Canadians, myself included,
believe that breathing is too good for the likes of Clifford Olson, let
alone the chance to get out after 15 years.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to address the Reform motion which proposes:
That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to
reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the
victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a
consequence, this House urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to those
families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Section 745 implemented by the Liberal government in 1976
deals with parole for convicted killers. It provides the notorious
faint hope clause which enables murderers to apply for a judicial
review of their case and the option of early parole after completing
only 15 years of their sentence. Section 745 allows murderers like
Clifford Olson, who molested and murdered at least 11 innocent
children, to apply for early parole in only 15 years. Madam
Speaker, you will notice that a number of my colleagues are
wearing this ribbon today. On this ribbon are the names of the 11
victims of Clifford Olson.
(1715)
This week section 745 will be seen in action when the Vancouver
courthouse initiates the process of Olson's application for early
release from his life sentence in prison. This is the Liberals' idea of
justice. It is an absolute travesty. Murderers like Clifford Olson and
others who have committed horrendous crimes should not be
allowed to make a mockery of justice.
Let me describe Clifford Olson. He is a predatory vulture, a
slime bag, a scum bag of the lowest order. Look at what he is
getting through the system. The system is allowing him to come
forward and have his parole heard.
The Liberals have accused us of using this as a media platform.
We are responding to the platform. That platform was given to
Olson by the Liberals and the social workers in the system. They
are defending Clifford Olson. Who is defending the victims, the
parents of the sons and daughters?
Just imagine, Madam Speaker, that you are in a court house. You
have got Olson standing in front of you and he is cross-examining
you. What is wrong with that picture? It is absolutely wrong.
The majority of Canadians, supported by the Canadian Police
Association and Victims of Violence all support the elimination of
section 745. Do not massage it, as the Liberals have done. Get rid
of it.
However, this has fallen on deaf ears. The only change that the
government has made is to deny multiple murderers section 745.
What does that say? That means it is okay to kill once. That is just
sort of a trial. Is this what it is? Give us a break. What has happened
to our justice system?
First degree murderers can still appeal their parole ineligibility
and apply for parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence with
no parole for 25 years. Under the absurd law of our land Olson,
convicted in 1981, still has the government guaranteed right to
apply for early parole. This is absolutely beyond reason.
Why should Olson be given this platform? It is absolutely
ludicrous. Why should taxpayers have to shell out hundreds of
thousands of dollars to get him from Saskatchewan to Vancouver,
to pay for the process? Why should the families of the victims be
forced to relive their pain?
The noon news today had some of those families. The anguish
and the agony that they have to go through is absolutely wrong.
What is wrong with our system? That is what we are talking about.
Olson is the trigger, but the system is what is at fault here. That is
what has to be addressed. It is not being addressed by the Liberals
across the way. They tinker with it but they are not addressing the
actual problem. It is an absolute public outrage. It it is a public
disgrace.
8860
When Clifford Olson was convicted of the murder of 11 children
he received only one life sentence of 25 years. What happened to
concurrent sentencing? Eleven victims at 25 years is 275 years.
What it means, Madam Speaker, is whether you kill one or eleven it
makes no difference in our system. This is absolute lunacy. Yet this
is what is going on.
Clifford Olson will receive, if he gets out, 1.1 years for each life
he took. I ask the members across the way, is 1.1 years for every
child he killed justice? That is a disgrace.
(1720)
The previous speaker said that section 745 was brought in 15
years ago and it was not her responsibility. Whose responsibility is
it? She is a member of the government. It was brought in by a
Liberal government. For God's sake, fix it.
The Liberal members, as part of the government, are here to
change the law of the land. They are not changing it and yet the
member stood up and said that it was not her responsibility. I ask
again: Whose is it?
First and foremost the goal of sentencing should be the
protection of the public. That is not happening. It goes back to the
bill of rights. In this case it could be called the bill of wrongs. That
is what the bill of rights has done to us. The rights of the criminals
are addressed but not the rights of the victims, the parents, the
grandparents, the brothers or the sisters who have to go through the
anguish time and time again. What is wrong with the laws of this
land?
At present there are about 2,100 killers serving life sentences in
Canada, which is about 15 per cent of the nation's prison
population. As of September 1996, 63 cases were heard to reduce
the term of the sentence. Fifty of the 63 were successful. Fifty of
the 63 killers had their sentences reduced. What is wrong with this
picture? Of those 50, two reoffended within a mere nine months.
What are we looking at? Is Olson going to be out on the streets?
Can you imagine that?
Some hon. members: He won't.
Mr. Gilmour: Members opposite are saying that he will not get
out. That is what the solicitor general said. That is what the
Minister of Justice said. He should not get out. There should not
even be an opportunity for him to get out.
Mr. Cannis: Nobody believes you any more. Be honest.
