CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4591
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading; and on the amendment 4592
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4592
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4596
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4599
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4600
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 4609
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4614
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4622
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 4624
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4625
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4626
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4627
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4628
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4628
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4628
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4629
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4629
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4629
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4630
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4630
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4630
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4631
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4631
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4631
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4632
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 4632
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 4632
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4633
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4633
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4633
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 4633
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 4634
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4635
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading; and of the amendment 4636
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4639
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4642
Motion moved and agreed to 4650
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4650
Bill C-201. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4653
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 96; Nays, 127 4653
Motion No. 7. Consideration resumed of motion andamendment 4654
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 90; Nays, 142 4654
Bill C-205. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 4655
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4655
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa committee.) 4661
4591
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous
residents of my constituency of Kingston and the Islands calling on
Parliament to enact Bill C-205 introduced by my distinguished and
learned colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West. This
bill is an attempt to ensure that in Canadian law no criminal may
profit from the commission of a crime by the publication of
memoirs or other details of criminal activities.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to present another set of petitions with well over 100 signatures
from concerned parents and constituents across the country who
support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our children and they are opposed to the current
status quo in the screening of pedophiles in the community.
The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile
registry be established in order to help better protect our children.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour today to present a petition .
[English]
The petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to enact
legislation along the lines of Bill C-267 which would require major
oil companies to disclose and to provide a period of notification of
no less than 30 days for any increase over and above the current
price of oil at the retail pumps.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions to present. The first comes from Orillia,
Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): The second
petition, Madam Speaker, comes from Kingston, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
two petitions signed by the residents of York North.
4592
The first petition concerns job creation. The petitioners draw
to the attention of the House that in the past year alone short term
interest rates have declined three percentage points, that for the
last two and half years inflation has averaged less than 2 per cent,
and that by 1997-98 the federal deficit will have been reduced by
$25 billion.
The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that
since the Liberal government took office over 600,000 jobs have
been created.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to continue to work
diligently to create a healthy environment for jobs and economic
growth.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): The second
petition, Madam Speaker, draws to the attention of the House the
government's red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per
cent of GDP and the fact that we have surpassed that goal.
The petitioners call on Parliament to continue to keep its
commitment to Canadians and pursue its deficit action so that the
government will reach its deficit target of 2 per cent of GDP by
1997-98.
(1010 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first
petition is signed by constituents and people from around the
province of Saskatchewan, Davidson, Macrorie, Dinsmore,
Outlook and from people in Ontario.
The petition calls on the federal government to not increase the
federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the second petition has been signed by many of my
constituents in Regina-Lumsden, other parts of the city and the
province of Saskatchewan.
The petition calls on Parliament not to amend the Constitution as
requested by the Government of Newfoundland but to refer the
problem of educational reform in that province back to the
Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other
non-constitutional procedures.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): The third and
final petition, Madam Speaker, has been signed by hundreds of
people from Saskatchewan, Elliott Lake, Fort Frances and in other
parts of Canada.
The petition calls on Parliament to urge the government to set up
an energy price review commission to keep gasoline prices and
other energy products in check due to the fact that oil companies
are gouging consumers, business people and farmers throughout
this land without justification.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4592
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial
review of parole ineligibility) and another act, be read the third
time and passed; and on the amendment.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
yesterday, just before closing time in debate on Bill C-45, a point of
order was raised. In fact, after the point of order was stated by my
colleague from Wild Rose, the Speaker, which was you, Madam
Speaker, did not rule on that point of order. In fact, you went back
to the government whip who was asking a question at that time and
asked the government whip to resume questioning.
Madam Speaker, the point of order that my colleague from Wild
Rose was talking about related to a statement by the government
whip who said: ``Instilling that kind of hatred in Canadians is not
going to work''.
My colleague from Wild Rose was referring to the rules of
debate in section 481(c), imputing bad motives, different from
those acknowledged by a member.
All we asked yesterday, Madam Speaker, was that you rule on
that point of order which you did not. Therefore, I ask today
whether or not you would be prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I did rule
yesterday on that point of order and I ruled it out of order. We are
now resuming debate on Bill C-45.
Does the hon. member have another point of order?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to draw attention to Hansard for yesterday when the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated: ``Instilling that
4593
kind of hatred in Canadians is not going to work'' as a response to
the previous member's statements.
(1015 )
The member for Wild Rose rose on a point of order. It is quite
clear at page 4589 of Hansard the member for Wild Rose said:
``Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is improper and
unparliamentary to start referring to us as hate pushers of any
nature. I would ask this member to retract it''.
My hon. colleague made the Beauchesne's reference to
substantiate the request by the hon. member for Wild Rose. There
is absolutely no record in Hansard of your acknowledging the point
of order, addressing the point of order, dealing with the point of
order or asking the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to
withdraw the remark.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I remember
fairly well the words that were spoken yesterday. They were not
unparliamentary. I must admit that they were a little borderline, but
not unparliamentary. So I say it again, this is not a point of order. I
have ruled on this issue. We are now resuming debate on Bill C-45.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order.
After you refused to rule on the point of order brought up by the
member for Wild Rose, several of us called very loudly for another
point of order and were ignored and not recognized.
I want to find out whether this will be a standard practice in this
House, where our points of order are not recognized.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Hon. member,
points of order are always recognized in this House, but you must
admit that points of order are not to be abused. We are now
resuming debate on Bill C-45.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is indeed a
pleasure to be back here in the House. I was off doing some
business with international trade last week but I am sure that all of
my colleagues conducted the affairs of the House in a manner
which would add to the respect of this place.
The bill we are discussing today certainly adds to the respect this
place has garnered from the Canadian public. It is a bill that has
been very carefully crafted in response to the concerns not just of
government members but of members from both sides of this
House and clearly of many Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
They want to ensure that the Canadian justice system is responsive
to the Canadian public at this time in our history.
It is very important when we talk about issues of law and justice
that we do not take extreme positions at either end of the spectrum.
It is important as we try to gauge what is right for the Canadian
judicial system to understand that the vast majority of Canadians,
no matter which aspect of criminal justice we are looking at, are
reasonable individuals who wish to see the laws we pass in this
place not only be laws that are enforceable but laws that are
supportable by them. That is very very clear.
One might argue that a law that is not supported by the public is
not truly a law. As law makers we are elected by the people to make
laws for the people which must be supported by the people.
This bill has come to the floor of the House with a considerable
degree of controversy. A private member's bill was presented by
one of our members in the last session and it was debated. It caused
a lot of very important public debate. We saw a polarization in
some cases of those who thought the bill that was debated in the
last session which sought to repeal section 745 should have been
passed and that the entire section should have been repealed. Very
good arguments were made and they were worth listening to.
(1020)
The bill now before the House seeks to change the application of
section 745 of the Criminal Code. Again it has caused considerable
debate in this place as well as in the Canadian public.
It is a difficult piece of legislation. As I said earlier, most
Canadians are somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We are
dealing with parole eligibility for people who have been convicted
of the most heinous crimes in our society.
Indeed, after a particularly horrific crime has been committed
the Canadian public seems to swing very much to the right. They
say that the perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law and that there should be no consideration
given to the ability of the system to rehabilitate those individuals.
We have all done it; I have done it myself. When we read about a
child being murdered or some of the other horrific crimes which
human beings can perpetrate on other human beings, the initial
reaction is to put the criminal in jail and throw away the key.
However, on sober second thought we have to sit back and ask: Is
each case exactly the same? Is each case so unindividual in its
circumstances that laws should be passed which effectively
indicate that anybody who is convicted of any of the crimes
covered by section 745 should be automatically treated the same
way? Should the key be thrown away? Should there be no
possibility even for an application for a reduction in the length of
time which has to be served before parole eligibility is attained?
It is a difficult bill. If we had to deal with each case, nearly every
member would see that all cases are not the same. There are
different circumstances. We are dealing with individuals who have
been convicted of the most heinous crimes: first degree murder;
4594
multiple murders; serial murders; second degree murder; treason.
These are the most serious crimes one can commit in our society.
This bill probably sets the balance where it should be. The bill as
proposed and as presented after report stage seeks to rebalance the
system from where it had been under section 745 eligibility to
where the Canadian public wants to see it and where our
government thinks it should be in the interests of the successful
application of justice in our society.
This bill responds to the absolute gut wrenching aversion which
each and every Canadian must feel when they see those in our
society who have been murdered in cold blood and when they see
the horrible crimes which have been committed against our
children. It says that those who commit the most serious crimes
against Canadians and against humanity will no longer be able to
make an application under section 745.
The bill also sets important new parameters. It tries to resolve
the undue hardship which the families of victims suffer as a result
of some criminals making frivolous applications under section 745.
The bill adds a new layer to the application.
Those who are applying under section 745, if they have been
convicted of first degree murder, must wait 15 years before the
application can be filed. Before the application receives a full
hearing, it must go to a superior court justice in the province in
which the sentencing occurred. Based on the written evidence only,
that justice will now make a decision as to whether or not there is a
reasonable likelihood that an application for reduced parole
eligibility has a chance of success before a jury.
(1025)
The current way the system operates is that anybody who
reaches that 15-year threshold has a right to make an application
which must be heard by a judge and a jury. In many cases, we
understand that individuals who have no chance under the rules to
have a shortened period before parole eligibility take it to the court
to add more public attention to themselves. At the same time they
drag the victims' families through the court system who relive the
memories of the atrocious crimes that were committed.
This bill addresses that. This bill makes sure that those frivolous
cases as they are put forward will be vetted by a superior court
judge. If that judge believes there is at least the possibility that the
application for parole eligibility reduction might succeed, then it
will be referred to a jury.
The other significant change is that in the past, when it was a
judge and a jury, and the way it is done under the current system is
that only eight out of twelve or two-thirds of the jurors could agree
that there should be a reduction in the parole eligibility period.
Under the new system it must be unanimous. Twelve out of twelve
jurors must agree that the period before parole eligibility comes up
should be shortened. Again, this seeks to rebalance the rights of the
convicted as well as the rights of the community and the victims'
families. It is a very progressive step in the right direction.
There are other important things in this bill. We have to
understand that the Canadian public seeks to put law and order on
the front burner again. This is one of a series of bills that have come
forward in the term of this government to try to address and to
rebalance the justice system in Canada.
This bill understands that perhaps some who are on the right
wing would say to completely repeal section 745 and treat
everybody the same no matter who they are, that somehow that will
right the wrongs of those who have been the victims of these
crimes.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): First degree murderers.
Mr. MacDonald: Murderers, I agree. Maybe the members
opposite would contain themselves a bit. We have had plenty of
time to hear them in debate. Perhaps I could address some of their
concerns.
The Reform Party members opposite say to repeal it and they go
to the victims of crime. They go to the very victims, the people who
have suffered the most and say that if this is repealed, according to
the Reform Party's representations during the processing of this
bill through Parliament, suddenly everybody who is behind bars
will have to come under the new regulations. My understanding of
the law is that simply is not the case. It is a fundamental principle
of justice that when dealing with substantive issues, they cannot be
retrospective in their application.
We have many lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I am just a poor soul
from Cape Breton who is representing the good people of
Dartmouth in the Parliament of Canada and lucky enough to do it. I
talk to lawyers. They tell me that even if we wanted to, if we
repealed this bill so that some of those criminals, the bottom
dwellers who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes in
society, never get out, we could not do it. A fundamental tenet of
justice not only here but in any country that has responsive systems
of justice would be violated. As much as some in this place, maybe
on our side as well, would like to see that done, it does not have the
same impact as some of the amendments would propose.
Nobody on this side of the House is saying that individuals who
are convicted of murder should be treated with kid gloves; it is
exactly the opposite. What we have to say, as legislators, and what
we have to understand is that not every case is the same.
Yes, what we have to do when we craft our laws is to ensure that
we do not craft our laws based on a gut reaction as to where it
4595
should be. We must do it on a careful examination as legislators
regarding what is workable and what is fair for Canadians.
I have come a long way since I was first elected to Parliament in
1988. When I was elected in 1988, I was one of the people who
perhaps was more on the left side of the administration of justice.
(1030 )
I have been here for eight years and have listened a lot to the
people of our communities and I have seen the impact of some
violent crimes. Members opposite may laugh, but I have seen some
victims of crime, young girls of 13, 14 and 15 years of age who had
been viciously raped by pimps. They were taken from their
communities and became addicted to drugs and prostituted on the
streets of Toronto, New York and Niagara Falls. I was one of the
people who stood up in my caucus in government and in this place
and said that the laws we had dealing with those types of criminals
had to be revised and reformed because the sentences simply did
not fit the crime or the aversion of the Canadian public to the
perpetrators of those crimes.
I will continue to speak up in Parliament for what I believe are
necessary reforms to the criminal justice system. But I will not fall
off the edge of the world into the right wing abyss which says that
everybody who commits any type of crime should be dealt with in a
very harsh and uncaring manner by the court system in Canada.
This bill is a step in the right direction. It stops short of lumping
all individuals into the same category. It ensures that those people
in future who are convicted of multiple or mass murders will not
have access to section 745 of the Criminal Code. It makes sure that
does not happen. It puts firm rules in place which will stop the
frivolous application by criminals of section 745 to gain earlier
parole. In many cases it is not to get the earlier parole, because
there is no chance for it, but simply to draw more attention to the
crimes they have committed.
In conclusion, I support the direction this bill is taking. I fully
understand that maybe in one, two or even four years the bill and
the entire issue of the application of section 745 must be reviewed.
Indeed, when the bill passes this place the Minister of Justice and
the officials of the Department of Justice, I would counsel, should
keep close watch on its application and implication in the criminal
justice system. They should also take into account how this has
impacted and what are the responses from the victims of these
heinous crimes.
To have a criminal justice system in Canada supported by the
Canadian public it must be responsive to the Canadian public as a
whole, not just people on one side or the other side of an issue, but
for the Canadian public in general.
I applaud the Minister of Justice for this bill. I know he has very
strong personal views on this which may or may not be reflected in
the legislation. However, I think the Minister of Justice
understands how the criminal justice system in Canada must be
responsive to the needs, aspirations and the demands of Canadians
for a safe and secure society and that those people who break the
rules are treated effectively under the law, that people can be
rehabilitated, that the resources will be there to do it; but that those
people who commit the most heinous of crimes do not have access
to provisions for application under the law for early parole.
I think this bill does it and I applaud the minister for it. I look
forward to its speedy passage in the House.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the member for Dartmouth
and I take exception to some of the things he said. He suggested the
Canadian public is fickle, that it reacts and then thinks. I take
exception to the minister's put down of Canadians and their ability
to assess the happenings of the time.
Canadians get on with their lives. That is not to say they do not
carry the seriousness of what they read in the paper the previous
day or what they heard. They do care very much and they feel very
strongly when they hear of these vicious crimes.
I point out to the member for Dartmouth that in my riding I took
a survey, not at the time when there was a vicious crime. The
survey did not reflect any particular event that took place in society
at the time. It was a survey asking my constituents what they
thought about capital punishment if they could be assured that
capital punishment would affect only heinous crimes, mass
murders, after all appeals had been exhausted.
(1035)
I had 45,000 households in my riding at that time and had a
return of 2,680 replies, 4.6 per cent. That proves what the member
has said is not true, or is not always the case, because these
Canadians feel so strongly even though they did not have a paper
reaction right in front of them. Under those terms 87 per cent said
we should look at capital punishment. The hon. member for
Dartmouth can be assured that if we are talking about getting rid of
parole, life is life for those kinds of crimes, they would certainly
definitely say repeal section 745.
The member speaks in contradictions. He said he has been in this
House a long time. That when young girls were raped he
immediately came to their defence and tried to change the laws.
That is exactly what Reformers are doing. Why put down
Reformers and Canadians who are responding to the needs of this
society, and yet say he has done the same thing himself? I am
interested in his response.
Mr. MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not need a
lecture from the member opposite on how to read the mood of the
Canadian public.
4596
As far as the Canadian public being fickle, I would caution the
member to look at the results from the last election with respect
to the Reform Party and see where the Reform Party currently sits
in the polls.
She says the Canadian public sticks to the topic. I will stick to it
as much as she did when she talked abut capital punishment which,
by the way, is not covered in this bill.
The member opposite said that 4.6 per cent of households
responded, and 87 per cent agreed that capital punishment should
be reinstated. I think we have to be very careful here. I remember
when the gun legislation was forwarded. I know what the numbers
were in my riding and I would like for each of the Reformers to tell
me what the numbers were in their ridings.
In my riding 87 per cent indicated they felt very strongly that the
gun control legislation put forward in this Parliament by my
government should be passed. There was a very small percentage
that believed we should not put gun control and the rest did not
have an opinion.
The member opposite says I read it wrong. I did not read it
wrong at all. If I had just gauged it from the letters that came in
from organized lobby I would have thought that everybody in my
riding of Dartmouth wanted no part of gun control legislation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We cannot govern by polls,
which is what the member opposite is telling us we should do.
When you are elected to this place, to the highest court in the
land, you take your responsibilities seriously and understand when
you stand in your place in this House that it is not just your opinion
that you carry but the opinion of the people in your riding. I can tell
the hon. member opposite that I do not need polls to tell me what is
the right thing to do.
I talk to the people in my riding and I understand that the people
in my riding have the same type of aversion to horrible crimes as I
have. I do not need to be misquoted by the member opposite. What
I indicated was that after there is a particularly horrible crime the
Canadian public immediately will probably come up with opinions
as to how best deal with it, which are not the opinions in the light of
day they would have three, four or five days later.
Rather than having knee-jerk reactions to the administration of
justice my government has made a decision to go about this in a
very methodical manner to ensure the individuals, the victims,
people in the judicial administration are consulted and that we hear
from Canadians. Where appropriate, laws are introduced into the
Parliament of Canada to adjust those elements of our criminal
justice system that need adjusting.
What we will not do, and I hope it will never be done, is that we
will become so controlled by extreme knee-jerk reactions, no
matter how appropriate at the time, in response to a horrible crime
that we start introducing legislation in this place which I believe
would do a disservice to the evolution of the criminal justice
system in Canada. I will continue to stand in this place on behalf of
the good people of the city of Dartmouth and represent them to the
best of my abilities.
I think the Reform Party opposite, rather than constantly taking
positions for the minority, should think about governing
responsibly in opposition, playing a responsible role and start
speaking for the majority. The poll numbers lately would certainly
tell Reformers they have not been doing that.
(1040)
An hon. member: We will see who wins in Dartmouth.
Mr. MacDonald: The last thing I wish to say to the member
opposite who is yelling we will see who wins in Dartmouth, is I
have a better shot of walking back into this Chamber than almost
anybody because I have not fallen victim to extremists in my riding
or across the country.
This country deals with issues such as the criminal justice
system, such as social policy, such as maintaining the social fabric
of this country, such as ensuring that things like equalization and
the concept that the Government of Canada has a role to play in
ensuring that programs of national standards go from one end of
this country to the other are part of the fabric, something the
Reform Party knows nothing about.
Ultimately the electorate will be the judge when the next election
comes around and I will tell the members opposite that I do not fear
that judgement, whatever it will be. I know the job I have done and
my party has done is in the best interest of Canadians.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have a
couple items and I will try not to get wound up the way the previous
member did and try not to be quite so partisan.
In my riding over 12,000 names came into my office about Bill
C-68. Seventeen names came in saying I should vote for that bill.
Twelve thousand to seventeen is an interesting figure when talking
about listening to people.
