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 l