Mr. Gilmour: They are sitting there whining and moaning. They
are trying to defend a law that is not defendable. Fix it. That is why
we are here today. Tomorrow this whole platform will move
forward. It will be an absolute disgrace to Liberals and to
Canadians.
My final words to the Liberals are: Fix it or the Reform Party
will fix it during the next election.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as
this debate winds down things are becoming very clear. I do not
think anybody in this place does not share the grief and the sorrow
of the families of victims.
I want to tell the truth about a couple of issues which people
should understand.
Number one, under section 745 Clifford Olson could not apply
today. Members opposite know that, but in the speeches we have
heard they continue to talk about Clifford Olson. They are cloaking
themselves in the grief of the victims.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ramsay: Tomorrow he is applying. Tell that to the people of
Canada.
Mr. Harvard: Order. There are a bunch of animals in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Can we have a
little bit of order?
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, you can see that when we tell the
truth it tends to upset the Reform Party.
I want to quote from the speech made by the hon. member. He
wanted to know why we are ``forcing the families of victims to
relive their pain''.
(1725 )
I do not think anybody here honestly believes the grief and the
pain that one feels for the loss of the family member is something
that can be turned on and off. It cannot be turned on and off. There
is no way that grief can be legislated away. The Reform Party is
saying to Canadians, here is simple solution to the grief of families
of victims.
I ask the member to be honest with Canadians and to say whether
he believes that Parliament can legislate away the grief of families
or whether he would not agree that we have to work to make sure
we have a strong and safe society, safe homes and safe streets, so
this grief will not occur in the first instance.
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, we are talking about honesty
and grief. The member says that grief cannot be turned on and off.
That is exactly what this legislation has done. It has dragged the
whole thing forward 15 years for these families. They are trying to
put it behind them. They cannot do that because the legislation the
Liberals now have in place allows for this animal to come forward
15 years later to make them relive the whole situation. Not only
that, but Olson gets to cross-examine these people. He gets to
question them. This is absolute lunacy and it is just inhuman.
8861
The member said that under the new legislation Olson could
not apply, which is fine. We asked the members during
consideration of the legislation to make it retroactive. They knew
Olson was coming up. The justice minister knew that Olson was
coming up within a year yet he would not make it retroactive. The
Liberals are saying that they cannot do it. These are the people
who make the laws and now they are saying that they cannot do
it. It is a very selective set of laws.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member makes reference to honesty. I want to know when
it is the correct and predominant view with respect to the law that
you cannot change section 745 to give it retroactive, retrospective
effect. After somebody is already in prison you cannot take away
the right to apply for a section 745 review. Even if we were to
repeal section 745 today, anybody who is now be in prison at the
date of the repeal could apply for a hearing. Why does the Reform
Party not tell this to the victims of crime instead of letting them
think that if we were to repeal it, it would stop the hearing process
today?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is a subject that is rather sensitive for
members of the Reform Party who are so concerned about victims.
I find it rather interesting that the last member to speak, the
member for Comox-Alberni, said that section 745-
Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My
understanding of the rules is that when I am asked a question I
should have the opportunity to respond.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The time for
questions and answers had expired. We now continue on to debate.
(1730 )
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I would like a clarification
from the Chair. Previously, Speakers have indicated how much
time the questioner has to make his questions or comments and has
indicated that the time must be shared evenly between the person
who has questions or comments and the person who has made the
speech so that they have equal time to answer the question. That
did not occur in the case of my colleague from Comox-Alberni. I
would like to understand why the rules were not followed in this
instance.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The rules of
this House are always followed by the Chair. The rules have been
followed and there is no written rule concerning what you have
just raised. We are now resuming debate.
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, as I was saying when I began
speaking, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had indicated that
section 745 allows Clifford Olson to apply for early parole. He said
that a few times in his speech but it is absolutely not true. That is
the misrepresentation that we are getting from the Reform Party. It
is absolutely not true. It allows him to apply so that he can become
eligible to apply. There is a big difference. It is not a parole
application.
However, that is too much for the members of the Reform Party
to comprehend. They have never decided to deal with reason. Of
course Reform Party members claim to act on behalf of victims.
They claim they deal with the victims. Do they not realize that
Clifford Olson after 25 years can still apply for parole? They do not
seem to realize that.
There is room to manoeuvre in this whole area of dealing with
section 745. Unfortunately it is quite difficult for the members of
the Reform Party to deal with this area.
Let me suggest a solution to this whole matter. Unfortunately it
appears that many of them will not be listening. That is fine, they
can read it in Hansard some other day. Section 745 perhaps should
be abolished in the future. It is something we should look at. I
suggest that we take a serious look at abolishing section 745. The
amendments that were made by the hon. Minister of Justice were
good amendments and a good first step that we had to take.