I could say more about the good people of my riding who are
equally as good as the hon. member's constituents. What we are
talking about here is first degree murder. What troubled me most
about what the member had to say was how he never said that. He
kept saying criminals, someone who commits a crime, and talked
about dealing with them in this way.
We are talking about first degree planned murders, and that is all
we should be talking about in this bill. Is 15 years the time for the
life of a victim? When someone has killed should that person serve
15 years? Is that the price of that life? I would like to ask the
member that. This is premeditated, first degree murder.
Mr. MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the member raises a very
good point. An individual convicted of first degree murder will
serve a life sentence, no matter whether they do get a reduced
4597
period of time before parole because they served that sentence.
That sentence is still applied even though they may be on parole.
This bill states that anybody who is convicted of first degree,
premeditated murder will get the minimum of a 25 year sentence
but after 15 years may make an application through a new process,
an application that does not automatically get heard. It is an
application that can be made but not necessarily automatically
heard, which is the current case. The hon. member knows that.
Currently anybody who is convicted of first degree murder has a
mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years. They can
now make an application after 15 years and that application must
be heard. It means that a judge and jury must be convened and the
judge and jury must make a ruling as to whether or not-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry to
have to interrupt you, but we are resuming debate.
I wish to point out that the next speaker will be the last to take
advantage of the period of 20 minutes for speeches followed by ten
minutes of questions and comments.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to again speak on Bill C-45, which deals with changes to
the Criminal Code, section 745 in particular.
According to the present section 745 of the Criminal Code, a
person convicted of first degree murder who has served 15 years of
his sentence may apply to a judge and jury in order to become
eligible for parole.
(1045)
The effect of this bill would, in my opinion, be to make the
conditions for eligibility for a reduced sentence more difficult,
frankly, too difficult.
According to this bill, first of all, a person has to submit a
written document to convince a judge of the justification for the
request. He cannot go before the judge to present his arguments
verbally as to why he is eligible for having his sentence reduced to
15 years on the basis of good conduct or certain other factors. This
must be done by written representation, which does not work in the
inmate's favour.
Second, once this judge has been convinced, the jury which will
hear the inmate's representations must be also convinced, this time
unanimously according to the bill. Once the jury is convinced
unanimously-not an easy thing to do-that the inmate might
eventually be entitled to a reduced sentence, he then has to go
before the Parole Board, which acts as the final decision-making
authority and will probably allow a reduced sentence. If it does not
allow it, the initial sentence will be retained as it was.
This is the process proposed to us in the new Bill C-45.
I have just been listening to the Reform and the Liberals
squabbling over this matter of reduced sentences. As I see it, the
two of them are not talking about exactly the same thing.
In fact, the Reform Party's main grievance is that sentences for
first or second degree murder are often reduced as a result of plea
bargaining between the counsel and the court. In other words,
agreement is reached on a lesser charge that carries a shorter
sentence. In the case of first degree murder, counsel will often
negotiate with the Crown, and finally the parties agree to a charge
of second degree murder, thus avoiding a life sentence. This means,
according to rules that are beyond me and beyond most people, that
in the final instance, we have people who get 12 years and are
released after serving only two and a half years. Those who get ten
years are walking around scot free after only three years, often
repeating the same offence. That is not the problem here.
The problem we are concerned with here is people who are
sentenced to 25 years without parole, what we call a life sentence,
and who are not eligible for review till they have served 15 years of
their sentence. The statistics show that, among individuals who
served 15 years, and very few saw their period of ineligibility
reduced after 15 years, only a few cases since section 745 came
into effect-I may be wrong, but I doubt it-and I think that fewer
than one per cent repeated. There are practically no repeat
offenders. Fifteen years is a long time in a person's life.
When Parliament abolished capital punishment, and capital
punishment is certainly very much on the minds of Reform
members as we listen to their message, when Parliament abolished
capital punishment, it knew what it was doing. Sociologists
prepared studies on the subject and submitted reports to the justice
committee. They said: Sentencing someone to 25 years without
parole, without any hope of having his sentence reduced for good
behaviour or other factors, is asking for trouble.
So it made sense to assume that providing opportunities for a
reduced sentence would make it easier to keep the prison
population within bounds, while at the same time ensuring the
public safety.
(1050)
However, some people had harsh words for this bill. They said it
would raise false hopes among the prison population in maximum
security prisons because of the length of their sentence. It was a
way to tell them that if they kept their noses clean for a certain
time, they had a chance, with good behaviour, to have their
sentence reduced from 25 years to 15 years, which in some cases,
was acceptable.
We have a Canadian-and this is a true story-we have a
Canadian, Mr. Trân Trieu Quân, a Canadian of Vietnamese origin
who has just been sentenced to life imprisonment in Vietnam. He
asked to be shot. He said he would rather be shot than be
4598
imprisoned for life or sentenced to 25 years hard labour. In one way
or another, he knows he will not get out alive so he would rather be
shot right away.
This is consistent with what I said last week: some people would
rather be executed right away than be sentenced to 25 years in
prison without parole. Mr. Trân Trieu Quân, whose release we as
members of Parliament are fighting for, asked to be shot rather than
having to put up with such outrage for 25 years.
The same goes for Canadian inmates. I think it is wrong to say
that a convicted criminal must serve 25 years without parole. We
must give inmates some real hope, not only on paper, not just a
semblance of hope as the Liberals are trying to do with this bill and
know very well they are.
This is nothing but partisan politics. The Liberals do not want the
Reformers to be too gutsy, as my grandfather used to say. So they
introduced a bill to make western Canadians feel like the Liberal
government understands them, not completely but a little.
The Liberals do not want to go too far either, because if they do,
if they give the Reform Party full satisfaction, it is Quebec that will
object. As we say in hockey, ``they will get it''. I hope it will not be
for too much longer, but Quebecers, too, are currently subject to the
Criminal Code and Canadian justice, and their mentality is not
exactly the same as that of western Canadians.
Quebecers, who also experience all manner of crimes and acts of
violence, of extreme violence-as we recently saw in the Isabelle
Bolduc case-but who believe more strongly in social
reintegration, in the possibility of rehabilitation, are not fooled by
the requirement for a unanimous jury.
In the end, it is nothing but a smoke screen. This bill is basically
hypocritical. It is obvious that if an inmate has to apply to a judge,
secure a unanimous jury decision and then have a majority on the
Parole Board rule in his favour after completing a 15-year
sentence, chances are that he will have served his full sentence
before the Parole Board has to make a decision.
This is what we object to in this bill. We feel that the bill is
hypocritical, and that is why the hon. member for Bellechasse has
put forward an amendment. We are not proud to see the rules in
section 745 become more stringent for inmates, not out of
compassion for them, but because the safety of our prisons is at
stake.
It would already be an improvement if the decisions did not have
to be unanimous. An inmate who behaved during his years in
prison and who had an opportunity to show remorse for his crime
might benefit from a reduction of up to a maximum of ten years in
the number of years. This person could be rehabilitated and perhaps
become a productive citizen.
(1055)
There are costs involved in keeping people locked up. A study
conducted about 18 months or two years ago showed that each
inmate costs the state something like $50,000 per year, if not more.
There are also social costs related to keeping people in jail when
they should no longer be detained.
Statistics show that very few of those who applied for a judicial
review under section 745 relapsed into crime. Those who did
relapse were the ones who were the subject of some wheeling and
dealing at the time the complaint was lodged and who were
sentenced to 12 years but did three, or 10 years and did 2, or five
years but spent six months in jail, etc. They are the ones who
relapsed, because they felt the justice system had no backbone. But
those who actually spent 15 years in jail think otherwise, because
15 years is a long time.
Fifteen years ago, most of us here, including myself, had hair on
our head. During those 15 years, some people, including myself,
gained 25 pounds. Things change over a period of 15 years.
Reformers should realize that 15 years is a long time and that the
possibility of being paroled is a glimmer of hope that we give to
inmates during that period.
People have come to my office to make representations. Chiefs
of police have told me truly shocking stories. They expressed their
views. I respect them and I understand them. This was evidenced
recently, just a few days ago, when the Minister of Justice tabled
his bill on the wearing of a bracelet by criminals who are
potentially dangerous but may not in fact be dangerous, who have
not been convicted but could eventually be. The chiefs of police
applauded to this measure.
If police chiefs were authorized to put everybody on file, to have
a record on everybody and to restrict people's movements to a very
limited area, their work would be made that much easier. I cannot
blame them for that. But human rights may not be police chiefs'
primary concern.
In the headlines in Quebec these days, you can read about
officers in charge of investigating other officers being openly
threatened by fellow officers, and this is apparently not unusual in
the police community. Human rights may be relegated to the
fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh place in the police community, but
politicians must give them a higher priority. We do not represent
only police officers. We represent people from all walks of life,
including the victims of often heinous crimes.
I do not think we should come here to demand an eye for an eye.
Society should not seek revenge. The purpose of the justice system
is not to avenge, to repay those who do violence to someone else in
kind. Society must protect itself against criminals, and that it why
4599
we have criminal legislation: not to avenge heinous crimes, but to
provide public protection. That is what we are here for.
I guess my friend opposite, the hon. member who has rejoined
the Liberal caucus, agrees with me on this, because he normally
objects immediately when he does not. I congratulate him and I
congratulate him on his return as well, but I am sure that, like me,
he understands that society, the government, justice, must not go
after individuals. Justice transcends everything represented by
hate, outrage, bitterness. Justice must be there to be applied.
(1100)
And if I had any recommendations to make, one would be to
begin by putting a stop to the well known practice of plea
bargaining: someone who has committed a murder would be liable
to a sentence of murder in the first degree, that should be the
charge. But in the guise of speeding up the process, of saving the
taxpayer money, we will reduce his sentence by just a bit, instead
of sticking him with the offence he actually committed. If he
co-operates, a little more is shaved off, if his behaviour is good, a
little more again, and if he is an employer providing jobs, another
little bit. In the end, we have ridiculous situations where 10 year
sentences have been whittled down to 2, 9 years to 3, and so forth.
Every day we read in the papers about repeat offenders. Often it is
because they have not been through the deprivation and frustration
of 15 years behind bars. But those who have, and the statistics
prove it, do not reoffend.
I think that, ideally, section 45 should have been left alone, but
they wanted to quiet the agitated rumblings of people with an axe to
grind. They wanted to satisfy people who are applying political
pressure and who have political clout, in order to keep everyone
happy. The result is something that is neither fish nor fowl. It is just
like all the wonderful Liberal bills we have seen for the past three
years. That is Bill C-45 for you.
Bring us a bill that would state in black and white that, in the
case of such a charge, lawyers may not plea bargain, because this is
where the sentence is actually decided, and then I might listen with
more interest. But I totally disagree with Reform's attempt to bring
in capital punishment through the back door for an upcoming
debate. This is Reform's hidden agenda.
If Reform's main concern is to protect society from dangerous
criminals, there is the new legislation on dangerous offenders, a
very interesting bill I urge them to read.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am never really sure at times where some of the folks from the
Bloc are coming from, and whether the hon. member supports or
does not support the bill.
The member made a very interesting statement a moment ago.
He said, with regard to first degree murderers, that 15 years is a
long time, people are suffering. I really find that incredible
statement, considering that first degree murderers have
pre-planned the execution they have undertaken. They have
usually, if not always, little or no regard for the victims.
I wonder how my colleague across the way can rationalize the
plight of the victim with that of a first degree murderer for whom
he says 15 years is a long time, people are suffering. If he believes
for a minute that the families of the victims of these first degree
murderers are not suffering for their whole lives then he is truly
mistaken.
I would like to ask the member how he rationalizes a statement
like that in view of the fact that all of the victims in our society
suffer even more?
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand how the
victim's pain and suffering will be reduced if the convicted
criminal is sentenced to 20 rather than 25 years in prison. I do not
understand.
My learned colleague, whom I salute and for whom I have
enormous respect, tells me that 15 years is not long. He should go
ask Brian Tobin, the current premier of Newfoundland, whether or
not 15 years is a long time. He should go ask him. Fifteen years is a
long time in an active person's life. It is probably the maximum
sentence that can be given so a convicted criminal has a real chance
to rehabilitate himself and reintegrate into society. After 15 years,
the inmate is often too old to start over on the right foot.
(1105)
It is the kind of balance we try to achieve when drafting a bill
like this one: giving a criminal a real chance to return to society
while limiting the possibilities that he will reoffend. We are trying
to find the right balance between the two, something the Reform
Party does not seem willing to acknowledge. This is unfortunate.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a quick question. The member seems to eliminate the word
justice in his speech.
I would like to remind the member that the victims of this land
are calling for justice, not revenge. That is the only thing that could
happen that would ease the pain of a victim to the slightest degree.
If they believe that at least justice prevailed in their case, they
would feel better. It has not.
Would the member explain to me, if he can, why there are tens of
thousands of Canadians who belong to all kinds of victims' groups
across this land, calling not for revenge but for justice.
4600
I do not know why these members have such a hard time with
that word. I know how the member would respond if I said:
``Would capital punishment be a deterrent?'' We would get into
a long debate about no, it does not deter, et cetera.
Does the member believe that serving 15 years for first degree
murder is a deterrent to crime in this country?
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, we must not confuse justice and
vengeance, as reformers seem to do. I do not think they are acting
in bad faith, but I do believe they confuse the notions of justice and
vengeance.
An uncle of mine got killed. It was an accident. There was no
malicious intent. He was killed in a car accident and it was not clear
whether the driver involved was under the influence or not. This
was in 1952. In those days, a driver who had had just one beer
would automatically have been sentenced to life in prison. It was
considered a very serious offence. Finally, a pardon was granted,
and the driver involved spent three years in prison. Our family saw
him again, because he was a friend. This person never relapsed. He
led a perfectly normal life. He was much more a victim of
circumstances than anything else.
Had we let our frustration get the better of us, this person would
probably have spent 10, 15 or 20 years in prison, at an enormous
cost to society. This person would not have made a contribution to
the community, while today he is rehabilitated. He is the father of
several children who work and who make a contribution to our
society. This is an example of rehabilitation and this is why I
believe in it.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I could not let the last
little bit of meandering go by.
We are talking about first degree murder. What does that have to
do with a traffic accident, for heaven's sake? We are talking about
the lower rung of human society going out and obliterating people
for whatever reason. It has nothing to with traffic accidents. It is
terrible that the member should even entertain that type of
argument because it is specious.
The other thing that he mentioned-he mentioned it twice in his
long and rambling speech-was that it costs money to keep these
people in jail. It costs $50,000 a year. If $50,000 a year is too much,
what value does the hon. member put on human life?
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Madam Speaker, I am not at all sure that we can put a
price tag on human life, as does the Reform Party. When a person
dies in a freak accident, it also causes grief to the family. If we try
to establish a link between one's grief, the prejudice that is caused
and the person responsible for this grief, we are bound to make
miscalculations or mistakes. It goes without saying that everyone is
sad, particularly when we are the victims of a heinous crime. Our
purpose is not to protect those who commit heinous crimes.
Earlier, I referred to the current dangerous offender legislation.
A few days ago, we kept hearing about the Bernardo case and the
case of the serial killer in western Canada who was eligible after 15
years, whose name escapes me for the moment. Reform Party
members lump it all together and this is where they are wrong.
Justice that is just, the word says it all, and unbending, yes, up to a
point, must not allow itself to be flouted and ridiculed, which is
very often the case in criminal trials when lawyers get to plea
bargaining. But once the sentence and the rules of the game are
clearly set out, justice itself must abide by the rules. That is what
we are saying.
In our view, 15 years is not automatic. Reform Party members
think that, on the morning of the fifteenth anniversary of someone's
sentence, the prison warden brings the keys, opens the cell door and
says to the inmate: ``Off you go, now''. That is what they would
have Canadians think in the current debate. This is quite simply not
what happens. Inmates already have to go through an involved
process, which will be even more involved with the new bill, and
Reform Party members paint a picture of prison walls coming
down. I do not agree.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
before I get into a couple of the points I want to make during this
speech, I want to cover some comments that have been made.
Yesterday, for instance, the government whip read some
statistics about crime. He said crime was going down. Maybe it is
well-meaning to try and win an argument on that basis, but by and
large where there are murderers and where there is crime one has to
deal with it.
It is pretty difficult in my riding to talk about crime going down
because crime is not going down. In Vernon, not too far from my
home, about three or four hours' drive, in April 10 people were
shot. A week and a half ago five people were murdered in my
riding.
This week, starting this morning, many members may know that
the trial of the individual charged with murdering young Tanya
Smith is taking place. That happened very close to my home. It is
difficult to listen to people on the other side downplay the
importance of what this debate is all about.
Members have talked about all kinds of crimes in this debate. We
just heard a little bit of rambling from one of the separatist
individuals, again downplaying the issue of first degree murder.
First degree murder is premeditated murder. It is deliberate. It is a
pre-planned action by people with no conscience, by people who
4601
deliberately obliterate a life or lives and who are not worried about
the consequences.
I think we have to consider when these people are getting out and
why. I heard the member for Dartmouth a while a go talking about
knee-jerk reactions from the Reform Party.
(1115 )
It is rather interesting that now the Liberals are taking credit for
the amendment to section 745 of the Criminal Code when in fact it
was one of their own members who brought up in a private
member's bill the repeal of section 745, which they dislike so
much. For that reason and for voting against the budget, that
member is no longer a Liberal. And they are taking credit for the
amendments to section 745. I find it incredible. The next thing we
know they will be bragging about it.
It was not this government at all. It was due to the efforts of an
individual who had the courage of his own convictions to fight and
ride it through, to work with victims all over the country.
An hon. member: His government was the problem.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That is right. The Liberal
government was actually the government that was standing in the
way. It was the government that delivered this section 745 to us in
the seventies.
I have been at a parole hearing, and I may be the only one in this
House who has, of an individual who went up for the first time for a
section 745 federal review. That person and another individual took
the life of a young policeman in Cloverdale, British Columbia in
the seventies. They encouraged him to chase them down the street.
When the 19-year old RCMP officer stopped them and came over
to the car they killed him with a shotgun. It was premeditated first
degree murder.
They were both sentenced to hang. Did they hang? No, they got
life. They got Liberal life, 25 years. Did they do 25 years? One of
them is attending college today very close to my home, much to the
disappointment of the sister and the brother of the young policeman
who was killed.
The brother attended the parole board hearing. The sister lives in
Montreal and could not get there. They were in complete disgust.
They had been saying: ``There he was, out of our lives. This person
had life''. But this year they had to relive it all over again. What is
wrong? Why do we have to put victims through this time and time
again? It is appalling the way this government thinks.
Another comment by the member for Dartmouth is Reformers
are extremists. This is the most insulting tactic of the Liberal
government and all of its hacks sitting over there. If you think that
section 745 should be repealed, to those folks you are an extremist.
If you did not agree with Bill C-33, special rights for homosexuals,
you are a homophobic. In this country, if you fight immigration
cases and try to get people deported, as I have-criminals, a killer,
a rapist-you are a racist.
This government and its members are getting our society to think
that if we do not agree with the Liberal point of view, we are
racists, bigots, homophobics or extremists. It is terribly insulting.
Let us see what the Liberals think about victims. On April 29 we
brought in a victims bill of rights. They said they agreed with it and
would deal with it in the fall. Is it on the agenda of the Liberal
government at the justice committee for the fall? Absolutely not.