However, getting rid of 745 does not end the whole matter. There
has to be a step that takes place at the same time with the abolition
of 745, returning discretion to the judges. We have to return
discretion to the judges in the sentencing process. If we do not
return discretion injustices occur. I will use a couple of examples to
illustrate the problems that result.
Most recently there was a case in Saskatchewan, which I am sure
hon. members are all aware of, in which a person was convicted of
murder for having put his daughter to death because of his belief in
her suffering as a result of illness. The judge in the case should
have had the discretion to determine whether that individual would
be eligible for parole on a second degree charge in 10 years time,
for a first degree murder charge in 25 years, or whether he should
reduce it. Maybe he should reduce it to two years, three years or
four years, but he should have the discretion to vary from those
numbers because we could have an injustice occur. All fact
situations are not the same in murder cases.
Heaven forbid that they reoccur, but they seem to, in cases like
Olson and Bernardo, the judge should have been able to say ``I
sentence you to life imprisonment with no parole for life''. There
8862
is no application for parole and no parole application can ever be
made.
Reform members never suggest this. They simply tell us to get
rid of section 745. They never mention this second step. That is
what we need. We need this second step. They will probably leave
the House and try to take credit for such an idea. Unfortunately
some of the ideas that come from the other side of the House are
only rehashed ideas they get from this side of the House.
(1735)
Someone like Bernardo should have been dealt with at the trial
process by the trial judge. He should have had the discretion to say
no parole or no parole for 250 years. Outlive that, Bernardo. Or no
parole for 500 years or whatever figure. He should have had that
discretion. Unfortunately the Criminal Code does not allow him
that discretion.
Another situation similar to this occurred well in excess of 20
years ago in the city of Saskatoon where an individual was
convicted of killing four children, David Threinen. He had killed
four children and plead guilty to second degree murder. The very
well respected judge in the system in Saskatchewan, Justice Ian
Hughes, who had to sentence him, subsequently left Saskatchewan
and went to British Columbia.
At the sentencing he increased the parole eligibility to the
maximum he could at that time which was 20 years for second
degree murder. He made a recommendation that this individual
never be paroled. That should not have been something he had to
do. He should not have been obliged to do this. He should have had
the discretion to be able to make that order at the time of
sentencing, not left to the parole board, 20 years plus to be dealt
with again. He should have been able to deal with it then.
These are the types of cases where there are injustices, when the
judges should go lower in ordering parole eligibility or go
substantially higher in ordering non-eligibility for parole. It deals
with the whole matter. However, the amendments that have been
proposed to Bill C-45 are good amendments. They have changed
matters. It has been made such that an initial step has to be taken.
Why would the Reform Party ever vote against such a
requirement when it makes it tougher for someone who is serving
time for first degree murder in excess of 15 years to get parole
eligibility? Why would Reform members, who claim to represent
victims, vote against the bill? They claim to represent victims and
yet they vote against anything that helps victims. That seems
strange. Favour victims, vote against victims; favour victims, vote
against victims. That is the Reform policy.
Recently I received a document from the Church council on
justice and corrections, a coalition of 11 churches, Roman
Catholic, Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Batiste, Evangelical,
Lutheran, Salvation Army, the Quaker, Mennonite, Christian
Reform and Disciplines of Christ. In that document they indicated
they favour judicial reviews. They indicate judicial reviews are
working reasonably well in the country. More than half the
offenders eligible for a judicial review are not even applying for
one, they indicated, often because they either know they do not
stand a chance or feel they are not ready.
Then they come out with this statement: ``None who has been
released into the community has murdered again''. None. We are
getting a lot of fearmongering from the Reform Party, saying that
Canadians are terrified that murders will be released into their
community. Of those who have been successful in their application
under section 745, none released into the community has murdered
again. So why this fearmongering by the Reform Party if not to
make this a political issue when it is not a political issue?
With that we proceed to other matters. The Reform Party claims
that this a joke of the judicial process.
(1740)
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River indicated it is
a joke of the process. Where is the joke? We have people charged
with murder. There is evidence. They are convicted of murder.
They are sent to jail for life. The question is one of parole
eligibility. Where is the joke in this system?
People are consistently convicted in courts for the offence of
murder. Is this a joke? If this is a joke, I cannot understand what the
Reform Party would want in its place. Would it prefer trial by
ordeal? Would it prefer-
An hon. member: What about cross-examination of victims?
Mr. Bodnar: There are no victims who can be cross-examined
on a murder trial, and that is what I am discussing now. It is
unfortunate but that is the position. There are victims in cases but
they had better realize what is being talked about in the speech.
This is how the Reform Party deals with this matter. It treats it as a
complete political matter. It is not concerned about victims of any
sort in the process.
It is important to get rid of section 745 at some time in the future
and replace it with what I have suggested. Prisoners want finality in
sentencing as well. When they have been convicted, they want to
know exactly where they stand. There is no reason for them to put
on false pretences to prison guards in wanting to be treated better or
have a favourable report in 15 years.
They should have finality planned for that period of time and
deal with rehabilitation rather than trying to impress authorities.
8863
The comment by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that it
is 1.1 years for every child he has killed in referring to Olson is
absolutely ludicrous. His suggesting that Olson will only serve 1.1
years for every child he has killed is simply trying to inflame the
public when what is being said is completely and absolutely
inaccurate because he has not been granted parole.
Everybody knows he will not be granted parole, yet a comment
like that is made. It is inflammatory to the ultimate degree. That is
Reform policy. Its members not only deal with inconsistencies,
what is inaccurate, but they show their extremist qualities
throughout and continuously. Desperation is written all over the
Reform Party.
On Bill C-45 the Reform Party, in its fresh start campaign
platform, should realize that most of us did not need a fresh start
part way through this Parliament because we had a good start when
we started in 1993. We do not have to restart.
In their fresh start Reformers say that section 745 should be
repealed and they do not deal with a situation like another Olson
applying for parole after 25 years. Give the judges the discretion.
Let them deal with situations like this. Unfortunately it is never
dealt with.
Of course, they try to show how crime is increasing, it is really
bad. It is not true. Crime is falling. The national crime rate has been
falling for the fourth year in a row.
All we have to do is look at the Reform documentation. One can
see what Reformers are saying, fearmongering with respect to the
public. They are trying to show to the public that the justice system
does not work. Everything is getting worse. It is absolutely not
true.
The crime rate is dropping.
(1745 )
The crime rate has decreased for a fourth year in a row. Violent
crime also fell last year. Does it not hurt their policy when the facts
do not support them? How do they back out of it? They cannot.
They cannot back out of it. They are stuck with fearmongering and
alteration of the facts in matters such as this one. That is what we
have seen in debates and written articles about crime control by
Reform members.
I simply ask Reformers to take a look at my suggestion today. It
is not a new one. It made it to the Police Association of Canada.
Section 745 should be abolished, giving back discretion to judges
to deviate from the mandatory sentences in exceptional cases upon
giving reasons. I have indicated that to the association. It is very
interested in looking at that suggestion to see whether or not to
support it. I am waiting to hear what it has to say.
I am not about to say that we should not parole people forever or
if a criminal is convicted put him away for 25 years with no
discretion for judges. I have a lot more faith in the judicial system
than I do in the wisdom of the party across from me, the third party.
Its ability to deal with section 745 has been most lacking.
We must have constructive debate rather than the Reformers
continuously trying to insinuate that we are not dealing with the
rights of victims. We cannot have good debate with them. I am
putting out a suggestion for them to consider. Perhaps there are
problems in my suggestion but I would like to hear what those
problems may be.
I do not want to be called names. I heard one from the member
for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I do not want to
hear that. I prefer getting into constructive debate rather than being
called names. It is irresponsible. They will pay the price in the next
election. In the province of Saskatchewan there will be no
Reformers re-elected, none. We will see to it.
This is not the time for name calling in such a discussion. This is
a time to deal with alternatives. Unfortunately that is not on the
agenda of the Reform Party. Alternatives are not on its agenda
because it deals with alternatives on a different fact basis, facts that
are not there.
We cannot deal with alternatives like those. I simply ask that all
members to consider the alternatives I have put before the House
today.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I just heard a disappointing speech from the
member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. He epitomizes-and he was
very pitiful in doing it-everything we find wrong with the justice
system.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hermanson: They are heckling and jeering after their
member talked about name calling. To hear all the names they have
been calling us all day puts him in a very tenuous position, to say
the least.
The member for Saskatoon-Dundurn talked about crime rates
going down. Actually, if we look at the long term trend over the last
20 years, crime rates in Canada have been on a steady increase.
Like all charts they bump up and down but overall they are on an
increase.
(1750)
I was talking to some social workers in the member's riding,
people the work at the Friendship Inn. He knows very well where it
is. They are the experts in this field. It is one of the most difficult
areas in the province of Saskatchewan. It happens to be Premier
Romanow's riding as a matter of fact and the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Dundurn is the Liberal representative for that riding.
I asked them about the crime situation there. I asked if it was as
bad as a lot of people thought and if it was getting better or worse. I
am sure they were honest. They work there every day. They care for
8864
these people. They are concerned about their well-being. They said
that without a doubt things were getting worse in Saskatoon.
Crime is increasing. There is solvent and substance abuse, break
and enter, robbery and prostitution. Young offenders are a big
problem in that part of the city in Saskatoon.
The hon. member does not even know there is a crime problem
in his own riding. Yet he stands and has the nerve to say it is no big
deal that Reformers are concerned about section 745 of the
Criminal Code. All the members over here have been making
apologies all day for Clifford Olson and hundreds of murderers like
him who will get their day in court, who will be able to stand and
plead for mercy after the despicable things they have done.