The victims bill of rights is not on the agenda, but we will spend a
whole bunch of time in this House talking about a faint hope clause
for first degree murderers. Look after the first degree murderers. A
separatist colleague said fifteen years is a long time, people are
suffering. That is too damn bad. I will tell members who is
suffering in this country: millions-not hundreds of thousands-of
victims.
We brought nonsense which came from the lips of a Liberal
member here. I said guess who is suffering? The victims are
suffering. He says ``nonsense''. There you go.
(1120)
An hon. member: I wonder what the people in Kingston think of
that.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): No victims in Kingston
perhaps. That is nonsense that they are suffering. They are saying
those who are really suffering are the poor individuals who got 15
years for first degree murder.
Let us talk about victim rights. We brought a victims bill of
rights in the House. Is it going to be talked about by this
government? Absolutely not. What did we ask for? We asked for
victims to have the right to be informed of their rights at every
stage of the process. Has the government mentioned that in this
discussion? Absolutely not.
We asked that victims have the right to be informed of the
offender's status throughout the process, including where the
offender is, when he is getting out and where he is going when he
gets out. Has that been discussed here? No, we have discussed first
degree murderers and the faint hope that they get out in 15 years.
We asked that victims have the right to choose between giving
oral and a written victim impact statement before sentencing, at
parole hearings and judicial reviews. Has that been discussed? No,
it has not been discussed.
4602
What about being informed in a timely fashion of the details
of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain or to know why
charges are not laid if that is a decision of the crown or police?
Or the protection of anyone who intimidates, harasses or interferes
with the rights of a victim, or to know if a person convicted of
a sexual offence has a sexually transmittable disease? Does it care
about that? Did it vote on it? Did it take it to the justice
committee? No. What it takes is a faint hope clause for first degree
murderers. That says everything about this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I always think it is disgraceful that an
institution such as the Parliament of Canada-I am unable to begin
for the noise. I was saying that I always think it is disgraceful to
hear insults, comments on both sides of the House, and I think it is
one of the reasons the Canadian public has lost confidence in
Parliament as an institution and in politicians.
When we hear comments such as those we have just heard, when
insults are hurled back and forth, this affects Parliament's
credibility. We should be able to respect our differences. That is all
I wanted to say, that it bothers me. When I was elected in 1993, I
had a great deal of respect for the institution, and I still do. I believe
in it, and I do not feel that comments such as those we have just
heard will do anything to increase its prestige.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-45, which deals with changes to
section 745 of the Criminal Code. First of all, I think it would be
appropriate to tell this House and our viewers just what section 745
contains.
Sometimes we tend to speak a sort of insider's jargon. We speak
of ``745, paragraph 1, paragraph 2'' and so on, and therein perhaps
lies the problem of legal language. These are discussions between
people in the know, and the ordinary people listening to us need to
know what this section is all about.
Before I read the section, just to put us in context, people need to
know that the government tabled Bill C-45 right at the end of the
session, June 11 to be precise. One of the reasons for so doing was
to prevent British Columbia serial killer Clifford Olson from
making an application under section 745 of the Criminal Code
during the summer of 1996. As the section stood, he became
eligible to apply for parole on August 12, 1996.
(1125)
I must make it clear immediately that this bill, pushed through at
full speed by the Liberal government, by the federal Minister of
Justice, is somewhat reactionary, along the lines of the right wing
approach of the Reform Party. By adopting a Reform-style program
with all possible haste, the Liberal government wished to show that
it was looking out for victims and for victims' rights, that criminals
ought to remain in prison, and so forth. I must point out, right from
the start, that the party to which I belong feels, as has been stated
already in prior speeches by my hon. colleague from Bellechasse,
that the interests of victims must come first.
However, in Canada there are certain principles of natural justice
that must be respected, which is what I intend to demonstrate in the
next few minutes. I may point out that the first paragraph of section
745 of the Criminal Code provides, and I quote:
(1) Where a person has served at least fifteen years of his sentence
(a) in the case of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first degree
murder, or
(b) in the case of a person convicted of second degree murder [-]he may apply to
the appropriate Chief Justice in the province in which the conviction took place
for a reduction in his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for
parole.
The same section also says that on receipt of an application
under subsection (1), the appropriate Chief Justice shall designate a
judge of the superior court to empanel a competent jury that will
determine, and this is the important part of paragraph (2) of section
745, ``whether the applicant's number of years of imprisonment
without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced having regard to
the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his
sentence, the nature of the offence for which he was convicted and
such other matters as the judge deems relevant in the
circumstances.''
So, very briefly, this section provides, as also specified in
paragraph (4), that the jury, in full possession of the facts, may
reduce or eliminate altogether the number of years. So it does have
certain powers.
It should be clear before we go any further that, if we take the
Clifford Olson case, a jury in full possession of the facts would
never authorize the release of Clifford Olson, and that should the
National Parole Board receive an application, its reply would be
negative.
We must see this section in context. The section was introduced
in 1976 by the Trudeau government, when capital punishment was
abolished. This measure was introduced at the very end of the
debate to ensure a majority in Parliament for the abolition of
capital punishment. Twenty years ago, this section represented a
kind of security for supporters of capital punishment. The
government could say: ``This does not mean that after a certain
time, we will automatically release dangerous criminals or serial
killers, and so forth''.
Again, I agree with the comments made by my colleague, the
hon. member for Chambly, who said earlier that this was not a
question of mathematics, with different sets of criteria depending
on whether two, four or ten murders were committed. These are
4603
totally subjective criteria. Still there must be a common thread,
some uniformity in dealing with this or that type of murder,
whether it is murder in the first degree or murder in the second
degree.
As far as the Bloc Quebecois' position is concerned, we must
point out that our party is not against reviewing section 745. After
20 years, I think this section needs to be updated. Legislative
review is normal process in the Quebec and Canadian society. We
do not do things in 1996 as we did in 1976. Our values, as a society,
may have changed. In saying this I am trying not to pass judgment
on today's values, but the fact remains that we do not have today
the same values as we did in 1976 or in the 1950s.
Again, I am not passing a qualitative judgment on today's
values. We know that, as a society, we still have a some way to go
in terms of values. It was therefore normal to review section 745.
On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, just days before the
summer recess, the Minister of Justice brought in what we consider
an important amendment to the Criminal Code.
(1130)
It is our party's opinion that Bill C-45 would have deserved, and
still deserves, thorough and careful consideration, instead of being
rushed through for emotional reasons in reaction to a Reform Party
agenda item and that the Liberal government should act differently.
The Minister of Justice maintains that section 745 should not be
repealed, as requested by the Reform Party, because he believes in
the rehabilitation potential of inmates. But the proposed
amendments restrict the judicial review process to such an extent
that, while it still exists in theory, the provision is all but
inoperative.
So, he is not prepared to repeal the section, as requested by the
Reform Party, but he makes its application so difficult that it does
not mean anything any more. That is what the people on Ile
d'Orléans, around Beaupré, call talking out of both sides of one's
mouth.
Madam Speaker, you have indicated to me that I have only a
minute and a half left, so I will have to skip certain parts of my
presentation.
I do wish to state, however, that we consider this amendment to
section 745 to have been badly presented, badly managed by the
Liberal government. As a party, we are well aware of the pain and
suffering experienced by victims' families in seeing the person
who murdered their loved one resurfacing in the court process. For
this reason, as a party, we feel that the Criminal Code ought to
contain clauses to ensure that the families of victims are not
forgotten.
This is the problem with our legal system, we are strong on
inmate rights, and so forth, but often tend to forget victims and
victims' families. If the victim has had the misfortune to lose his
life, his survivors must bear the burden of their suffering for years.
We ought to keep victims' families firmly in mind.
We ought therefore to make sure that victims' families are given
a hearing, if they wish one, during the review process. Another bill,
Bill C-41, requires judges to consider victims' or victims' families'
testimony as part of the evidence, and this is a very good thing.
In conclusion, we feel that section 745 ought to be examined far
more thoroughly, possibly with public consultation. Statistics on
the use of judiciary review and the very low percentage of repeat
offenders among released criminals warrant far more extensive and
far more serious attention.
An important section of our Criminal Code cannot be modified
in a rush, at the end of a parliamentary session, by getting around
the usual rules of parliamentary debate. The Minister of Justice
cannot change the basic principles of criminal law in Canada
because he is carried away by emotion, or for political expediency.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have prepared a 20-minute speech so I hope I do not run
over my time. I know you will let me know.
First, I would like to thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing
me in the debate. I did speak last Tuesday on second reading debate
of Bill C-45. I am speaking today for a very special reason. Why?
Because it is rush, rush, rush with this government trying to put this
bill through, the same as it did with Bill C-68 and C-41 when it
invoked closure and Bill C-33. It seems whenever we have a real
contentious issue, whenever we have something that really affects
Canadians this government just pushes it through with total
disregard.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Jennings: I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands
in his usual form, continually talking when others are talking,
continually being rude. I have come to expect that from him so I
will just continue.
Since last Tuesday I did look over the justice committee meeting
minutes. I noticed that where the witnesses spoke in the justice
committee every one of them seemed to be concerned with time.
Mr. Jessop is a police staff sergeant and his concern, apart from
the fact that he mentioned dangerous offenders, is why is the
Liberal government not doing something about dangerous
offenders. He said: ``I am told we are not introducing dangerous
offenders
4604
at this particular point because it is not politically expedient to do
so. I would suggest that this is not the way we should be thinking.
We should be dealing with dangerous offender legislation''. That
was from a police sergeant.
He also goes on to say that the RCMP are really displeased with
the justice agenda of the Liberal government. He said: ``The
government should be considering repealing section 745 if they
want to restore some integrity to the criminal justice system''. He
continues: ``Section 745 contradicts fundamentally not only public
confidence but the entire philosophy of how our criminal justice
legal system has grown''. That is a staff sergeant speaking.
(1135)
What about time? Are we rushing it through? He looks right at
the committee and says: ``You have the opportunity in the three
days left-and I address this specifically to the Liberal members of
this committee-to actually do the right thing. I would urge you to
repeal section 745''.
Mr. Scott Newark, executive director of the Canadian Police
Association, also spoke. He was concerned about clause 5 of Bill
C-45 which deals with victims' information. He said: ``It
potentially excludes victim information from section 745 screening
hearings or judicial reviews, other than for new offences''. He is
right to be concerned on that.
He also pointed out that having notification on Monday, when he
was out of Alberta, that the bill was going to be introduced on
Wednesday, is terrible. Shame on the justice committee when they
had ample opportunity, over a year of preparation on C-45 and on
private member's Bill C-226 since it was introduced in December
1994. They have known about it since that time. He was correct
when he stated: ``It has been the case that parliamentary
committees were supposed to have the time and the ability to
analyse legislation''. That is a very important statement. Indeed,
that is what parliamentary committees are supposed to do.
He finishes with: ``I share not only what I would call your
frustrations''-he is talking to members of the committee-``but
frankly as a citizen, the outrage at the process that is being foisted
on people when the opportunity to do a proper job was present for
over a year. And that is not only true on this bill; that was the case
last year on the DNA search warrants that resulted in another
sloppy piece of legislation without a DNA data bank attached to
it''. Those words are straight from the mouth of this expert. ``The
right thing here'', he said, ``is to repeal 745''.
He was questioned on cost. As a matter of fact it was Reform's
justice critic from Crowfoot who questioned him on the costs of
these hearings and whether they were costly to the Canadian
public. He said that he could not be definite but it was between
$50,000 and $100,000 a hearing and that the more sensational
hearings are probably up to millions for the taxpayers. Of course
they take a lot longer than the original trial.
I look at this and say to myself: Debt, deficit and accountability.
This government has us so far in debt and deficit, there is no
accountability and let us just keep on having hearings even if they
should not be allowed and are not necessary and to heck with
worrying about the taxpayers and the dollars.
Witness Sharon Rosenfeldt from Victims of Violence
International, who everyone I think is aware of the tragic loss in her
family, said: ``This is such an important issue it has to be talked
about and addressed in a much broader context than is being done
at this time by just a few days in a quick rush in front of the justice
committee. I just cannot accept the new amendments the justice
minister has put forward. I still have to stay with the total repeal of
section 745''.
What about Darlene Boyd, another person who has had a tragic
loss in her family? She said: ``Murder is all too readily said.
Another word I frequently hear is rehabilitation. I truly believe that
the man who took our daughter's life and that of the young girl
from High River is not and never will be rehabilitation material,
especially after serving only 15 years in his confined environment.
To rehabilitate there has to be some spark of remorse and James
Peters did not demonstrate any of this. The chance of filtering men
like James Peters back into society after 15 years through the
system we now have is too great a risk. We will be digging more
graves for innocent people''.
I think the member for Kingston and the Islands again misses the
point, the chance is there and that is what is so frightening and
scary.
There is witness Debbie Mahaffy. We all know about Debbie's
loss. She said: ``We found out about the various committee
hearings by accident and I am very glad that we scrambled our way
to Ottawa and got here on time''. What is this rush? ``Is life in
prison with no eligibility for parole up to 25 years enough for
taking the life of one person? No. Is it enough for taking the life of
more than one person? No. Is 25 years a waste of a life? Yes. But
the killers who decided to murder my daughter made that choice.
By doing so they decided their own fate and are now wasting their
lives in comfort. Our laws should reflect our evolving society and
everyone in society should be protected by our laws''.
These witnesses are people who are experienced. They are not
removed from the situation. Debbie finishes with: ``It is
irresponsible of this government to allow time that much power
and control over its decisions. Less time for communication, less
time for discussion, less time for murderers to serve is a sad
commentary on the quality of life we are now leaning toward in
Canada''.
4605
(1140 )
The presentation by Priscilla de Villiers, president of CAVEAT,
is very interesting. She said:
I am appalled at the way this has been presented to the people of this country. I am
appalled not just because of section 745 or any other section of the Criminal Code.
This is a travesty of the parliamentary system.
We have had a bill asking for discussion of this on the books for 18 months. We
got an official communique on Thursday, I think. I first read this bill on the airplane
to Saskatchewan and Steve Sullivan and I had to come back in the middle of last
night to beg for five minutes of time to make our little statement because we are the
few people here who do not benefit from the system. Shame.
Shame on this reluctant concession to what is becoming very quickly a serious
election issue. Shame on you that you have not taken into account the words of
ordinary Canadians who say: We are bothered by this; we are concerned. Give it the
consideration it deserves. If you then, in your wisdom as a governing party decide
not to support it, fine, that is your right. But to have this ramshackle excuse for an
appearance just to say that we actually appeared here, it is a shame on the entire
process.
I have to agree with her. Why has this country deteriorated so far
from people facing responsibilities for their actions? It began in
1971 with the Liberals and Solicitor General Goyer who summed
up the government agenda when he told Parliament: ``We have
decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the
protection of society''. Therein says it all. They stressed the belief
that society and not the criminal was responsible for the crime.
From that time on the whole system existed to serve the criminal.
And in 1976 when the Liberal government abolished capital
punishment, Canada replaced it with a life sentence of 25 years.
Mr. McKinnon: Rubbish. Rubbish
Mrs. Jennings: But that is not good enough. Now we are still
talking about section 745 which was brought in in 1976. I am really
concerned that members on the opposite side who are busy right
now constantly harassing me when I am speaking do not
understand.
Mr. McKinnon: How about extremism?
Mrs. Jennings: We are talking about first degree murderers
here. We are talking about mass murderers. For goodness sake let
us have some common sense in the remarks coming from that side.
I must comment on what the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said yesterday because according to
him the crime rate is going down. I guess it depends on what poll
we read or what political group we listen to.
I have in my hand the poll from the Readers Digest which I think
is pretty non-partisan. It says that between the 1960s and the 1990s
the total Criminal Code violations reported to police nearly
quadrupled from over 2,000 to over 10,000 for every 100,000
people. Property crime soared from almost 2,000 to over 6,000
during the same period. Violent crime exploded. Whereas there
were 221 violent crimes per 100,000 people back in the 1960s, the
figures in the 1990s are now astounding at over 1,000.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand in support of the motion to
hoist the bill. Fortunately from my point of view I will speak from
a different perspective of why the bill should be hoisted than the
member who introduced it.
It is a piece of legislation that I have to oppose for two main
reasons. The first is that it totally ignores the wishes of the majority
of the Canadian people. The second is that it tramples on the will of
this Parliament whose members voted in favour of a private
member's bill which would have repealed section 745 of the
Criminal Code, and not just tinker with it as the justice minister is
doing with Bill C-45.
Regarding my first point, I wish to emphasize the terrible impact
on the families of murder victims when their loved one's killer is
eligible for parole after only a 15-year sentence. When this
legislation was introduced in June, Debbie Mahaffy whose
daughter Leslie was one of Paul Bernardo's victims, made a
passionate plea to the justice committee to simply repeal section
745. She said how disappointed she was with the half measure
proposed by the justice minister.
Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of a Clifford Olson victim spoke
on behalf of the national group Victims of Violence saying: ``I have
fought for 15 years for the rights of victims and I think we are all in
this together''. Unfortunately, not the case according to this
government.
(1145)
Another mother, Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was
raped and murdered south of Calgary, spearheaded a 35,000-name
Calgary Sun petition to repeal section 745.
These people are not speaking just for themselves. It has been
proven with the names on the petitions and the groups that they
represent. They speak for many of the families that have suffered
the murders. They suffer for life, not for 15 years.
From personal experience, this bothers me a great deal. Outside
the House we have a plaque. That plaque is in memory and honour
of officers who gave their lives in service to their communities.
My cousin was married to one of the officers whose name is on
the plaque. His name was Lenard Shakespeare. He was an officer in
Toronto who in the line of duty happened to stumble upon an
attempted bank robbery.
Lenard was the kind of officer who did not believe someone had
to use firearms in order to rectify a situation. When this was taking
place, he happened to spot a taxicab in front of the bank that was in
4606
the process of being robbed. He thought it was his duty to warn the
people in the cab that they were in danger.
When Lenard walked up to the cab and put his head in the cab to
warn the people that they had to move, the man in the back seat
shot him. He not only shot him then, but he stepped out of the cab
and pumped five more bullets into Lenard as he laid there without
his gun drawn.
Lenard's wife happened to be at our place. I was there when the
officers knocked on the door. Members have not been through hell
until they have to sit with the wife or the children of the victim of a
premeditated murder.
We try to honour these people through different organizations,
through plaques on the Hill. However, we have a government that
says we must look after the predator in these cases. The man who
shot Lenard is now out in Vancouver as a businessman. Is this fair?
For any member on the other side of the House who would like
to know the name of my cousin, I am quite willing to give it. She
lives in Atikokan, Ontario. They can phone her family members
and see what they think about this joke on society that members
call 745.
Premeditated murder was an automatic hanging or execution at
one time. The government of the day decided it had some hope for
these murderers and would only make it 25 years. It was sold to the
public as 25 years without parole. That sounded not too bad. It gave
everybody a chance to get over the healing, if they could, and get
on with their lives.
(1150)
Now we look at 15 years. I hear that 15 years is hard on these
people. From death to 15 years. We heard the outcry that this might
be too much, so we passed section 745. Five years down the road,
mark my words, if we have a Liberal or a Conservative government
we will be looking at 10 years for premeditated murder.
The government likes to throw out fancy numbers. It forgets to
tell the people what the population is in the country, what the
unemployment rate is and what the actual crime statistics are. It
does not bother to bring forward those statistics. According to
Statistics Canada violent crime increased 782 per cent from 1971 to
1994. Argue that one. From 1986 to 1994 violent crime by youth
increased 124 per cent. Many of those crimes were murders.