I have been in the House most of the day listening to the
Liberals. A number of them over there have defended Clifford
Robert Olson and section 745 of the Criminal Code. They are glad
he will have his day tomorrow. They are trying to point the finger at
us and say that we are in the wrong because we brought it to the
attention of the House. All of Canada knows what is going on. All
of Canada is upset. Yet these Liberals in their little cocoon are
complaining because the Reform raised the issue for debate in the
House.
Mr. Cannis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have
been following the debate throughout the day. There has not been a
member from either side of the House rise to defend this criminal.
They talked about the process and the system and how they unfold.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I have listened to members
on the other side defend the process. They have defended section
745 of the Criminal Code even though many of them voted for
rescinding that section when their former colleague put forward a
private member's bill to do so. Now they have flip flopped and are
defending section 745 of the Criminal Code.
One of those members is the member for Oshawa. Can we
imagine what his constituents would think if they heard him in the
House? I hope some of them did, although most of his comments
were heckling rather than intelligent ones.
The member for Rosedale was also doing the same thing. He was
supporting section 745 of the Criminal Code. I wonder what those
constituents think of their member.
Right beside the member for Rosedale was the member for
Sarnia-Lambton. He rose to make a speech. All he did was rail
against Reform because Reformers are concerned about victims.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn had the gall to say
that family members of the murder victims are not victims. I could
not believe that he would be so insensitive and non-compassionate
to suggest that family members of murder victims were not
victims. I could not believe he would make such an atrocious
statement in the House.
The member for Scarborough Centre yelled insults at Reformers
and he was defending section 745 of the Criminal Code. I believe I
even heard a way off in the corner the member for
Victoria-Haliburton defend this awful section of the Criminal
Code which Canadians from one end of the country to the other
want to see rescinded.
The hon. member for Halton-Peel serves with me on the
agriculture committee. I thought he would be concerned about
Canadians and their concerns over section 745 of the Criminal
Code, but no way. He was heckling as well.
In front of him was the hon. member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice. He has been involved with the issue. He
heckled Reform because we brought the issue before the House. He
belittled the importance of repealing or rescinding section 745. He
said that it could not be done retroactively. However they could
retroactively do away with the Pearson airport deal. We know what
a Reform government could do in a retroactive way.
(1755)
They will push the most regressive legislation through the
House. They will use closure. They will use time allocation.
However when it came to a bill to deal with section 745 of the
Criminal Code they could not do it because the Bloc did not like it.
Can we imagine those poor, helpless, majority government
Liberals not being able to make changes to our legal system
because the Bloc did not want them to do it? They had to bow to the
separatists. They could not do the right thing. The member for
Prince Albert-Churchill River justified that action. I find it
incomprehensible.
The member for Dauphin-Swan River heckled Reformers. She
said it was just awful that we were bringing the issue before
Canadians. The member for Winnipeg St. James was his usual self.
He is always yelling at us in the House. He is very unkind and very
undiplomatic. He was doing his usual routine. The member for
Halifax was babbling about Reformers and calling us names. I am
sure you could not hear her, Madam Speaker, but that is the usual
spiel we get from that member as well.
The member for Mississauga South also said some very unkind
things about Reformers. He said we had no right to bring the issue
to the floor of the House. Can we imagine that? We are the people's
elected representatives in the Parliament of Canada. On a serious
issue like section 745 of the Criminal Code he thinks it is wrong for
us to bring it before the House of Commons. He would rather have
it debated in the papers. He would rather have it debated on talk
shows across Canada-
8865
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due
respect, the member is attributing to me things which I did not say
in the House. I would like to refute them and I would like the
member either to withdraw the allegation-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is debate.
Mr. Szabo: He has attributed to me things I did not say in the
House.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Mississauga South certainly made some comments. He thought it
was very inappropriate for Reformers to bring this issue for debate
in the House of Commons today, the day before Clifford Olson had
his day in court.
We could always check Hansard to find out what the hon.
member said. He thought it was opportunistic. I cannot remember
exactly what he said as there have been so many members who
have spoken along the same line. However that was the gist of what
he said. I may not be quoting him word for word but that was the
gist of the message that he was trying to get across.
The member for Burlington spoke in the same vein. She
criticized Reformers. She did not think this was an issue that was
important to Canadians. She obviously has not been listening to her
constituents.
Then, my dear friend, the member for Vancouver Quadra, got
into the act. Why he would do that I do not know. Perhaps he has
been a constitutional expert for too long and is out of touch with
how Canadians feel and what is in their hearts. They still believe in
decency. They still believe in justice. They still believe that when
somebody ruthlessly takes another human being's life there should
be severe consequences that will last for more than just a few years.
I have taken almost all the time available to me in questions and
comments. In closing, I wish Liberal members would set aside
their partisanship and come to their senses. I wish they would start
to listen to Canadians.
I cannot believe that the member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River and the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn would show such
insensitivity to the concerns of Canadians who see people brutally
murdered. Then the justice system protects, cares and pampers the
murderers while the victims continue to suffer. It is wrong and I
bring that to the attention of the House.
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member
did not hear the speech I made. I never referred to other members
of the family as not being victims of the crime.
Mr. Benoit: Yes, you did. Check Hansard.
Mr. Bodnar: Unfortunately they are not telling the truth at this
time.
(1800 )
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Check the tape.
Mr. Bodnar: Certainly.
As a further matter, with respect to crime in my riding, it is
interesting that he is busy campaigning in my part of the riding and
the election has not even been called.
Madam Speaker, I have had information passed on to me that
during my speech the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia uttered the word ``asshole''. I am asking that
this be withdrawn at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On the point of
order, the Chair did not hear that but we will certainly review the
blues.
We are now resuming debate.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I guess we are going to be a little short of time, but I
would like to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with
my colleague, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Mr. Kirkby: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was
my understanding that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn
was sharing his time with me.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): No, he was
not.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate the
motion that we are supposedly debating today proposed by my
colleague from Crowfoot. It reads:
That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to
reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the
victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a
consequence, this House urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to those
families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
That is what we are about today. I am disappointed that we had
this misunderstanding of what the member for Mississauga South
said or did not say. I would like to tell the House what I heard him
say. He said: ``There is no way that you can legislate away grief''. I
have to disagree with him. If we were to change the legislation, we
could prevent the family from going through the grief that they
have to go through.
I am going to cite a specific case of a constituent family of mine
whose daughter was a murder victim. The family members are now
victims themselves of the murderer and of the whole flawed
judicial process. The family's name is Clausen. Svend and Inge
Clausen live in Duncan. Their 15-year-old daughter was murdered
in 1981. Because of section 745, since August 1996 the Clausens
have had to be on the edge of theirs chair asking: ``Will that
murderer now appeal in order to get his reprieve after 15 years?'' It
has not happened yet but day by day this family is living through
this misery of having the whole thing come to life again.
8866
(1805)
This came to my attention in part because the Clausen's sent me
a copy of their letter to the current Minister of Justice. Because of
that I asked if they minded if I used their name in the House, if I
talked about their case. I asked if it would bring back the horror for
them. They replied, ``no Bob, it won't do that because we live with
the horror every day, and because of section 745 we will be living it
every day for the next 10 years. We don't know when this maniac
who murdered our daughter will put his name forward and say that
it is his right to appeal''.
With that I will quote from the Clausen's letter to the Minister of
Justice:
I am the mother of Lise Clausen who was abducted, sexually assaulted and
murdered on August 2, 1981 by Paul Kocurek, a convicted sex offender free on
mandatory supervision. I am writing this letter on behalf of my family.
Kocurek had borrowed a car from a friend and was cruising the quiet roads of our
neighbourhood looking for prey. He came well prepared [in other words
premeditated] with a starter gun and handcuffs ready in the car. He spotted Lise who
was out for a quick afternoon run before dinner, found a suitable place to park,
opened the hood of his car pretending to have car trouble. When she came close and
asked if he needed help, she found herself staring at the gun. He pushed her into the
car, handcuffed her and then drove past our driveway and up the mountain behind
our property. By the time she was located the next day it was all over. Her life, her
future, her dreams were all taken from her. Our lives were changed forever.
This was the third offence committed by this unbalanced, perverted individual
who consequently was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in
prison with no parole for 25 years. According to our justice system the ultimate
punishment for the ultimate crime. However, we soon realized that ``life'' does not
mean life and later we found that 25 years with no parole does not apply either-due
to a little known section in the Criminal Code, namely section 745''.
We learned that in 1976 the Solicitor General of the day, Warren Allmand,
publicly stated that: ``To keep them in [jail] for 25 years in my view is a waste of
resources, a waste for a person's life''. At the time Allmand was fighting to get the
minimum life sentence for first degree murderers set at 15 years. When he failed, he
introduced a loophole dubbed the faint hope clause, namely section 745.
This clause is an insult to all victims and their families. We are talking about the worst
kind of killers here. First degree murder is a planned cold-blooded killing, but section
745 is being used as a sneaky back-door route to freedom for these murderers so that
they can have the opportunity to kill again. For you and your government to condone
this defies common sense, and we are at a loss to understand why this government is so
eager to help such killers on to our streets long before the sentence imposed on them by
the judge has been served. Victims, past, present and future should be so lucky to have
such advocates for their concerns.
Most citizens were led to believe that the safety of society was important to you.
Did we misunderstand? If we didn't, then please explain why you are doing
everything possible to help convicted killers to get out. So that they can assault
and/or kill more innocent people?