We have a system which I hope people understand. Our courts
are so overworked that we have a bargaining system. We have a
bargaining system in which the charge will be reduced for a guilty
plea. If we want to know why the statistics are starting to show on
the other end, it is because we have lawyers and judges who are
agreeing to bargain. They are not representing the people; they are
representing themselves and their own self-interests, the same as
the government.
I wish everyone involved in this debate would go back to their
constituents to get their opinions.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on
behalf of my constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to
express our opposition to the Liberal plan to amend section 745 of
the Criminal Code. We are talking about Bill C-45 which is the
Liberal government's thinly veiled support of the so-called faint
hope clause which nullifies the Criminal Code's penalty of life
imprisonment for first degree murder.
Millions of Canadians, including my constituents, believe that
section 745 of the Criminal Code should be abolished because it
serves no purpose. It is no deterrent for people who go out and
ruthlessly take the life of another or others.
At best, Bill C-45 introduces a few cosmetic changes to the law,
but it does not repeal the faint hope clause. The Liberal justice
minister is adamant in refusing to do what Canadians are asking the
government to do.
Canadians want to take away the right of a convicted murderer to
have their sentence reduced. Canadians do not want convicted
murderers to serve anything less than the sentence they have been
given. Victims of Violence, the Canadian Police Association and
millions of Canadians want section 745 to be repealed. However,
the Minister of Justice, just like the separatist Bloc members, has
ignored their pleas and are pushing Bill C-45 through the House.
The bill makes a few amendments to section 745. First, the right
of multiple murderers to apply for a judicial review for early parole
will be removed. However, instead of making this provision
retroactive so that it would apply to serial killers such as Clifford
Olson and Paul Bernardo, who are already incarcerated, it will
apply only to those convicted of multiple murders after the bill
comes into effect. If a person kills people before the bill comes into
effect they still have a chance, a faint hope, to avoid serving the full
sentence which our Criminal Code sets out as the penalty for their
crime. These convicted murderers can still apply for parole. They
are exempt from the bill.
(1155)
Canadians do not support giving Paul Bernardo hope. The people
I represent want to have a binding national referendum on the
return of capital punishment. The case of Paul Bernardo gives
Canadians a very real reason to want a national vote on returning to
our statute books the penalty of death. The Liberals want to give
people like Paul Bernardo hope.
4607
The Liberals are giving serial killers who are already
incarcerated a better chance to get out of their sentence than those
who will commit multiple murders in the future. Canadians are
finding it very difficult to believe that the Liberals think they can
sell this as some kind of deterrent.
This Liberal government should be giving Canadians hope. The
Liberals should have the courage to give Canadians what we want
and that is a binding national referendum on capital punishment.
The Liberals would rather do nothing. That is what the Liberals do,
nothing.
The Liberal's campaigned on a platform featuring political
change and promises, promises, promises, just like their promise of
jobs, jobs, jobs. Then they say they will scrap the GST, but once
they are elected the Liberals do nothing.
The defence minister tackles what the Prime Minister says will
be a difficult job of cleaning up the top echelons at national defence
in the wake of the Somalia crisis. The Liberal defence minister
does nothing. He hides behind the Somalia inquiry and says he can
do nothing.
The justice minister has done nothing to prevent serial killers
who are already in jail from getting a chance of a reduced parole.
The Liberal justice minister has done nothing about this.
This bill is a sham. It is not what Canadians are asking for. The
bill would ensure that a murderer will have to convince a superior
court judge that their application has a reasonable chance of
success before they would be allowed to proceed before a jury. This
sounds like a good measure. However, considering that applicants
have a 72 per cent success rate since May 1994 in having their
parole ineligibility reduced, it is unlikely that a judge will find fault
with the majority of applications and dismiss them.
In short, the new hurdle the Minister of Justice so proudly stands
up to defend, which the Bloc so quickly supports, is really no
hurdle at all. We will continue to see far too many section 745
hearings.
Finally, Bill C-45 stipulates that a section 745 jury will have to
reach a unanimous decision before the applicant's parole
ineligibility is reduced. At present only two-thirds of the jury need
to find in the applicants favour. What kind of change is this? This is
typical Liberal do nothing tinkering with our criminal justice
system. I am sure the Liberals will be shaking each other's hands
and patting each other on the back in an orgy of self-congratulation,
but Canadians will not be congratulating the Liberals.
Canadians feel that section 745 should not exist at all. What the
Liberals are doing is absolute nonsense. This bill is nonsense. The
Liberals are most concerned about the rights and privileges of
criminals and they have ignored the rights of victims of crime. If
the Liberals had any basic simple understanding of victims' rights,
and they do not, they would have abolished section 745.
Canadians can see clearly that the Liberals are actually creating
categories of good and bad murderers. If a person kills another
person the killer will be entitled to a section 745 hearing. These are
good murderers, according to the Minister of Justice's
understanding. However, serial killers are not entitled to a section
745 review because according to the justice minister's
understanding, these are bad murderers.
(1200)
It is truly unbelievable that the minister has actually quantified
human life in this legislation. He actually sets himself up as the one
who can quantify whether one killing is worse than two killings. It
is unbelievable.
According to this bill, a murderer should be given a glimmer of
hope if they kill only one person, but killing more than one person
prevents a murderer from getting a review and serving something
less than the 25 year imprisonment.
The minister has set the quota at one life. It is reprehensible that
this Liberal minister would sit down and draft his very own
category of murderers, some deserving of leniency and some not. I
submit that one life is as important as two, three or four. If the
minister wanted to differentiate between murderers he should have
introduced consecutive sentencing. That is the way to deal with this
problem. It would ensure that serial killers like Clifford Olson
would never have a chance for parole.
Canadians want to have the criminal justice overhauled.
Canadians want the government to stand up for victims instead of
standing up for criminals. It is time for the abolition of section 745.
The Liberals should be ashamed that they have not repealed this
section. They should be ashamed that they have ignored the views
of millions of Canadians, in particular the views of victims' rights
groups.
I cannot support this bill. My constituents cannot support this
bill. My party cannot support this bill. We stand here today
speaking for Canadians and standing up for the rights of victims
and their families.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-45.
This bill deals with section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745
is not a bad law that needs changing. It is a bad law that needs to be
turfed.
Several experts have spoken about section 745 and have spoken
about Bill C-45. I do not propose to this House that I am expert of
justice matters. I have many colleagues who have far more
knowledge in this area than I do and they have spoken very
eloquently after extensive research on the issue. We know that
officials from police forces have spoken about section 745. They
4608
have far more knowledge than I do on this. They have talked about
the fact that section 745 needs to be repealed. I respect the views of
my colleagues, I respect the views of the police.
Interestingly enough, provincial officials have spoken about
section 745 of the Criminal Code. They also are very
knowledgeable and expert in the area with which they are dealing.
They are the attorneys general of some of the provinces.
On May 11, 1996 the Ottawa Sun reported that during a meeting,
the attorneys general of Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario pushed for
the total repeal of section 745, while Saskatchewan and Quebec
argued that it should be amended.
Harnick from Ontario and Evans from Alberta said they would
like to see the screening of first degree murderers for early release
be done by the justice minister's office rather than the parole board
or a provincial judge. The provinces were concerned about Bill
C-45. They thought it would be a financial burden and an
imposition on their judicial system as it will be the provincial
judges who review and determine which first degree murderers'
745 applications will be referred to a jury.
This underlines the fact that there was not proper consultation
between the federal government and the provinces when the
government introduced Bill C-45. This is not uncommon. We have
seen several examples of the federal government failing to work
co-operatively with the provinces within confederation. Here we
have another example.
It is interesting that the financial agreements with the provinces
and the territories expired on March 31 and to date the justice
minister has only signed agreements with a couple of the Atlantic
provinces. There is a total lack of co-operation between the federal
government and the provinces and Bill C-45 to repeal section 745
of the Criminal Code is a prime example.
(1205)
I do not have extensive and deep knowledge of the justice system
but I certainly have heard very capable critics and very
knowledgeable experts suggest this bill is bad, it should not be
passed and that section 745 of the Criminal Code should be
repealed.
I appreciate what others have said but I want to tell the House
what I am hearing from constituents and from ordinary Canadians
like myself who are not experts in the area but who may have very
strong feelings about the justice system and what is wrong with it.
Reform MPs have learned to be excellent listeners. I would
encourage members opposite who are pushing this type of
legislation to take a few moments and actually listen to what their
constituents are saying, what the people on the street, the people on
the farms, are saying about section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I want them to listen to the victims' rights groups that have
stated categorically that they are opposed to any tinkering with
section 745, and are calling for the repeal of that section. They do
not support Bill C-45.
I ask them to listen to the taunting of convicted killers such as
Clifford Olson who are making a mockery of the justice system,
that we would even consider a faint hope clause. They are
becoming notorious because of the lack of action by the Liberal
government. It is really ridiculous when we see the publicity they
are getting simply because the Liberal government wants to put
criminals' rights ahead of victims' rights and not correct the justice
system.
I hear from the local RCMP officers. They certainly do not
support section 745 of the Criminal Code. They do not support
changing the act to have two degrees of killers, those who are
serious killers and should not be given a faint hope clause and those
who are not quite so serious because they have just killed one
person and they deserve a faint hope clause. They have been very
outspoken in their opposition to the Liberal government's
initiative.
My constituents have no use whatsoever for a faint hope clause
which would allow premeditated killers to get out early on any type
of parole. I even hear from people who live in Liberal members'
ridings. They are not very happy with their MPs.
I am happy that the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River
is sitting in the House. The other day I met one of his constituents
on the plane when I was flying here. His constituent recognized me
and began to talk to me. He was concerned about justice and crime.
He talked about the high rate of crime in the Prince Albert area and
the fact that his member did not seem to be very concerned about it.
He told me quite frankly that his member would not be re-elected.
I thought this person is probably not a Liberal, so we have to take
his words with a grain of salt. He may have been playing politics.
However, he told me the feeling in the Prince Albert area was
pretty widespread that the member did not take criminal issues
seriously. Of course, he has a federal penitentiary in his riding so
the issue of crime and convicted killers being released on early
parole is an important issue in his constituency.
I read in the paper the other day that it looked as if the hon.
member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was going to be
challenged for the nomination by someone in his own party. Even
his own people are not very happy with his performance.
I suggest there could be broad support for the member beyond
partisanship. There are Liberal members who actually do try to
stick up for their constituents and represent them. But this member
4609
does not seem to be one because his own party, for reasons I do not
know-maybe justice issues, maybe some other issues-feels their
member is not doing a good job.
All I know is that everything I have heard from his riding, and I
have heard these complaints for a couple of years, indicates the
member is in real trouble in his riding and may very well not be
re-elected. Liberal Party people are concerned about the
performance of this government for a number of reasons. The
trouble with Liberals is that they cannot admit they are wrong.
Mr. Kirkby: You're third in the polls in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Hermanson: They can heckle in the House-I am being
heckled right now-but they cannot admit they are wrong. They do
not know how to apologize when they are wrong and do not correct
themselves when they get off course.
(1210)
Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister said he had the
people and he had the plan. One of his people is the hon. member
for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He is the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and is supposed to be a
heavyweight on justice matters. However, he does not seem to have
the support of his own constituency, of his own party in his own
riding. One has to wonder where they have gone wrong.
As I pointed out, it seems fairly obvious that the Liberals cannot
admit they have made mistakes, have not addressed the seriousness
of criminal and justice matters, have been totally off course on the
issue of section 745 of the Criminal Code and are totally off base
on this bill, Bill C-45.
We have debated these justice issues in the House for a long
time. We talked about repealing section 745 even before one of the
colleagues of the Liberal members brought forward a private
member's bill, which had broad support in the House, for repeal of
the section.
However, the Liberal hierarchy on the front benches-I suppose
the parliamentary secretary would be a supporter of this-decided
to sidetrack its own member's private member's bill. Of course he
was kicked out of caucus because he did not see eye to eye with the
Liberals and they derailed his private member's bill which actually
had the support of the entire House. It was approved by the elected
body.
That private member's bill would have brought in a more strict
justice system, which was actually what the people wanted. The
people of Kindersley-Lloydminster want that. The people of
Prince Albert-Churchill River want that. But that would never do.
That would mean that people like Clifford Olson and other first
degree murderers would not have a faint hope. That would
probably alleviate some of the opportunities for people in the legal
profession to generate more income for their law firms. Who
knows all the reasoning behind the Liberals who determined that
their colleague's bill should not be passed.
I would like to hear some of the explanations from the other side
why they dumped that private member's bill and brought in this bill
which does not do the job. It does not repeal section 745 of the
Criminal Code but provides special status for some murderers and
less status for others. It is the same old repetitive story: special
status for some and let us deal more harshly with others. In this
case it is special status for murderers of one person but does not
provide that same special status for murderers of more than one
person. It is really silly when one stops to think about it.
It is time for some common sense to emanate from this House.
We have to start seeing some of it from the other side. We have
been speaking on behalf of Canadians on these issues but it has
been falling on deaf ears in the justice department and on deaf ears
in almost every ministry on the other side. It has to stop. Our
country is too important to play games with Canadians and not
abide by their wishes any longer.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf
of my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster. I just hope that
for a change colleagues opposite will listen to what has been said,
will recognize the error of their ways and correct them very
quickly.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to
have the opportunity to talk about a criminal justice bill. It is not
something I do very often, but certainly the constituents of my
riding have indicated very clearly that this is a major concern of
theirs. It does not matter at what level you talk or to whom you
speak, very clearly they state that they are concerned about this
issue.
Therefore I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into this in
a little bit of detail at least, again not as an expert but certainly as a
concerned citizen, representing my constituents.
The public are disgusted with the criminal justice system. They
feel that too many Liberal governments, whether they are called
Liberal or not does not seem to matter, but it seems that once
Ottawa fever sets into people when they come down here that all of
a sudden they start thinking about the criminal. They very quickly
lose sight of who we should really be concerned about and that is
the victims of these crimes. Certainly the opinion is that our justice
minister is very soft on crime. He is so liberal that he is more
liberal than all the other Liberals who have been responsible for our
criminal justice system.
(1215)
It does not matter what area we talk about, the concerns are over
the whole range. Let us start off with the Young Offenders Act.
Everybody is upset about that. I have had the opportunity to speak
to people across the country. Not once did I go into a presentation
and question period when someone did not ask about the Young
Offenders Act. It might be senior citizen who is now afraid to go
4610
out because of the young hoodlums they perceive to be out there
and who may be a threat to them.
It could be a handicapped person in my riding, which I think is
pretty peaceful. It is certainly a riding I am proud of. I have lived
there a number of years. In a period of one week two handicapped
people were attacked by young offenders and sent to hospital. One
severely handicapped lady received a broken arm by these young
offenders.
The police will say that when there are break and enters they do
not bother going anymore because they just cannot handle them all.
This is a major issue. It is part of the whole problem with the
criminal justice system.
We can talk about the parole system and sex offenders who are
put back out on the streets. Some sex offenders do not even have to
take treatment. We are told they cannot be cured and yet they are
put out on the streets. Again the Liberal policy is ``well, let us hope
they do not reoffend''.
I have a letter from a constituent: ``It has come to my attention
that prisoners are being released on parole based on their behaviour
inside an institution, not on the crime they committed. This is a
grave miscarriage of justice when the crimes committed are of a
sexual nature. How many inmates have daily access to sexually
assault children? I hope none. If released on to our streets, the
pedophile has unlimited access to our children. We should not be
required to lock our children away to keep them safe from sex
offenders''. This is just another cry for help to change the system.
Our parole boards are made up of political hacks with high
salaries. They are not professional people. They are not there to try
to provide treatment, to provide protection for citizens. They
certainly are not interested in the victims.
In Bill C-45 we have even created categories. If a person kills
once, premeditated murder, it is one thing. He or she would be
eligible for parole. If a person kills more than once, then he or she
is a little more serious criminal. The victims did not have that
choice. The victims were not given a choice of how serious a
murder was. Murder is murder is murder. First degree murder is
planned, premeditated murder.
There is no standard for sentencing. Often the punishment does
not fit the crime. I read an interesting article from the Innisfail
paper two weeks ago when I was at home. There had been a
break-in at an auction mart. The person was caught and the owner
of the auction mart wrote a letter to the paper and said: ``I have no
confidence in the criminal justice system that the fine or the
minimum sentence this person will receive will in any way stop
him from additional crime''. His suggestion in the article was that
the true way to deal with this person would to be to have him come
to work at the auction mart for three months. His job would be to
clean out cattle liners that arrive day after day. He said that after
three months of cleaning cattle liners he doubted very much that
this person would break in to an auction mart again.
We have to look at things like this. We have to look at
punishment that fits the crime. For first degree murder what should
the punishment be? Is 15 years the price we put on a life? Is that
what we say is enough? It is premeditated. I have heard so many
speeches in the House about this subject. They talk about murders.
They say that someone who was in a traffic accident should get
parole. We are talking about premeditated first degree murder.
(1220)
The fact that they should not have a faint hope is by far and away
the majority point of view in the country. This law does not go far
enough. It is middle of the road liberalism. It is liberalism at its
very worst. We are talking about first degree premeditated murder.
Bill C-45 is soft.
We have to get back to the punishment fitting the crime. We have
to get back to thinking about the victims. We have to think about
the victims who are going to have to relive the crime in just 15
years. We must think about the victims.
I am sure I am not unique in the amount of mail I receive on the
criminal justice system. This is a letter that I received, not from a
constituent, but from someone in B.C.:
You as our government have seen fit to enact a faint hope clause which gives
convicted murderers the opportunity to be released and kill again. It is my opinion
that you as our government should remove this faint hope clause for all serial killers
and all murderers that torture, mutilate or sexually assault their victims, as parole
boards are releasing all murderers that apply for early release under this clause.
We have been told that up to 80 per cent of the applications are
successful.
The letter continues:
It is also my opinion that Clifford Olson should never have the faint hope of being
released on to our streets. That individual, in my opinion, should be given a lethal
injection. I would not have any objection to doing that job myself.
That is a pretty strong statement, but that is what Canadians are
saying out there about first degree premeditated murder. That is
what we are talking about.
We should look at the Liberal record. What we will find is a great
deal of underachievement. There is a great deal of deceit and
deception being practised, of saying one thing and meaning
something quite different, of not really doing what they say they
will do.
4611
In the criminal justice system we might talk to the justice
ministers of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the
Northwest Territories and Yukon and all of them will say they were
not consulted by the justice minister.
Mr. Scott Newark, director of the Canadian Police Association,
openly said he has not been consulted and neither has his
membership. There is a total lack of consultation.
I could go on to talk about the broken promises of the GST and
no tax increases. There have been $26 billion in increased taxes.
We can talk about the threats to health care and the threats to
pensions. Those are all coming from the deceit and lies of the
Liberal government. That is exactly where they are coming from.
We can look at committees. Just this morning I sat in a
committee and watched the member for Edmonton North vote for a
Bloc member to be the vice-chair of the committee because he had
to.
This is a government made up of underachievers who do not
listen to the people.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-45. Unfortunately, I am going to have to
speak in opposition to this piece of legislation. Once again, as my
hon. friend from Red Deer pointed out, the government has fallen
well short of the mark. It has fallen well short of where Canadians
want it to go.
It is the primary purpose of the justice system to ensure that
justice is first applied and, second, that it is applied evenly. I want
to talk about that aspect of this piece of legislation.
One of the strange anomalies of the bill is that it will grant those
people already in prison, who were convicted of heinous crimes,
the right to apply for early release. This is a continuation of the
so-called faint hope clause.
(1225)
People like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Daniel Gingras will
have the option under this piece of legislation to continue to come
before the public to make their case to be allowed out.
Have we, in this country, not learned that people like Clifford
Olson crave that type of attention? What right do we as legislators
have to allow these people to come forward and continue to wreak
havoc in the lives of the victims?
When I talk about victims in the case of Clifford Olson, I am
talking about the parents of the 11 children he murdered. Why do
we as legislators have a right to allow him to come forward and say
the sorts of things that he says in the media to really continue to
perpetuate a crime in the lives of those parents? That is ridiculous.
What is the government thinking about when it allows that to
happen? Obviously it has forgotten the purpose of the justice
system. The justice system is not to serve the criminal, it is to serve
the law-abiding citizens. It is to serve the rights of victims.
I have a friend here, the member for Fraser Valley East, who
brought down a piece of private member's legislation that received
wide support in the House. It called for a victims bill of rights.
That is the appropriate type of legislation to be bringing in. Why
in the world are we bringing in what amounts to a criminals bill of
rights? Why are we granting criminals more rights? It is absolutely
contrary to everything Canadians are telling us. It is contrary to
everything we know in our own hearts, yet the government
continues to bring down flawed pieces of legislation like Bill C-45.
It is absolutely ridiculous. It is counter-intuitive. I do not
understand it at all.
To personalize this a little more, I must tell the story of how
Daniel Gingras wreaked havoc in my riding several years ago.
People may remember the case where he was out on a pass after
having murdered a person. He murdered a fellow because he did
not like the look of his face, according to his own testimony.
He murdered someone and was subsequently released on a day
pass, because it was his birthday, in Edmonton. He overpowered
the guard and eventually made his way to Medicine Hat, my riding.
He took the shoe laces from a woman and strangled her with them
because, according to his own testimony, she was crying like a cow.
These people are scarcely human. They are hubris as far as I am
concerned. I do not understand how we can allow these people any
rights at all. Yet the government has brought down a piece of
legislation that will allow people like Daniel Gingras and others of
his ilk to come before not only the courts, which is bad enough, but
before the public and to again have their say. They will stir up
many bad memories.
That is contrary to what just people in this country believe. It
really makes me wonder what possibly goes on in the Department
of Justice when they think up pieces of legislation like this.
People across the way will say we have to be compassionate.
Compassionate should mean compassionate to everybody, not just
to criminals. When people talk about letting loose one virtue like
compassion without a counter-virtue like justice, then they will
simply allow some of the worst things possible to go on. That is
exactly what is happening with this piece of legislation.
What could have happened? I mentioned a minute ago my friend
from Fraser Valley East bringing down victims rights legislation.
4612
That is the sort of thing we should have in this country. A lot of
people ask why life does not mean life in this country. Even a life
sentence in this country usually only amounts to 25 years where
there is eligibility for parole after that.
Many people in this country want to go further. They want life
meaning life, but in the wake of the Bernardo trial there were many
people, as there are still today, believing we need to have a
plebiscite, a referendum on capital punishment.
(1230 )
Why is it that people such as Paul Bernardo, Daniel Gingras and
Clifford Olson can murder perfectly innocent people, children in
some cases, and be allowed to live out their lives when they know
that their victims will never ever see another day? That is so wrong
yet people across the way allow it to happen. People across the
way, who I know in their own hearts do not believe in this
legislation, will stand up and vote for it simply because it is the
condition, the price that they pay if they want to stay in that party.
At some point principle should mean more than just sticking
around in a party so that you can possibly get re-elected. If you
believe in principle you should be willing to jettison all that party
stuff and stand up for your constituents. That is what members
across the way have to do.
I urge all people who are watching today, and I know there are
many people watching out there, to let their local MPs know that
Bill C-45 simply is not adequate. In fact, not only is it not adequate,
it is actually dangerous. It allows all those people who have
committed murder in the past to come back and wreak havoc in the
future and I think that is wrong.
This legislation tells me the government has not yet gotten the
message from the constituents and even from some of its own MPs.
People out there want the problem of crime dealt with in a serious
way and they want people to get their just deserts when they
commit a crime. In some cases that means a life penalty and in
other cases I would suggest it means the death penalty.
During the last election campaign I remember going door to door
and probably every member in the House ran into this. If you were
out after dark very often it was difficult to get women to come to
the door.
I know members across the way will say: ``Have you not heard
the statistics that crime is going down?'' I can tell you that people
feel very threatened in their homes. I remember how difficult it was
to get people to come to the door, especially women, and there is a
good reason for that. Let us not cast aside their concerns and say
that they just do not know what they are talking about. Let us start
introducing some laws that have an effect not only in dealing with
crime but in restoring the confidence of people who are afraid to go
out on their own.
Nowadays there are bars on the windows of houses and
businesses. But in some cases, like the women's prison in
Edmonton, we do not even have bars on the jails any more. They
are trying to rectify that now after there were some real problems
which actually led to the death of an inmate. Certainly people
should not feel they have to be prisoners in their own homes simply
because we have a government that refuses to get tough with
criminals.
Let us face it. There is not an MP in this House who has not
heard over and over again from their constituents that people
cannot understand why the government has not been tougher on
crime. It is not just this government, it was the Tory government
before. The Tories were the ones who brought in that ridiculous
Young Offenders Act. That is another issue which we will save for
another day. It is not just this government, it is several governments
in succession.
I hope members across the way will find it in their hearts to stand
up for the innocent victims and citizens out there instead of
criminals in the next go round.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on a beautiful fall day like today members, those
Canadians in the gallery here and those Canadians who are viewing
this on television will know that the fall colours all across our
country are just starting to change.
If you were in my home of Edmonton, Alberta today and you
were at the north end of High Level Bridge, the bridge that goes
across the North Saskatchewan River, you would see a park at the
northwest corner of High Level Bridge. In that park is a statue of a
police officer. The police officer has his arm around a young lad of
about seven or eight years of age. The statue of that police officer is
pointing across the river at the University of Alberta.
(1235)
Every time I drive by that location I am reminded of Constable
Ezio Faraone. That park and statue are dedicated to Constable Ezio
Faraone. Constable Faraone was a young policeman who was cut
down in the prime of his life by someone who had very little to
contribute to our society and over the course of his life had
contributed nothing. He cut down a young man with much promise,
a young man who had dedicated part of his life to guiding other
young people. That is why that statue and that park are so poignant:
because of the contrast of the two lives; one full of richness,
promise and hope and the other life for whatever reason generally
speaking of incarceration and despair.
We do not know what led to the incarceration of the perpetrator
of the horrendous murder of Ezio Faraone and we are not
suggesting that life is fair and that everybody starts with an equal
chance. However the fact of the matter remains that there are very
few of us in our country who do not appreciate the difference
between right and wrong.
4613
The problem in our country is not so much that people do not
appreciate the difference between right and wrong, but we are not
as a nation prepared to accept the consequences for having done
wrong. That is really the nibs of it. We see this every day in our
country. People elected or people appointed to positions of
responsibility, authority and leadership abdicate that leadership
role or that role of responsibility by sloughing off accountability
for their actions to someone else or by blaming it on some incident
in life that caused them to do whatever they did.
The fact is that the death of Constable Ezio Faraone, the snuffing
out of that life of promise, of that young leader of men who was
working on behalf of all of the citizens of Edmonton and of the
larger community of our nation, was in part because of the actions
of this House of Commons. It is the actions of this House of
Commons and the laws that are promulgated herein which set the
stage for what is likely to happen in our country.
In my opinion there is a direct link between the death of
Constable Ezio Faraone at the hands of a convict on parole on the
streets of Edmonton and the Solicitor General of Canada on
October 6, 1972 who stood in the House and stated, using these
words which can be checked in Hansard: ``From this day forward
rehabilitation will be the driving raison d'être of our criminal
justice system. It will not be the protection of society. It will be the
rehabilitation of prisoners''. From that day forward, 24 years ago
almost to the day just a couple of weeks from now, the criminal
justice system and Correctional Services Canada have had to focus
on the rehabilitation of prisoners.
That is not all bad. The vast majority of people who commit a
crime or break the social contract that we as citizens have one with
another are worthy of rehabilitation and should be given a second
chance. Yesterday the member for Kingston and the Islands, who
has a major prison in his constituency, spoke long and eloquently
about the need and the reason for compassion, about how it is
honourable and correct to turn the other cheek. We as
parliamentarians have a responsibility that goes beyond ourselves.
(1240)
When a perpetrator kills somebody or commits any major
crime-we are now talking about capital offences in particular,
murder-the charge is not written as victim v. defendant, it is the
Queen, Regina v. defendant. This is because when someone kills
another citizen, the crime is not only against the victim but also
against the community. It is against the nation. That is why when a
crime is committed it is the crown in opposition to the perpetrator.
When we gathered under the oak tree, or whatever tree we
gathered under, as human beings to suggest and to agree one with
another that we were going to give up some of our individual
freedoms in order to ensure the greater good would be served, we
then one with another created a social contract. That social contract
meant that we would not have the personal liberty that animals do
to kill whatever they choose for whatever reasons. We were going
to conduct ourselves in a fitting manner. We willingly gave up
some of our freedoms in order to enjoy the greater good.
The populations of various countries, including our country,
vested with parliamentarians the authority and the responsibility to
frame that social contract, to give it meaning, to give it foundation,
to make it work. Therefore when we are called upon to generate the
laws by which we will govern ourselves, we must use not only
compassion but reason.
Our laws must have strength. They must state that certain crimes
will be dealt with in the harshest possible manner. We are not
talking about manslaughter; we are not talking about crimes of
passion; we are not talking about a momentary fit of madness. We
are talking about cold blooded murder. We are talking about an
occasion where someone will take a hostage and kill a prison guard
or policemen who are on the frontlines to defend us day after day
after day.
We are not talking, as members opposite have said from time to
time, of everybody who is in jail or of everyone who commits
murder. We are talking specifically about those criminals who have
been charged and convicted of first degree murder. This gives the
courts many avenues of leniency. Not everyone who commits
murder is charged with first degree murder. As a matter of fact, the
vast majority is not.
When someone commits an offence that is judged by the legal
community to be first degree murder, that person should be
prepared to accept the consequences, which brings us right back to
my first words. The problem is not that our society does not have
the means and the wherewithal to maintain order and discipline.
The problem is that we as a society do not have the discipline to
accept the consequences of our actions.
(1245 )
Therefore if someone is prepared to commit first degree murder
they should do so in the full knowledge that the sure consequence is
that they will spend 25 years behind bars, not 24 years and not 26
years, 25 years. Twenty-five years was the quid pro quo for getting
rid of the death penalty. We will not put anyone to death, but the
people who commit first degree murder would do so in the full
knowledge that by breaking the social contract, one with another,
they will pay the full penalty.
That is why I would urge members opposite to support the
original bill by the member for York South-Weston which would
scrap section 745, which was was wanted by virtually every victim
group and every police group, and not accept this watered down
version of Bill C-45 presented by the Minister of Justice.
4614
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish I could say that it was a pleasure for me to rise
today and participate in this debate on Bill C-45, but I find it is
just the latest example of this minister's and this government's
half baked justice policy that they are holding up to the people
of Canada as a way of getting tough with crime when it does
exactly the opposite.
However, I do appreciate the opportunity to point out to this
government, on behalf of my constituents of Prince George-Peace
River and on behalf of the majority of Canadians, that section 745
of the Criminal Code should be abolished.
I believe that Bill C-45 simply introduces more cosmetic
changes. Over the debate of the last couple of days in this place on
this piece of legislation-and I use that term charitably-many of
my colleagues in the Reform Party have said that it is high time this
government started listening to the people. Of course when that
was said what we heard from the other side, amidst howls of
heckling, was that the government is indeed listening to the people.
I question that.
A poll was recently conducted and completed in my riding,
which is virtually the entire northeastern corner of British
Columbia. One of the questions the people were asked in this
scientific poll was: ``We are interested in knowing how you feel the
federal government is doing with respect to criminal justice
matters''.
Interestingly enough, 56 per cent of the people said they felt the
federal government was doing a poor job reforming the criminal
justice system; 11 per cent more were uncertain as to how it was
doing. Clearly two-thirds of the people of my riding feel either that
the federal government is doing a poor job of addressing criminal
justice issues or are uncertain as to exactly what it is attempting to
do.
I view that as a clear indication that the people of my riding and I
believe the people of Canada are growing increasingly concerned,
despite what we hear from the government that crime rates are
falling and the incidence of violent crime is going down. What I
hear from the people as I travel throughout my riding and across
the country is that they are increasingly concerned about crime.
Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, the Canadian Police Association
and the majority of Canadians want section 745 repealed. It is that
simple. I find it appalling that this justice minister and this
government would not listen to, for example, the Canadian Police
Association on this issue or on the issue of a referendum on capital
punishment. Yet, during the debate on the gun control issue they
said that the major reason why they were bringing in this
preposterous gun control legislation was because the police
association wanted it.
The justice minister conveniently uses the police association and
its resolutions where it suits him but does not listen to them on
other issues. He has ignored the pleas of these groups and he is
pushing Bill C-45 through the House.
(1250)
The bill makes a few amendments to section 745, and these have
been recounted over the past few days. First, the right of multiple
murderers to apply for a judicial review for early parole will be
removed. However, instead of making this provision retroactive,
the new measure will only apply to those convicted of multiple
murders after Bill C-45 comes into effect. Therefore the minister
has done nothing to prevent serial killers who are presently
incarcerated from getting their day in court and getting a chance at
a reduced parole ineligibility period.
Second, the bill will ensure that the murderer will have to
convince a superior court judge that their application has a
reasonable chance of success before they will be allowed to
proceed to appear before a jury. This sounds like a good measure,
but considering that applicants have had a 72 per cent success rate
since May of 1994 in having their parole ineligibility reduced, it is
unlikely that a judge will find fault with a majority of these
applications and dismiss them.
Yesterday my hon. colleague from Wild Rose referred to this not
as the faint hope clause but as the sure bet clause. He hit the nail
right on the head.
In short, the new hurdle is really no hurdle at all. We will
continue to see far too many section 745 hearings.
Finally, Bill C-45 stipulates that a section 745 jury will have to
reach a unanimous decision before the applicant's parole
ineligibility is reduced. At present only two-thirds of the jury need
to find in the applicant's favour. However, in my view the bottom
line is that section 745 should not exist at all.
Section 745 was introduced as part of Bill C-84 in 1976 by the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was serving as
solicitor general at that time. Bill C-84 abolished capital
punishment and established two categories for murder, first and
second degree. However, not many people noticed the inclusion of
section 745 in their review of the original bill. As a result, we have
had to wrestle with this provision for some 20 years.
Many Canadians believe that 25 years before being eligible for
parole is not a suitable sentence for first degree murder. In fact,
polls have consistently shown that Canadians favour a return to the
death penalty for those who are convicted of first degree murder.
Yesterday the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
said that Reformers were attempting to instil a hate pattern in
Canadians by advocating a return to the death penalty. In my riding
of Prince George-Peace River, when I did a poll, 85 per cent of
4615
the people favoured the return of the death penalty for cold
blooded, premeditated first degree murder. That is what we are
talking about today. We should be very clear about that.
On May 14 of last spring we had one hour of debate on my
private member's Bill C-218, which would have brought about the
reintroduction of capital punishment. One hour of debate. That was
all the government deemed the debate on capital punishment was
worthy of.
Last Friday one of my colleagues from Nanaimo-Cowichan
introduced private member's Bill C-261 and there was an hour of
debate on a referendum on capital punishment. In other words, it
would have let the people speak. The government does not want to
let the people speak on this and many other issues.
Government members know that people are outraged that
murderers are given a glimmer of hope after serving only 15 years.
What glimmer of hope did those murderers give to their victims?
Speaking of victims, section 745 does them an incredible
disservice. The whole judicial review process causes the
revictimization of families and at times of entire communities.
(1255)
Gary Rosenfeldt, whose son was murdered by Clifford Olson,
said the whole section is an insult to victims. What is coming from
the Liberal government? It is simply window dressing with respect
to dealing with section 745. This really comes as no surprise. The
Liberals are constantly promoting the rights and privileges of
criminals and constantly mollycoddling the very worst people in
our society while victims are completely ignored.
I see my time is almost up. I could go on all day talking about the
government's lack of commitment to the victims of crime. The real
point here is that the entire misguided and sad policy in the area of
justice over the past quarter century by this government and
governments preceding it has been built on a false premise that
everyone in society is basically a good person. Everyone can be
rehabilitated in the eyes of the member for Kingston and the
Islands. It is always the fault of society that they go astray. It is
always the fault of the parents or because they are poor.
There are some in our society who are inherently evil. That is a
reality. I believe the majority of Canadians know that and it is why
they want to see section 745 repealed. That is why I am voting
against this piece of trash, Bill C-45.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to speak on Bill C-45 and to register my opposition to the
bill as presented by the Minister of Justice. I certainly would like to
concur with the closing comments of my colleague for British
Columbia who said the entire misguided policy of the government
is built on a false premise. That it absolutely true.
Let us take a look. He talked about the original section in the
Criminal Code, section 745, not to be confused with the Bill C-45.
Section 745 was called the faint last hope. It was brought in on the
premise that perhaps these criminals who had been convicted of
one murder, two murders or many murders would in prison change
their ways, be sorry for their deeds, rehabilitate themselves and be
eligible to be turned loose into society and society would have to
fend for itself and protect itself from these killers who are now
back in society once more.
The faint last hope became the open door that after 15 years
anybody who applied for parole was virtually assured of getting
parole. These Liberals and left leaning socialists believed: ``The
poor guy has been locked up for 15 years. How can we do this?
That is terrible. We should let him back out into society''. Back
into society so that he can do it again. There have been umpteen
situations where he has done it again.
Many times we have seen headlines in the papers that another
family has been destroyed, another murder has been committed,
another innocent Canadian who just unfortunately happened to be
in the wrong place at the wrong time is now dead because of this
government's desire to let these people back on to the streets
because they are sorry for those folks because they have been
locked up for 15 years.
The information I have is that after 15 years when the parole
hearing comes up and the families that have suffered the tragedy of
having one of their members murdered are devastated by having
the whole thing dredged up once more. Surely the families of
innocent Canadians are the people who should be protected. People
should be able to walk the streets without fear rather than worrying
about one, two, three or fifty killers who are locked up and should
stay that way, just because the bleeding heart socialists think it is
time to let them out after 15 years.
(1300)
My colleague from Fraser Valley West introduced a victim's bill
of rights. He said, and many Canadians agree with him, that it is
time to put the rights of individuals who have not committed a
crime ahead of those people who have forfeited their rights because
they have committed the most heinous of crimes, murder.
It does not take a great deal of mental effort to say that the people
who have not committed a crime should have preferential
treatment over those who have. I do not think it is a mental leap of
logic, but obviously it is beyond the government's capability to
understand that it is the Canadian people who have to be protected.
Innocent people deserve to be able to walk this land without fear
rather than worrying about murderers let loose by the government
because of the bleeding heart policies of saying 15 years has been a
long time.