We are well aware of the arguments put forth by your ministry. Points like ``there
has to be a light at the end of the tunnel,'' and ``if we repeal the section we would
close the door for people who are in no danger of reoffending, such as those who
killed an abusive partner''.
The answer to point one is straight forward-there is a light at the end of the
tunnel-at 25 years. The answer to point number two is that very, very seldom will
the killing of a partner result in a first degree murder charge, most likely
manslaughter, for which the sentence is much less.
In Canada today we continue to see a miscarriage of justice. As a matter of fact
most feel that we do not have a justice system. We have a legal system.
(1810)
My time is running out so I will finish. Section 745 demeans the
value of life and the balance is again swinging in favour of
convicted killers.
I do not have the time to finish Ms. Clausen's letter to the
Minister of Justice, but I think it speaks reams. The victims of
murderers are families such as this who have to relive it, not just
their daughter. Section 745 by being there as a hope which
murderers such as this one and Olson and Bernardo can invoke at
any time keeps them in agony from here on in. That is not justice.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, had I, instead of the Reform Party member or the
Minister of Justice, received such a letter, I would have tried to
reassure the family by telling them about the existing legislation. I
would certainly not have added fuel to the fire as the Reform Party
members have been doing since this morning. The question of
parole is perhaps not without problems, but neither is it
unremittingly bleak, as the members of the Reform Party have been
saying since the beginning of this debate.
I would have told this family that I fully understood their
sadness, what they are going through, and that I hope never to have
to live through anything like it myself. But I would remind them
that there are provisions for dangerous offenders. I would explain
to them the definition of ``dangerous offender'' and how the system
can designate murderers as ``dangerous offenders'' not eligible for
parole under section 745. I would take the time to explain that to
them.
I would also take the time to explain the parole system. I would
give them statistics. When you are involved in such a case and you
yourself become a statistic, it is, of course, a sad thing. But I would
use statistics to show them that the system is not as bad as all that.
Some things could be improved, I agree.
As I said this morning, one repeat offender is already too many,
in the case of murderers like those we are considering. I would try
to reassure this family by telling them that the ideal solution we are
seeking is the one that ultimately eliminates repeat offences.
If I were to do anything, it would be to seek a way to eliminate
this kind of criminal in our society. Perhaps we should pay more
attention to education, invest more in our young people. But one
thing I would not do is add fuel to the fire as the Reform Party
member and his colleagues have been doing since this morning.
I would like to put a question to the Reform Party member who
just spoke. We have seen with Bill C-45 that the government has
changed the rules for obtaining parole under section 745. It has
become section 745.6. There are extremely specific criteria, one in
particular. We have been hearing about the Clifford Olson case
since this morning. I do not always agree with the Liberal
government, but when they do something good from time to time,
they deserve credit.
8867
(1815)
Could the Reformers tell me whether, under section 745.6 an
application for parole from someone like Clifford Olson would
simply be blocked?
So, after hearing everything they said since this morning I think
things could be discussed more calmly if they were aware of the
provisions already in the Criminal Code and if they did not invent
things to make political points, which in the West, it appears, is the
way things are done.
I was listening to the Liberals and the Reformers earlier. This
subject requires calm and very careful examination, because not
only does it cost a lot to imprison murderers, but it costs a lot to
rehabilitate them and reintegrate them-something we have to
think about eventually.
I therefore ask the Reform member whether he thinks that, with
the amendments to section 745.6, someone like Clifford Olson or
Joe Blow would have a hard time getting paroled. Did he take the
time to look at the amendments and apply them to a specific case,
as he seems interested in doing?
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, it is probable that Clifford Olson will
not be granted parole. However, the answer to my hon. friend from
the Bloc is that just the possibility of it makes the family live in
trepidation.
I am sorry the member does not care to hear my answer. Let us
forget about answering if it means that little.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, shortly after coming to Ottawa, there was a comment in
the paper by a woman who said that she had been picked up along
the highway by Clifford Olson and raped.
Following that, a media reporter asked for a comment from me. I
simply said that if that is the case, it should be investigated and that
if he is convicted, add it to his sentence.
I received a personal letter from Mr. Olson after that. I am not
proud to have received it. It was a letter that showed no remorse. It
showed contempt for the justice system and contempt for everyone
involved with him.
This is the man we are dealing with. Where is this government's
compassion when I think of the victims and their families?
Tomorrow on March 11 child killer Clifford Olson will begin his
appeal for early parole under section 745 of the Criminal Code, the
so-called faint hope clause. This government could have stopped
Olson's appeal but it chose not to. Therefore tomorrow, March 11,
will be recognized as one of the saddest and most disgraceful days
in the history of our justice system because it does not carry justice.
It is tomorrow that the families of Olson's victims will relive the
horror, the suffering and the pain of what this child killer did to
their loved ones in the most brutal and gruesome way imaginable.