4616
When someone is found guilty of first degree murder the
sentence is usually 25 years without parole and after that the
person is on parole for the rest of his or her life. Therefore a
convicted killer is never completely free but after 25 years he or
she may return to society.
It seems rather strange to me that a judge who has been in
command of all the facts, has listened to all the testimony, has
heard the dreadful unfolding of events, has seen the families and
the tragedy that has been created and has decided in his wisdom
that this person who is convicted of the crime should spend a
minimum of 25 years in jail before being eligible for parole, and
the government wants to interfere with the courts and say the
decision made at that time in full knowledge of all the facts is now
found to be too harsh and lets these people out after 15 years.
Why is the government siding with the criminal and not siding
with society? That is the issue. If a judge, in full command of the
facts decided that this crime warranted 25 years, then surely we
should listen to this learned man who was put in the position of
making this types of judgment.
The government turns around and second guesses. Government
interference in the judicial system makes it a mess. For example,
Karla Homolka, in retrospect got a sweetheart deal because an
agreement was made between the government and the criminal.
When the facts came out Canadians were outraged and rightly so.
Government should stay out of the administration of justice and
leave it to the courts where the courts have the authority to make
the decisions. If the courts say 25 years I go along with them.
We are dealing with Bill C-45 in the fall of 1996 which is three
years after the election. The government has had three years to deal
with this issue. It seems rather ironic that it waited until the fall of
1996, when people like Clifford Olson of British Columbia is now
eligible to apply for parole. It could have brought in this bill in the
spring of 1996. It could have brought in this bill in the fall of 1995.
It could have brought in the bill in the spring of 1995. It wanted to
wait until Clifford Olson had the opportunity to apply for parole
before it shut it down. The government could have stopped it but it
did not. That is indicative of the bleeding heart type of attitude of
the government.
(1305)
It is an insult to Canadians that this could actually happen. Like
my hon. colleague from British Columbia who spoke before I could
speak further. This bill is too little, too late. The government should
have repealed section 745 many years ago.
Reformers are not dealing with statistics. We are dealing with
real people. We are dealing with the tragedy and misery and the
hurt of families who have suffered needlessly. I feel a great deal of
compassion for them. I have no compassion whatsoever for the
criminals who committed these heinous crimes. I have no
compassion for the government which will not do something to
stop these murderers from being back out on the street.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to add my comments to the debate on the third and
final reading of Bill C-45.
The bill was advertised as the response by the Liberal justice
minister to the demands of the Canadian public that section 745 of
the Criminal Code which allows convicted, cold-blooded,
premeditated murderers to apply to be let back into society after
serving only 15 years of a life sentence.
A large number of people have signed petitions, clipped
coupons, written letters, made phone calls and otherwise in a
democratic society indicated that they wanted this section of the
Criminal Code to be done away with. The justice minister promised
that it would be done away with. He made representations to
victims' groups and to the parents and other loved ones of
murdered Canadians that he would respond to their demand that
these convicted killers would not be let back into society.
What do we find has actually been done? Again, it is typical of
Liberal deception that they tell Canadians they are going to do
something to deal with an issue, but when what has been done is
examined, what the actual measures are, they are toothless,
ineffective and not at all as advertised.
The only thing this bill actually does is keep multiple murderers
in prison for 25 years. Realistically this changes nothing. People
like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo were not going to get out
after 15 years anyway. Mandating that they are now going to serve
25 years and hailing this as a great step forward for public safety is
absolute nonsense. These people were not going to get out in the
public under any circumstances.
What does it do to convicted killers who only murdered one
innocent, law-abiding Canadian in a deliberate cold-blooded,
premeditated manner? Does it get tougher for these people? Does it
send a strong message that we do not like this kind of thing, that we
are not going to put up with it in our society, that if a person takes
an innocent life they are going to pay such a heavy penalty that they
had better think a long time before doing it? No.
It gives these people even more avenues of appeal and redress
than they had before. Instead of going directly to a parole board
jury to have a decision made about whether they should obtain
early release or early parole, now they have to convince a superior
court judge that they have a reasonable chance before such a jury of
getting a favourable decision. Then if they do not like the superior
court judge's determination on that issue they can go to the appeal
level of the superior court. If they do not like that, they can go to
the supreme appeal court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada.
4617
After all of that, they still have the possible right to go before a
jury, which is what they are doing now.
(1310)
Instead of doing anything to send a signal to killers that murder
will not be tolerated in our society, instead of fulfilling promises to
victims and families of murdered Canadians, we now have more
loopholes, more avenues, more layers of redress, more appeals and
using the system than we did before. That is what this bill does.
It does not change a thing for multiple murders, except send a
message that somehow if only one person is killed, a murderer will
be treated a lot more lightly than if it is more than one. It actually
gives more loopholes and more hoops that convicted killers can
access in our system. It will cost a lot more for Canadians to allow
the access to these measures. It changes nothing that responds, in
any way at all, to the legitimate demands and concerns of the
families and loved ones of murdered Canadians.
What else does it do? It makes a small change that says that
when a murderer finally gets before a parole jury to see whether he
or she should be given early parole or early release, the decision of
the jury should be unanimous instead of only two-thirds of the jury.
This is truly a big step forward for democracy.
In our common law system in centuries of jurisprudence,
unanimity of jury decisions has been mandated. Why the Liberals
in the first place would have said that a parole decision could be
made with only a two-thirds majority of the jury I have no idea.
Thankfully they have finally seen the error of their ways and are
going to correct that, and well they should. We can hail this as a
huge victory for democracy. Now the Liberals are saying that a jury
decision must be unanimous instead of only two-thirds. I am sure
that Canadians will be cheering in the streets when this measure
goes through. It is certainly significant for the rights of victims and
murdered law-abiding Canadians.
I hope Canadians who are following this debate will not be taken
in by the deception of this justice minister and this government
who talk a lot about doing something with section 745 of the
Criminal Code that everybody was complaining about. They did
nothing to this section of even the slightest significance or, even in
the smallest way, to respond to the demands of the loved ones, the
families and friends of murdered Canadians to have more justice.
The consequences of the actions that were taken against these
law-abiding people to have some peace was absolutely nothing.
Canadians need to know this.
We see this over and over again with the government. It makes
great representations that it will change the things that Canadians
are demanding. If anyone ever looks at what is actually done, it is
totally insubstantial, totally at variance with the tough talk that is
given to the people making the demands, to voters, to taxpayers.
Much is made that something is being done. It is not much. It is
not even worth mentioning. That is why we have been standing in
this House, time after time, speaker after speaker, on our side of the
House asking the government to be honest with Canadians, to do
something substantial to deal with their very real concerns.
The Bloc does not want us talking about murderers but
unfortunately for them, that is exactly what this bill deals with. It
deals with first degree murderers. It is pretty hard to talk about first
degree murderers without talking about their crimes. Of course, the
Bloc finds it rather extreme to talk about murderers when we are
dealing with a bill that tries to address the way first degree
murderers are treated in this country.
We have an incredible situation in the law-making chambers of
our country where a government is doing absolutely nothing to
respond to the real concerns of victims and their families. We have
the official opposition saying: ``This is terrible, we do not even
want to talk about these things. We think this is a little too extreme
and too difficult to even raise''.
(1315)
Only the Reform Party is standing in the House and asking:
``Why don't we as legislators give the people of this country what
they deserve, something firm, something strong, something
substantive, something that sends the signal to criminals convicted
of premeditated deliberate murders in this country?''
I urge this House again to vote down this bill, to reject this bill
and to demand this justice minister brings back measures that
really respond to the concerns of the people of this country.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45
makes some significant changes to section 745 of the Criminal
Code.
It addresses three major changes. First, a murderer serving time
for murder must appear before a superior court judge and prove to
the judge that he should be allowed this glimmer of hope and that
he has a reasonable prospect of success before this proceeds. That
is just fluff. That is part of a routine procedure that I am sure judges
will allow to happen. How does the judge know? He will let the
jury decide.
Second, this bill introduces different classes of murderers. A
person who commits first degree premeditated murder for the first
time, or just once, will be given this opportunity. However, if a
person does it twice or more, they will no longer be given that
opportunity. This change is not retroactive to serial murderers, to
people who are already in jail for multiple murders. It is lacking
4618
severely by not addressing the 58 multiple murderers who are in
prisons now.
Those people will be allowed to come forward for a review.
Those people will be considered for a review. Those people will
bring agony to the lives of the families of the deceased and bring
back the emotions of fear and hatred.
The Liberals are supposed to have such huge hearts and be so
caring that they will spend billions of dollars just to save one life.
Yet they do not seem to care or be aware of what they are
potentially doing emotionally to the families of the victims of these
58 people. That is what is wrong with that section.
Third, the bill introduces a requirement that the parole board
bring down a unanimous decision rather than just a two-thirds
majority. I will return to that issue.
The justice minister is tinkering around the edges with this bill.
He is trying to satisfy his legal buddies in the system that he is
allowing them to continue with the high cost of defence and high
cost of the defence justice system, yet also trying to satisfy the
Canadian public that he is addressing a serious matter.
I believe it will be revealed, as I am trying to do, as a sham. He is
trying to suck and blow at the same time and it does not work. He
has created different classes of murder. Some are not as bad as
others. He said that changes to section 745 are to enhance
community safety. But how does it enhance community safety to
allow murderers to walk our streets?
The minister also said that section 745 will be available to those
who are deserving. Consider a person who commits a crime with
intent to murder. He plans, knows what he wants to do and does it.
Yet somehow he knows before he commits this murder that he will
be deserving through a glimmer of hope clause, section 745. He is
only allowed to do it once, though. He knows that he has a chance
to get out. Deserving?
The Minister of Justice is using the word deserving and making
it synonymous with premeditated, with murder and with criminal.
That does not sound right to me and it is not what he should be
doing when he is trying to address the deterrent and punishment for
crime and focusing on the criminal. He says he is preserving this
section for those who should have access to it in a way that makes
sense.
(1320)
Premeditated first degree murder does not make sense but it
happens, and the punishment for that is life with parole after 25
years, which is the kind of truth in sentencing we need. A person
must know, as my colleague from Edmonton Southwest said earlier
today, that if the penalty is 25 years, they serve 25 years. If the
penalty is life with no parole, it is life with no parole.
We should have the punishment meet the crime and truth in
sentencing, but we do not have that now. We keep having these
escape clauses. That is why our streets are not safe and why the
perception is being created for Canadians that they have lots to fear
from these criminals who are being coddled more than the victims
and victims rights.
It does not make sense that when someone takes the life of
another human being in a premeditated manner they are still given
a carrot or, as the justice minister puts it, a glimmer of hope. When
these people killed another person they took away their glimmer of
hope. They ended all their dreams and all their plans. They took
away any chance that these people had to contribute to society.
To worry about the rights and democratic freedoms of murderers
I do not believe is as much of a high priority as the rights of the
victims and of their families. The minister is not recognizing the
emotional needs of the people who are left behind. Let us not forget
that a victim's sentence is forever. It is life six feet under in a
cemetery. Therefore life should mean life and a life should mean a
life.
Under the charter of rights all people are supposed to be equally
and are to be protected equally under the law. The justice minister
has created different classes of Canadian citizens, telling people
they may be valued more or less depending on how they die or how
many people they die with. If one person is murdered, that
murderer is deserving of a glimmer of hope. However, if two
people are murdered at the same time by one person then that
murderer does not deserve a glimmer of hope and is put away for
the full sentence.
It gets more complicated. If two people kill two people are they
deserving? In other words, one person's death is not proof enough.
Is not one person's death in a premeditated, planned fashion proof
enough of the criminal tendency of that individual? It takes two
deaths for this government to act and then it will get tough.
Our first priority must be the law-abiding, taxpaying decent
citizens. Government must respect that Canadians have the right to
demand that their government give them safe streets and
communities by cracking down on hard criminals, especially those
who have been convicted of first degree premeditated murder, no
matter how many people's lives they affect.
Parole boards are supposedly set in place for the purpose of
rehabilitation after an individual is subject to parole and goes
before this parole board. This is a quasi-judicial body. For many
who serve on it the qualifications are vague. They are not really
based on merit and no real knowledge is required to serve on this
board.
This board is given the power, 15 years later or 18 years later, to
overrule a judge's decision years after the fact. Years after the fact
the circumstances are different and the evidence is somewhat
forgotten. A prosecutor and a defence lawyer argue the case in a
more detached and arm's length fashion. I know this to be true
because I witnessed one this summer in Calgary.
4619
(1325 )
I went to a section 745 hearing-I believe the man's name was
Ramsey-and listened to Ramsey's defence lawyer trying to justify
why this person deserved to have his sentenced reduced from 25
years. He had already served 16. He had been in there for 16 years
but he was a model prisoner. He was rehabilitated and he had
applied to get out early.
The prosecutor said: ``No, this gentleman does not deserve to be
let out. This gentleman is manipulating the system. He is playing
games''. There was a very descriptive and vivid explanation given
of the crime. It was a drug related crime. He stood over his drug
partner and shot him twice in the head. The jury listened to the
description of the crime. I reacted to the evidence. I said to myself:
``No, you stay in there and serve your 25 years''.
That gentleman got 18 years because of the two-thirds rule. He
got it reduced from 25 years to 18 years. By doing the right things
in jail and by following the advice of his lawyer he was able to get
his sentence reduced, despite the brutality of his crime.
This bill should be repealed, just like the prior bill that was
introduced by the member for York South-Weston. We should get
on with other legislation.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to
Bill C-45.
Let us examine what this bill is about. Of course the amendment
which the Bloc put forward is to give the bill a rest for about six
months so it can be studied in even greater depth. Quite frankly, I
agree with the motion, except that it does not go far enough. We
should give this bill a rest, period. We should throw out this useless
bill. Let us get back to talking about a criminal justice system in
which sentences fit the crime and in which the sentences are
designed to protect society by not allowing criminals to get out
early to commit another crime. That is what we are talking about.
We listened to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
verbally assaulting us out of the view of the cameras. I would like
to talk about some of the comments which he made yesterday in his
presentation.
He said: ``The point is most murders, from my limited
knowledge'', and I will certainly agree with that, ``in this area are
crimes of passion. I do not think the offender sits and thinks of the
consequences of his or her acts when a murder is taking place''.
What a profound statement. The fact is many murders are
committed in this country with premeditation. That is what we are
talking about, premeditated murder, first degree murder. We are
talking about cold blooded murder.
Do we accept the philosophy of the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the philosophy of the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands, the philosophy of the Minister of Justice
and the philosophy of the Liberal government and a good majority
of its members? Do we accept that philosophy as being how we
should deal with people who commit cold blooded, vicious
murders? Should the Liberal philosophy be the guiding light as to
how we treat these people? Or should it be how Canadians, how our
society, how law-abiding citizens feel about this? That is the
question we have to ask here today.
Surely one can see from the bill that the Minister of Justice has
set himself up as some sort of king who is going to decide all. This
is quite astounding. He has the audacity to determine unilaterally
that in this country there are good murderers and bad murderers. If
someone commits one murder they are, in his mind, a good
murderer and they get to apply for early parole after 15 years. If
they commit more than one murder they serve a life sentence of 25
years.
There are two points I would like to make. First, how does he
have the audacity to suggest that the crime of killing one victim is
any less severe than someone who kills two or three people? How
can he make that judgment? Could he tell the family of a victim
that the killer was in fact classified as a good killer and someone
who killed three or four people was a bad killer? Could he actually
say that? I think not.
(1330)
The other point I want to make in talking about multiple killers is
that in his philosophy and in most of the Liberals' philosophy, a
multiple killer should serve a life sentence of 25 years. I would
hazard a guess that most Canadians would prefer that a multiple
killer serve a life sentence of 25 years for every murder he or she
has committed.
In other words we are talking about consecutive sentencing as
most other countries have. The governments of those countries try
to reflect in the criminal justice system what society wants. If we
were to carry that line of thought into this debate, then certainly we
should not be talking about whether or not a killer gets out early if
they kill one, two or three people. If we were to truly reflect the
feeling among the Canadian people when it comes to first degree
premeditated murder, then we would be talking about capital
punishment in this House today.
Poll after poll, survey after survey has shown that a majority of
Canadians first of all would support the return of capital
punishment for first degree murder in this country, but most
important, an
4620
even higher majority of the people in this country would simply
like to be asked. That is what the Reform Party has been pushing
for.
If this government had any intestinal fortitude, any sense, any
brains, or any sense of democracy, it would take that question to the
people of Canada. If the government is afraid to deal with that
question, then let us let the government off the hook and take that
question to the people of Canada in a national referendum. Ask
them if they would like to have the return of capital punishment in
this country. Just ask them. The government will not do that
because it knows what the answer will be. The answer will be an
overwhelming yes and that does not align with the Liberal
philosophy.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce when he was justice
minister was the one who put through section 745. A companion to
that bill was to eliminate the death penalty and replace it with life
sentences and the early parole application. That was a reflection of
the philosophy of the Liberal government of that day and it is
apparent in this group of Liberals sitting here today.
The minister has set the quota at one life, should at some future
time the killer want the opportunity to make an application to
reduce his or her parole. It is disgraceful and reprehensible that the
justice minister, who really was elected only in one riding and was
given a little bigger job once he got here, has set himself up as
judge and jury as to how the criminal justice system is going to
work without regard for the real jury out there which is the
Canadian people.
Where do the Canadian people fit in this scheme of the justice
minister's? Quite frankly, they do not count. That is very clear in
this bill.
We talked about consecutive sentencing. If the minister is so
determined that people who commit premeditated multiple
murders should serve a life sentence, why do we not see something
in the bill that says a life sentence for every life someone takes?
Where is that in the bill? If someone kills two people, it should be
two life sentences. If someone kills four people, it should be four
life sentences. Consecutive sentences. That would be the thing that
would keep these people in prison. Consecutive sentencing puts a
value on the taking of each and every life in the case of multiple
killers.
(1335)
Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences. He killed
11 people. Premeditated and pre-calculated, he killed 11 people. As
a matter of fact one of the victims was the daughter of the man who
gave me my first job. That has no relevance to this except to point
out that I have some personal knowledge of the savage acts Clifford
Olson committed and he should never ever even have the
opportunity to apply for early parole.
The U.S. uses consecutive sentencing. Some states have
abolished their parole boards which would be a good idea given the
record of our parole boards in this country. They have abolished
them to ensure that criminals serve their entire sentences. However
that is not in the philosophy of the Liberal Party, the Minister of
Justice and cohorts from governments past, the cohorts in this bill.
It is not in their philosophy.
The Liberals are too busy looking after criminals and placing
them on the same plane as their victims. This government believes
that the rehabilitation of criminals should have as much attention
and as much respect as the victims of crime themselves.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Or more.
Mr. Harris: Or more.
The Liberals are too busy pampering criminals to have any time
to deal with the concerns of victims.
The member for Fraser Valley West has put forward a victims
bill of rights that has been widely accepted all over this country. No
matter what the Liberals say about the Reformers when it comes to
crime and punishment, we will say what the people say. Reformers
will stand here and talk long, loud and clear about criminal justice.
At least our party will reflect the views of the Canadian people in
this House.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
sad parts about this whole debate is the fact that the Liberals appear
to have completely forgotten about the victims and the victim's
families. There is a lot of talk about the rehabilitation and release
of the convicted murderer. There is a lot of talk about the rights of
the criminals. I have gone through Hansard and I have not come up
with anything that has been said by a Liberal in this debate that
deals with the issue of the victim's families in any substantive way.
It is for the living that we speak.
I was interested in the speech of the member for Kingston and
the Islands last evening. He said: ``In my opinion the bill goes
counter to the principles governing the treatment of offenders and
that is why I am against this bill''. He said earlier in his
intervention that in fact he was planning on voting against the bill.
What about the treatment of the victim's families, not what
about the offender? Further he said:
I would like to go back to the four principles of sentencing that I talked about. I
mentioned first, the protection of the public; second, the punishment of the offender;
third, the rehabilitation of the offender; and fourth, the deterrence to others. I believe
those are the four principles on which any sentencing bill ought to be judged.
His comment makes my point does it not? His comment is: How
are we treating the offender? It has been said many many times by
4621
my colleagues that we are not talking about a crime of passion.
What we are talking about here is premeditated first degree murder.
We are not talking about an incident that just happened to happen.
We are talking about the most vile offence that one human being
can commit on another human being.
(1340 )
It is therefore strange that while the Liberal government, the
justice minister and indeed the whole party would be spending time
on Bill C-45, which is an anaemic response to the demand of
Canadians for the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, they
spend no time talking about victims or victims' rights. It was the
Reform Party that brought to this floor under the very careful
guidance of my colleague from Fraser Valley West, a motion to
which the justice minister agreed by the way, that the House was
going to consider a victims bill of rights. That has not happened.
Quite frankly, I think it will probably be a sunshiny day for bikinis
in the Arctic on December 25 before we ever see the victims bill of
rights in the House.
The member for Kingston and the Islands also said in his speech
last night: ``On the other hand, there are a large number of persons
who have committed murder who pose no danger, who are
remorseful and who wish they had never done it and, in my view,
ought to be released and become contributing members of our
society again''.
Is that not wonderful. People have intentionally and willfully
taken the life of another human being and have left behind them the
shattered lives of their victims' families. The shattered lives of
mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, relatives. Their lives will
never, ever be the same again. Their lives have been so twisted and
distorted by this heinous crime, yet the member says, and I will
read it again because it is just so, so outstanding. ``On the other
hand, there are a large number of persons who have committed
murder, who pose no danger, who are remorseful and who wish
they had never done it and, in my view, ought to be released and
become contributing members of our society again''.
I ask members opposite: What are we doing here? Why are we
spending this amount of time on a meagre repeal of some parts of
section 745 and spending no time looking after the victims'
families? Why are we doing this? I would love to have an answer
from any Liberal member. Why do we spend so much time
mollycoddling the criminal and ignoring the victim? Why do we do
that? Any answers? I would love to have an answer to that question
because I do not think there is one.
Last evening the government whip also displayed an attitude
toward the Reform Party, which has attempted to bring the
concerns of the people of Canada to the floor of the House, that is
really an example of how many if not most of the Liberals feel
toward our representations. I will quote him now referring to the
Reform Party: ``They think they have a monopoly on the truth.
Canadians know what they are all about. It is a game of fear and
hatred that they are trying to promote, Canadians one against the
other. That is wrong''.
Those are not only spiteful words. Those are words of distortion.
I have said so many times in the House and I will say it again.
There is more common sense in the average coffee shop in Canada
than we will ever have in the House of Commons.
When the comments of concerned Canadians are spoken on this
floor in plain 25-cent English words, for the government whip to
stand and say: ``Oh, it is hatred. They are trying to pit Canadian
against Canadian'', no we are trying to represent the views and the
wishes of the people in Canada's coffee shops. We are trying to
represent the views of the people in the living rooms and kitchens
of Canada. We are not falling over, the way the justice minister has
fallen over to the people in his justice department and doing all of
the things that are politically correct. We are trying to correct
something in this nation and get the focus where it should be. The
focus again is that we must return to consideration and respect for
the citizens of Canada and not just the criminals.
(1345)
This is a bill that is going to pass. It will pass because that is the
wish of the Prime Minister and that is the wish of the justice
minister.
It will not pass as a result of the wish of the majority of people in
Canada. The Liberals have the arrogance and the audacity to come
to this Chamber and say: ``We know what is best for the people of
Canada, so we are going to turn, we are going to twist and we are
going to give a little puffery and a little image and we are going to
make it appear as though we are actually responding to the current
concerns of the people of Canada''.
Time will tell. There was a time when the people of Canada were
prepared to buy into the big old parties, buy into the Liberals and
the Conservatives, which is where the old thing of ``Liberal-Tory,
same old story'' came from. They are the same old story.
We had wonderful prognosticators like Dalton Camp on
television last night saying: ``People want to have choices, but they
want to have a narrow band of choices''. There are the Liberals
here and there are their kissing cousins, the Conservatives, there.
They want to be able to make those choices within that narrow
band. The problem for many of the Liberals, particularly for the
government whip, is that we offer choices outside the narrow band
of this cosy little club. We offer choices that people in coffee shops
are asking for. We offer choices to Canadians in ordinary plain
English.
This bill is inadequate. This bill will pass, unfortunately. This
bill will be a minuscule improvement, but when the Reform Party
forms the government in Canada we will make this bill right.
4622
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45 and also
to comment on the amendment that was made by the hon. member
for Bellechasse.
Bill C-45 in the discussion that is going on here is only a part of a
much larger discussion. The real question we should be looking at
in this House is whether the government is being tough enough on
the criminals and those who break the laws of this country and fair
enough to the people who are victims of those crimes.
We should examine the three years of the Liberal record, this
Liberal government's record, led by the Prime Minister who was
once a minister of justice, as to whether it is dealing with the
criminal issues of this country or whether it is continuing this soft,
easy, be kind, rehabilitative approach that the Liberal Party has
used over the years which has brought us to the state of affairs we
have in Canada today where criminals are out of hand.
They are not afraid to break the law. They are not afraid to
commit a crime. Youth are not afraid to commit a crime because
they know the punishment will not be severe.
That is the environment this Liberal government and this attitude
of the House of Commons for the last 10 to 15 or 20 years have
brought as a consequence to the citizens of Canada.
In the three years that have passed, the Reform Party came to this
assembly saying: ``We must be tough on criminals. Those who
misuse a firearm in the act of some type of crime should be
punished severely. Throw the book at them''. That is what we said.
What happened? The government decided that it would punish
the innocent citizens of Canada by making them all register, pay
money, put in a bunch of red tape, and the criminals still have
access to the guns that are unregistered, committing crimes.
A crime that was just committed in Abbotsford, the report for
which came out yesterday, indicated that the person who took the
lives of a family used a registered gun. This was after the
authorities were told that this person was a threat to the family.
(1350 )
Now we are going to register six million guns and it will not do a
thing against crime in this country. That is one issue. Again, the
Liberals are soft on criminals. Register the guns of the innocent
people but leave the criminals alone. They have the guns anyway
and will use them.
Let us look at young offenders. We have raised the issue over and
over again in this Parliament that we must be tough on young
offenders, that they cannot get away with what they are doing.
Young people of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age are committing
adult crimes. The courts cannot deal with them. We cannot give
them adult sentences because the system, the law of the country,
does not allow it to happen as easily as it should.
Again, that is a symptom of liberal attitude, a liberal approach to
dealing with crime in the country, to keep peace order and goodwill
in this country. You be kind, you rehabilitate, you spend a lot of
money on social workers, counselling and talking, but you do not
deal with the issue.
Young people are out of hand; not all of them, the percentage
that wants to break the laws and take advantage and run in the drug
trade and the sex trade and whatever else is going on, to steal and to
violate other people's property. They are out there without a threat
of what will happen to them. That must change.
What about those who violate families in any way? Do we have
tough laws with regard to those who would violate members of
their families in any way? Do we have laws in place that would say
to a father who violates his children or his wife in a negative way
that there will be severe punishment? Our books do not say that.
I had some faith in our Minister of Justice when I first came
here. For the first three months I listened to him and I thought here
is a person who is progressive and ready to change the system, to
deal with the issues. But what has come out since then is this soft,
rehabilitative, counselling, easy on the criminal approach that is
not dealing with the problem of our country.
I could list issue after issue. Bill C-45 is a typical example of that
where we are in a different era. One would think the Minister of
Justice was in the 1950s or the 1960s when there were a few
crimes. There were a few murders. But there was nothing as violent
as what exists today. There was nothing at all in the system. Those
old ways will not deal with the matters now.
Here before us is one opportunity to toughen up the laws. For
those who murder someone, considered as first degree murder, we
can change section 745. We can talk about Olson, Peters and others
in a long list. We say to them that if they commit premeditated
murder, if they take the life of someone else for their own
exploitative purposes, we want to give them access to the right to
serve a sentence of only 15 years rather than 25.
The two people I mentioned happen to have murdered more than
one person, so the law before us, which would be hoisted by the
amendment I am addressing, would not deal with those people. It
would not deal with them because they have committed two
murders. That is certainly a shortcoming of the act.
But where did this Liberal government begin to go soft and feel
it had a better approach than the people of Canada? It was back in
4623
1975 and 1976 when the matter of capital punishment was under
discussion in this assembly. I recall that discussion very well.
(1355)
At that time in the legislature of Alberta we also had a
discussion. Many members of the Alberta legislature took polls in
their constituencies to see how they should vote on this matter and
what kind of a recommendation the legislature of Alberta should
make to the House of Commons of Canada.
A member of Parliament at that time, an Alberta member who
later became prime minister, took a poll in his constituency. The
people that day voted in favour of capital punishment. In my
constituency it was around 90 per cent. Most constituencies in
Canada voted over 80 per cent in support of retaining capital
punishment.
What did the Liberal government of the day do back in 1976? It
abolished capital punishment. Member after member stood in the
House and said: ``Canadians do not understand. They do not
understand. They do not realize that capital punishment may mean
that we take the life of an innocent person''. They thought capital
punishment should be abolished because an innocent person might
lose their life.
Many of the people who are charged with first degree murder are
obviously murderers. Let us look at Olson and Peters. They
committed murders. Should they have the right to continue to live
on this land, supported by us in rather lavish facilities in the prisons
of this country? I believe that is wrong.
I believe if we took a vote today in Canada on the issue of capital
punishment there would be no question. Canadians would say, with
at least a 90 per cent majority, that capital punishment should be
reinstated.
We could categorize who it applies to and who it does not. We
could protect ourselves as legislators against using the instrument
of capital punishment on someone who may be innocent. That is
very easy to do. We could define to whom capital punishment
would apply. Canadians would accept that.
The point I want to make in this debate is that the Liberal
government is not listening to Canadians who want to be tougher
on criminals and fairer on victims. They want rights for the victims
of crime in the country. Canadians want that and the government is
not delivering.
The Reformers are that voice for Canadians. We are saying we
want to be tougher on criminals. We must deal with the issues. If
someone commits murder, whether they murder once, twice or
more, they should be sentenced to 25 years in jail. That is the most
severe sentence we can apply at the present time because the
Liberals softened their whole approach in 1976 and changed the
law so we could not take more drastic measures. That is the way it
should be, 25 years and no less. There should be no right to appeal
the sentence after 15 years.
As legislators and as Reformers we will fight for that position
during this Parliament and certainly in future Parliaments. When
we become government that is one specific thing which will
change.
The Speaker: As it is almost two o'clock, rather than begin with
another speaker, perhaps we could move to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
4623
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as time
passes, the position of the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems
increasingly uncomfortable.
He was obliged to campaign for the leadership because part of
his caucus threatened to abandon ship if the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie became master of this vessel, and he was
elected at the end of a leadership race that was not a real race.
Following the referendum defeat, he face the need to justify the
very existence of his party, which an increasing number of
members seem anxious to leave, and now, according to Le Devoir,
apparently part of his caucus has been pressing the former Premier,
Mr. Parizeau, to take up the leadership of the Bloc Quebecois.
(1400)
Faced with this challenge to his leadership, will the hon. member
for Roberval remain at the helm of a ship that has become
rudderless or will he do as others have done who dream of pursuing
their careers under the more clement skies of Quebec City?
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
grand old lady of dance died yesterday. A leader in the
development of dance in Quebec and the founder of the Grands
Ballets Canadiens, Ludmilla Chiriaeff has been an inspiration to all
young modern dance groups that make Quebec an outstanding
centre for artistic expression through dance.
Throughout her career, Ms. Chiriaeff believed in the talent of
Quebecers. Referring to her contribution to dance in Quebec, Ms.
Chiriaeff said, and I quote: ``We worked together to be creative, not
to be different from others, but to be who we are''.
Ms. Chiriaeff believed and invested in our homegrown talent.
Today, other creative artists continue this legacy to ensure that
dance maintains its special place in Quebec. Many thanks to Ms.
Chiriaeff for bringing us her talent, her energy and her creative
spirit.
4624
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first it
was the CBC, then the unity fiasco and now we have a copyright
frenzy.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage displays a complete lack of
understanding of her department. Parliamentary committee
hearings on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, are
beginning. The committee is to have the legislation back in the
House in only eight weeks. All I want to know is, where is the fire?
This legislation is perhaps the largest undertaking this
department has introduced and the Minister of Canadian Heritage
is running a hurry-up offence in order to pass it. Phase II of
copyright sat on the government's plate for almost two years, yet
the minister wants Bill C-32 jammed through the committee in just
eight weeks.
This is another example which clearly indicates the Minister of
Canadian Heritage does not have a clue of the issues facing her
department. The committee has received over 150 requests from
Canadians to appear, yet because of the government's self-imposed
time line, less than 60 submissions will be heard.
Canadians want to be heard. They should be heard. Why do we
have a Liberal copyright frenzy?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, did the
government intend to give members of the RCMP the right to
collective bargaining and binding arbitration before Bill C-30 is
passed?
In the wake of the task force appointed to review the Canada
Labour Code and led by lawyer Andrew Simms, it was specifically
recommended the government seriously consider this possibility.
All police corps in Canada enjoy these rights. Why not the
RCMP? I think its members should be treated impartially, and that
will happen only if they have a union that is recognized by and
above all independent of leadership.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Durham
Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School of Whitby
recently received international acclaim at the Carl Bertelsmann
Foundation's annual competition to identify outstanding public
institutions.
The board was honoured for excellence out of a field of
competitors which included school systems from Scotland,
Norway, New Zealand, Hungary and the Netherlands.
In selecting the Durham Board of Education, the foundation
noted its dedication to the improvement of education quality by
offering optimum freedom of organization to individual schools
which enables students to develop to their full potential. A
$300,000 prize from the foundation will be used to further improve
learning opportunities in Durham region.
I wish to congratulate the Durham Board of Education and
Sinclair Secondary School in Whitby on achieving this prestigious
international award. Well done, Durham.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Newfoundland Constabulary celebrates its 125th
anniversary this year. It was founded in 1871 to maintain law and
order in Newfoundland and it continues to have a strong tradition
of policing in the province.
After Confederation in 1949 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
arrived in Newfoundland to police most areas of the province but
the constabulary force remained in St. John's. By 1981 it expanded
its services to include the city of Corner Brook and all of the
northwest Avalon.
(1405 )
In 1979, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, added the prefix
``Royal'' to the constabulary. This is an honour given to only seven
other police forces in the Commonwealth.
I am sure all hon. members will be pleased to join me in
congratulating the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary's tradition
of 125 years of excellent service to the people of Newfoundland.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 26
months ago the Shearwater Base Adjustment Committee was
formed to mitigate the loss of over 700 jobs at CFB Shearwater in
the riding of Dartmouth as a result of the downsizing announced in
the 1994 budget.
The committee was given only $2 million, an amount
significantly less than other bases which lost fewer jobs.
Nevertheless the committee members have soldiered on, believing
that once the transfer of national defence property occurs,
Shearwater can become the premier intermodal site on the eastern
seaboard of North America.
4625
For two years, the chairman of the Shearwater Development
Corporation has been stymied in his attempts to conclude the
transfer of DND property. While I recognize there may have been
some explainable delays, the fact remains that not on centimetre
of DND property has been transferred to the Shearwater
Development Corporation.
This situation is completely unacceptable to me and the people
of Dartmouth. The potential inherent in the site must not be lost to
departmental infighting on the part of some senior bureaucrats.
Therefore I ask my colleague, the Minister of National Defence,
to become personally involved in this effort to clear this
interdepartmental logjam so that the SDC can get on with the job of
creating jobs for Nova Scotia.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the constituents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are great users
of the information highway and are increasingly using this new
technology to position themselves in the global economy.
In order to build a strong information society, the government
intends to use the information highway to promote job creation and
to reinforce Canadian identity while ensuring universal access at a
reasonable cost.
Initiatives such as Community Access and SchoolNet will bring
Internet access to rural areas, schools and libraries across Canada,
legislation will be developed to protect Canadians' right to privacy
and a national access strategy is planned for 1998.
As a member of our caucus information technology task force, I
look forward to exploring the impact of new information
technology on our citizens and government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on July
3 this year, France announced a ban on the use of chrysotile
asbestos on French territory.
Faced with this situation, the Quebec government has prepared a
very specific action plan. The strategy includes developing
counter-expertise and organizing an international seminar on the
safe use of asbestos.
However, the federal government has yet to do anything concrete
to save 2,000 jobs directly connected with the industry in my
region, aside from the Prime Minister's personal commitment to
speak to President Chirac.
Only three months remain before the French ban takes effect.
This government's failure to act is trying the patience of the people
of Frontenac. The Prime Minister should rally to the Quebec
government's action plan and invest the funds necessary to save
these 2,000 jobs. This is an emergency, and the Prime Minister
should act now.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of my constituents I would like to raise a concern today about the
federal disaster relief program.
Although the flooding in northern Alberta did not receive the
attention that the flood in the Saguenay did, the damage to homes,
crops and businesses was no less devastating to those affected.
In spite of this, many of my constituents have been denied
disaster relief funding to compensate them for the loss of a
lifetime's worth of work simply because they were forced to pursue
off-farm income to keep their farming operations viable.
I and my constituents believe that if the federal government is
going to have a program to compensate Canadians for losses due to
natural disasters, then all Canadians should be equally
compensated for losses incurred.
The people affected by this biased criteria are only victims of
circumstance and would have been full time farm operators if they
had had a choice. The damage sustained is no less devastating to
them and their families.
I have written to Emergency Preparedness Canada and to the
Minister of National Defence and received no response. I ask the
minister to re-examine the eligibility criteria as described under the
disaster relief program.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last Saturday in Ottawa the city of Burnaby was awarded
the 1996 Communities in Bloom prize. This award recognizes the
quality of Burnaby's green spaces, the diversity and originality of
its landscaping, general tidiness, environmental awareness,
heritage and the level of community involvement.
As well, Burnaby has demonstrated its concern for the future
development of public areas through land acquisition dedicated to
preservation, restoration and recreational activities.
I want to congratulate Burnaby residents as well as city staff, the
Burnaby Beautification Committee and elected officials for this
terrific national recognition.
4626
This has been an exciting year for Burnaby. In fact, recently
Burnaby's Simon Fraser University pipe band won an
unprecedented second world championship at the world
competition in Glasgow, Scotland.
Congratulations to the champions in beauty and in bagpiping.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some 30 young people from Brome-Missisquoi spent the summer
working in other ridings across Canada, while young people from
those other ridings came to Bedford, Cowansville, Magog,
Farnham, Bromont and the Champlain Lake region.
This was an extraordinary experience for these young people,
and I will have the opportunity to elaborate on this in the coming
weeks.