To bring some conciliation to these hurting people, I exhort the
House today to recognize that the families of murder victims are
subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result
of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
To give some justice to these hurting people, I exhort the House
to urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to the murder
victims' families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code.
I participate in this debate today and I want to argue two points.
First, the families of murder victims needlessly are made to suffer
more when murderers make appeals or applications for early
release under the so-called faint hope clause.
Liberal members talk about respecting the justice system. If
there is so much respect for the justice system, why is the decision
of the court which tried, convicted and sentenced Clifford Olson
now being questioned using different standards of evidence and a
different standard of reasonable doubt? If we have such respect for
the justice system why are we revisiting this and trying to redecide
what was decided 15 years ago?
(1820)
Second, the government had an opportunity to repeal section
745. It refused to do so and for this hurtful and neglectful action
the Liberals must formally apologize to murder victims' families
for their unnecessary pain and suffering. These are the people who
are having their wounds reopened and their suffering and loss
reimposed on them. This is unjust and this is cruelty.
I want to outline for the House what a Reform government would
do to protect the rights of murder victims' families. Before I do let
me give some historical background to provide a context for
today's debate.
Section 745 dates back to 1976 when Parliament abolished
capital punishment with the passing of Bill C-84. Included in Bill
C-84 was the mandatory sentencing clause which gave anyone
convicted of first degree murder a minimum 25 year sentence
before parole eligibility. The mandatory sentencing clause also
included section 745, the so-called faint hope clause. It gave every
first and second degree murderer the right to apply for early parole
after they served 15 years of a 25 year life sentence.
Fifteen years after the passage of Bill C-84 the families of
murder victims started to discover for the first time that section 745
existed. This is when they realized that the murderers of their sons,
daughters, brothers and sisters were getting out of prison on early
parole.
To the end of 1995, 50 of 63 first degree murderers who applied
under section 745, a shocking 79, per cent were recommended for
some form of early release. In Quebec, which accounted for 60 per
cent of all recommendations for early release, not a single
applicant was turned down. Quite clearly the faint hope clause has
become the sure bet clause.
8868
Section 745 appeals and hearings have traumatized the friends
and families of murder victims for too long. These are the people
who go home every night to an empty house or an empty bed and
who live out every day with grief, sorrow and pain knowing that the
one they love is not coming back. These families would find out
that the one who murdered their loved one is applying for or
already has a hearing for early parole. After this happens they
would discover that the criminal who inflicted so much pain on
them has been released early from prison. There was no honesty in
the sentence that was provided.
I am always amazed when we talk about serious things like this
at the levity that takes place on the government benches. This is no
joke. These are suffering people. I have listened to some of the
people who have gone through this experience and it is heart
wrenching to say the least. No one can understand the shock, the
horror and the pain that these victims endure when the person who
murdered their loved one has been let out of prison early or is being
considered for such a privilege. These victims relive the suffering
and pain of their loved one's death. They too are victims. They hurt
day after day for the rest of their lives.
Let me read to the House some personal testimonies of people
who have been revictimized because of section 745 of the Criminal
Code. Mrs. Rose Onofrey, whose son Dennis was murdered, said:
``Is that all my son's life was worth, 15 years? Why do I have to be
victimized again and again? Dorothy Malette, a convicted
murderer who received early parole under section 745, wants to
visit her children. I have to go to the cemetery to visit my son''.
Willa Olson, whose brother was murdered in 1978, said of
section 745 hearings: ``It is so hard on the family. You think you
have forgotten some of it and then you are reminded all over
again''.
Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son Daryn was killed by Olson, said
this of section 745 last year: ``I can only hope to God that it will be
repealed before August so that our families and the 10 other
families will not have to go through this whole nightmare again''.
The Liberal government had an opportunity to stop the suffering.
I have just described the opportunity. But it chose not to. Instead, it
decided to tinker with the faint hope clause by amending it under
last year's Bill C-45. The inadequacies of Bill C-45 I would like to
bring to the House's attention but I lack the time to do that.
I conclude by simply reminding the House of what a Reform
government would do to protect the families and friends of murder
victims. First, there would be no parole application for early
release for Olson or any other killer. A Reform government would
repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code and bring back truth in
sentencing. This means the sentences given would be the sentences
served by all offenders.
Second, a Reform government would enact a victims bill of
rights that would put the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of
those of criminals.
A Reform government would make compassion and caring for
victims the centrepiece of its justice policies. Where there is a
choice to be made between the rights of victims and the rights of
convicted criminals, victim rights would always come first.
Reform would make sure that child killers like Clifford Olson
are never given a cruel weapon like section 745 again to impose on
and further hurt and damage the lives of many innocent people.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 6.25
p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
on the question now before the House stands deferred until
tomorrow at the end of government orders, at which time the bells
to call in the members will be sounded for not more than15 minutes.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)