But for now I would like to thank my colleagues and their staff
for taking care of our young people from Brome-Missisquoi,
starting with Pat in Edmonton, Marc in Victoria, and Paul in
Montague.
I also wish to thank my colleagues: the hon. member for
Edmonton Northwest, the hon. member for Victoria, the hon.
member for Timiskaming-French River, the hon. member for
Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Oxford, and
the hon. member for Hamilton East.
I join with the people of Brome-Missisquoi and especially
these 60 young Canadians in expressing our deep gratitude.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was a great pleasure for the municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk
to host the International Plowing Match and country festival this
past week. This was a wonderful opportunity for the citizens of
Haldimand-Norfolk and for all rural Canadians. Even though our
fields were muddy, they were friendly.
I would like to thank the chair, Warren Burger and the hundreds
of volunteers who invested endless hours of work to make the
ploughing match a success.
I would also like to thank the Prime Minister and other MPs for
taking advantage of the opportunity to attend the match. By joining
us in our fields of friendship they have once again been able to
recognize the importance of the traditional values associated with
rural Canada, values such as hard work and a commitment to
friends and family.
This, indeed, was a match to remember. I call on all members of
the House to attend the next one in Simcoe county next September.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Raymond Villeneuve, a founding member of the Mouvement de
libération nationale du Québec, made totally unacceptable
comments about Quebec's Jewish and anglophone communities.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to condemn Mr.
Villeneuve's comments, which are intolerable in a democratic
society. I remind him that Quebec sovereignists condemn all acts of
violence against others. A dispassionate, rational debate on
Quebec's future can only be held in a climate of respect for
democracy.
Yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois strongly condemned Mr.
Villeneuve even before the hon. member for Saint-Denis raised this
matter in the House. The Bloc Quebecois will always condemn
those who make racist comments, whether it is Mr. Villeneuve or
Mr. Galganov. The Bloc Quebecois urges the hon. member for
Saint-Denis to do the same.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
gun control Bill C-68. Yes, that Liberal attempt to be all things to
all people. Let us not be too tough on criminals with guns, but let us
make sure those rod and gun club members are watched. And do
not forget the farmers and hunters. Why, who knows when they will
rob a bank?
Just a few days ago five-yes I said five-people were murdered
in my riding. No, the killers did not use sticks or stones or talk them
to death. They used guns. I am now searching the gun registry to
find out when the killers registered their guns. I also want to search
the scene of the crime to see where the killers left the registration
numbers of their guns so we can get a match and arrest them.
Perhaps the killers have not sent in their gun registration fee yet.
We have to find out all these things to ensure we are protected.
Aren't we fortunate to have a Liberal government that
understands how crime is prevented in Abbotsford and Langley,
British Columbia?
4627
(1415 )
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party has released a brochure called ``Do You Feel
Safe''. This brochure is the Reform Party's attempt to mislead
Canadians with false facts and use their fear of crime to add to the
party's coffers.
Reformers choose to fuel the fear of crime and ignore the fact
that crime in Canada has been steadily decreasing as the 1995
crime statistics clearly show.
Fact: violent crime fell by 4 per cent, the largest drop since 1962.
Fact: the homicide rate dropped 3 per cent, reaching the lowest
level since 1969. Fact: homicides involving firearms dropped 10
per cent.
Reform MPs stand up in the House and repeat the details of
horrific crimes and grandstand in public as tough crime fighters. At
the same time they consistently vote against the government's get
tough measures such as sentencing reform and gun control. The
Reform Party ask: ``Do you want to feel safe in your own home and
community?''
Actions speak louder than words. The government wants results,
not rhetoric. It will continue to focus on substance, not cheap
slogans.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, is it just a coincidence or a skilfully organized stunt? That
is what we find ourselves wondering following the recent run-in the
BQ leader had with the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the threats
uttered against the Jewish community by Raymond Villeneuve.
In La Tempête, the Mouvement de libération nationale du
Québec or MLNQ newspaper, Raymond Villeneuve stated: The
B'nai B'rith lobby is now calling for the resignation of Michel
Gauthier, the Bloc leader, after he requested that Jewish organizers
distance themselves from the actions of activist Howard Galganov.
We pressed the Bloc leader to condemn the MLNQ president's
statement, but he only timidly distances himself from this
extremist movement. Are we to conclude that the Bloc and
Raymond Villeneuve's movement have more in common than the
Bloc leader would have us believe?
4627
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on the issue of the family trust scandal, we now have the
Minister of National Revenue, while still refusing to shed light on
the flight of capital out of the country, accusing the opposition of
being on the wrong track for wanting to shed light on the decisions
made in a panic on December 23 to allow a wealthy Canadian
family to transfer to the U.S. more than $2 billion without paying a
penny in taxes. According to the minister, it is a mistake for the
Bloc to want to get to the bottom of this.
How can the revenue minister accuse the opposition of being on
the wrong track for wanting to know the truth about these tax
loopholes, when the auditor general, experts with no connection to
wealthy Canadian families and Canadian editorial writers join with
the official opposition in demanding that light be shed on this
tax-free flight of capital out of the country?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by reiterating what I said in the House
yesterday.
First, the government took very seriously the report of the
auditor general and reacted quickly. It sent the report to the finance
committee for its full review and for its recommendations. That
committee has made recommendations that the Minister of Finance
is reviewing and taking very seriously.
As the minister of revenue, I am glad to have received the
recommendations which said that my department must act with
transparency, make consistent decisions and have full
documentation.
I am glad that the committee also noted that we have begun to
take action in that regard and that it praises the government for
ensuring integrity for the Canadian citizen.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone saw in the newspapers, the minister is
accusing the opposition of barking up the wrong tree, because we
want to know the truth. We want to know what happened, period.
The minister explained that these tax loopholes are maintained
because the law applies not only to the rich, as she said, but also to
ordinary people.
4628
(1420)
Does the minister realize that what the auditor general
condemned was that over $2 billion was taken out of the country,
tax free, by a single Canadian family, and that it is on this case, and
other similar ones which may have occurred in the past and which
may occur in the future, that we want to shed light? It is clear,
simple and logical to me.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not engage in speculation about what may or may
not have happened.
What I would like to do is quote from the report that was
received by me and the Minister of Finance: ``The committee heard
no evidence that these transactions have already cost the Canadian
fisc any actual tax revenue''. The committee notes that the auditor
general and his officials were able to identify any significant new
tax avoidance opportunity created for other taxpayers by these
rulings''.
The auditor general could only speculate about tax laws. It is
beyond me why the members opposite are so definite about this. If
they have information that they presented to the committee, can
they present it to this House?
My understanding is that when asked outside these walls by the
press, they were unable to substantiate the claims they are making
in this Chamber.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to summarize.
The auditor general told us about over $2 billion leaving the
country, tax free. This is the first element. The opposition has been
condemning this situation for three years, because we knew, we
realized this was a possibility. This is fact number two. The third
point is that the Deputy Minister of Revenue, Mr. Gravelle, told the
finance committee that there may have been other similar
occurrences. This is not just anybody. Her deputy minister said
there may have been other such cases.
My question is for the minister. Does the minister not realize that
she is making a mistake by attempting to cover up what happened
with this December 23 ruling, by attempting to hide behind the
report of the Liberal members of the committee to avoid shedding
light on this issue? All Canadians want to know what happened,
and we will find out.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us recall that this decision happened in 1991 with a
former government, not a Liberal government, a Conservative
government.
When this was drawn to our attention, we acted very quickly and
rapidly. As minister of revenue, I placed a moratorium on any
further rulings on taxable Canadian property while the finance
committee was doing a very important review, the first review of
this piece of the Income Tax Act in 25 years.
As well, upon receiving the report of the finance committee, I
have extended the moratorium on any further rulings to do with
taxable Canadian property until such time as the Minister of
Finance has had an opportunity to review the recommendations and
make decisions on making changes that are appropriate and in line
with the kind of government that we are.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the previous Conservative government is responsible,
then what do the Liberals have to worry about if light is shed on
this episode? What do they have to fear? Are they afraid that, if we
scratch the blue, we may find some red underneath?
Yesterday, the revenue minister systematically refused to shed
light on the family trust scandal. Instead, she attacked the official
opposition which, according to her, was perpetuating a myth. When
$2 billion leave the country tax free, it is far from being a myth to
taxpayers.
How can the revenue minister claim that the report of the Liberal
majority of the finance committee shed light on the issue of tax
leakages when, in fact, this report served only two purposes: to
cover up the issue and to discredit the auditor general, who has
become an embarrassment to the government?
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I fail to understand how the opposition can talk about any
kind of lack of integrity. We received the response from the auditor
general with open arms and then asked the committee, on which the
hon. member sits, to review it in its entirety for the first time in 25
years and to make real recommendations not on issues upon which
they speculate but on the reality of taxpayer migration and how we
should tax that circumstance. We want to have a tax system that is
fair and that the Canadian citizenry can have a sense of confidence
in.
We have taken those actions. We have received the
recommendations. There is a moratorium on further tax rulings.
The Minister of Finance is looking at the recommendations that
fully point to the policy in specific. As the minister of revenue, I
have taken specific actions in terms of improving the manner in
which my department operates.
4629
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing the Liberal government did when the
auditor general denounced it was to try to cloud the issue, never to
get to the bottom of it, to the bottom of this scandal.
I put the question to the revenue minister: Why refuse to clarify?
Why refuse to tell Canadians what really happened on the evening
of December 23, 1991, and what may have happened since then,
because you have set a dangerous precedent?
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I would remind you that you
must always go through the Chair.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me be clear on a number of issues.
When I reviewed the report of the auditor general I spoke to him
directly and said: ``Are you concerned about the integrity of my
department?'' He said to me: ``No, I am not''. When I spoke to my
deputy minister and asked him if we have a right to be concerned
about the integrity of the Department of National Revenue, he said:
``No, we do not''. When the chair of the finance committee spoke
to the auditor general and to the assistant auditor general about this
issue he received this response: ``There is no evidence of
wrongdoing or interference in the decision making process here''.
Yesterday the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound said:
``In spite of serious efforts on my part, in no case could I discover
any evidence of wrongdoing''.
Mr. Speaker, our government does not engage in any kind of
witch hunts. If the hon. member has proof that he has not yet made
public, please ask him to do so.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie is one of this
country's most distinguished soldiers. Even the government
acknowledges that. No one disputes that Major-General Lewis
MacKenzie cares passionately about the men and women of the
Canadian Armed Forces. Today he said: ``There is a morale crisis
in the Canadian forces and my plea is that the political leadership
accept that and do something about it''.
Does the Prime Minister accept that there is a morale crisis in the
Canadian Armed Forces and will he do something by replacing the
chief of defence staff and the Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course, like a lot of people, I respect very much
Major-General MacKenzie. I know him personally. But the reality
is there is an inquiry going on at this moment on what happened in
Somalia. Let the inquiry do its job.
In terms of the operation of the armed forces, today they made a
decision to have a new function established to make sure that
grievances from troops will go straight to the highest level possible
in the army. That is the way to solve problems. Just shuffling
people around does not solve problems. We are trying to reform an
institution that is going through a very difficult time.
We had to close bases. We had to reduce the number of generals
from 120 to below 80. It is very difficult for the people who operate
in that situation to understand that it is difficult for everybody, not
only for the soldiers who have to live with that and the managers of
the department, but it is tough for us too. We do not make these cuts
and readjustments just for the pleasure of doing them. It is because
they are needed to make sure that the finances of the nation will be
in proper shape.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not act at the top others are
forced to improvise down below.
Lieutenant-General Maurice Baril has become tired of waiting
for General Boyle to appoint an inspector general. So he has
created his own position of command inspector to investigate
charges of poor leadership and morale. He says: ``I can't wait six
months. I want to find out immediately, did the leadership fail''.
The leadership did fail and it continues to fail.
How long do the soldiers have to wait? How low does morale
have to get before the Prime Minister does the right thing, as
distinct from the politically expedient thing, and fire General Boyle
and the Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy that the leader of the third party is
mentioning General Baril. I heard General Baril last week on
French TV supporting General Boyle and asking the people of
Canada to let General Boyle do his job.
I agree that General Baril is competent, and he is on the inside.
He is an outspoken person. He was not ashamed to say last week
that he has confidence in General Boyle and that he should stay in
his job.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the late Senator Stan Waters was one of Canada's most
distinguished soldiers. He was a member of our first commando
and paratroop unit in the second world war and he rose through the
ranks to become commander of the army in the 1970s.
When General Waters was asked what was the most important
quality a military leader should possess, he said he must be able to
inspire others to follow him into battle.
4630
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that General Boyle and
the defence minister could not inspire soldiers to follow them
across the street, let alone into battle, and that both should
therefore be relieved of their responsibilities immediately?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, talking about leadership, I would think that the member
who asked the question should take a good look at himself first.
The wheels were put in motion by this government when it took
office to look at and to have a review of national defence. Flowing
directly from that review was a new white paper for the armed
forces. Flowing directly from that was the restructuring of the
forces to bring them into the 21st century. Flowing directly from
that we brought in private enterprise practices in our purchasing
methods to ensure we received the best value and that they were
more efficient. That is what we did. That is why they will not
resign.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the tax loophole scandal, the government first went
after the auditor general, and then, yesterday, the revenue minister
simply said that the official opposition was on the wrong track.
I submit to you that it is the government and this minister who
are on the wrong track. I am merely asking her why she is refusing
to get to the bottom of this affair, which has deeply shocked the
people of Quebec and of Canada.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the issues of this particular case were full and front at
the finance committee, a committee of all members of Parliament
from across this country. Members of the hon. member's party
were there. They had a chance to ask questions of experts, of
departmental officials, of the auditor general. I do not understand
where this question comes from.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is disconcerting that the minister does not understand,
when the auditor general does.
The former auditor general understands, the independent experts
understand, the editorial writers understand, the official opposition
understands, the third party has written a report and understands,
yet this government and its committee are trying to gag the auditor
general.
(1435)
Very simply, my question, a question being asked by people all
over the country, is as follows: How many trusts are involved, and
how many billions of dollars have gone out of Canada since the
federal decision of December 23, 1991, which has been used as
precedent?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid what the hon. member does not understand is
responsible government.
We were given from the auditor general advice of a decision that
was made in 1991 that may not be the kind of decision that he
would like. In response to that, this government said that we need a
review of this particular aspect of the Income Tax Act, the first one
in 25 years, and that has been done.
We do things in a responsible fashion, unlike the opposition
which insists on referring to and confusing Canadians about this
issue. It is not about family trusts. It is about taxation of migrants.
It is not about irresponsible officials. There is no evidence of that.
It is not about erosion of the tax base. They have been unable to
substantiate that. It is not about the mythology that legislation here
does not apply to all Canadians, because it does.
Our government understands that and wants to make sure, as we
review the recommendations of the committee, that we do it fairly.
We recognize any law that is developed has to apply fairly to all
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, another scandal is brewing around the defence
minister.
Access to information documents obtained by CTV News reveal
that the minister's campaign pal, Stephanos Karabekos, attempted
to influence an RCMP investigation into veteran benefits.
The Prime Minister talks of ministerial accountability. Will the
Prime Minister hold the defence minister accountable for attempts
by the defence minister's paid political hack to influence the
RCMP?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence was asked questions for
many months about that situation and he gave an explanation for
the work this gentleman had to do for the minister and the
department of defence with the veterans.
He replied many months ago to my satisfaction and I guess to the
satisfaction of most members of the House of Commons.
4631
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not satisfied with that answer. Mr.
Karabekos attempted to influence an RCMP investigation and the
Minister of National Defence did nothing about it.
The minister is spending more time abusing his own budget than
restoring morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have learned that
the minister has rewarded this campaign pal with yet another
contract of $16,000. Mr. Karabekos' contracts now total over
$165,000.
How can the Prime Minister continue to defend the defence
minister who spends more time abusing his budget than restoring
morale and leadership in the Canadian forces?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I answered the question earlier. The Minister of National
Defence has been questioned on this a number of times before this
House, and he has answered all questions from the House of
Commons.
[English]
After seven days of sittings already they have nothing to talk
about, and so they are going back to questions from six or seven
months ago. Very soon they will talk about the last election.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence made fun of several
generals when he said that their criticism had as much weight as a
plumber's. I may remind the Prime Minister that when something
is wrong with the plumbing, you call a good plumber, but when
something is wrong in the army, you are better off with a good
general and especially a good minister.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the situation has
deteriorated to the point that the land force commanding officer has
just appointed an ombudsman to deal with the leadership problem?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is very good news. This is the same General Baril who
said last week on the French network of the CBC that he had
complete confidence in General Boyle.
Together they are introducing the necessary reforms. Today,
General Baril announced the creation of this new position to ensure
that members of the armed forces can present their grievances to
this new officer, who will have the specific task of ensuring that all
authorities are advised of their content.
This new position is intended to help improve relations among
the lowest ranks right on up to the highest echelons of the army.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it
gets complicated like that, something must be wrong. Morale is at
its lowest ebb, and this is mostly due to a lack of leadership.
Will the Prime Minister wake up and realize that the army does
not need an ombudsman but a chief of staff who is respected and a
minister who is credible?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the same member who said two minutes ago that
General Baril had done something positive. In his supplementary, it
is no longer a good thing.
I suggest we let the generals, who are far more experienced than
the hon. member, do their job and take care of the situation in the
armed forces, and that we wait for the report of the Commission of
Inquiry on Somalia. It is as simple as that.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
each and every day another $2 million is sucked out of the
economy of Newfoundland because of the unfair Churchill Falls
hydro project. This $800 million a year rip off is robbing the people
of Newfoundland of their resources and relegating them to the
status of second class citizens.
Will the Prime Minister stand up for the rights of Newfoundland
and take action to ensure this injustice is rectified?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member yesterday, this is a
contract between two parties, a contract knowingly entered into by
the Governments of Newfoundland and Quebec.
If in fact there is a dispute in relation to some of the terms of that
contract between the two parties, I suggest that they sit down and
attempt to resolve it. If they are unable to do that, there is always
the possibility of recourse through the courts.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government did not have the same tender concern for the contract
on Pearson airport.
Since Hydro Quebec and the separatist Government of Quebec
have made it clear they have no intention of re-opening the
Churchill Falls hydro contract, the only option left, short of
shutting off the power, is for the federal government to take action.
4632
Again I ask the Prime Minister, will he sit and watch while
Newfoundland's resources are pillaged in this disastrous deal or
will he take action on this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the minister said. There is a
contract and there is a dispute. I believe Mr. Bouchard and Mr.
Tobin previously discussed the contract and are making their cases.
There is no doubt that the rule of law exists for everybody in
Canada, but sometimes, when circumstances change, people sit
down and review the complex problem they face and try to find a
solution.
The minister has said that there is a contract at this time and we
must respect the contract which is the rule of law in Canada. This is
not a new issue. It was debated a long time ago. I believe the
minister gave a very good answer today and yesterday.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The French speaking residents of the village of Laurier do not
have a facility to house the students of the Franco-Manitoban
school division. In spite of its constitutional obligations, the
provincial government has made no decision acceptable to the
parents.
Will the federal government take action to ensure that section 23,
dealing with minority language educational rights, will be
complied with?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be sure the community
of Laurier has good reasons to invoke section 23 of the charter, and
I am convinced that the education minister will show her
willingness to settle a situation which contravenes this section of
the charter.
* * *
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on the Prime Minister's earlier remarks. He
alluded to the age of my hon. colleague from Témiscamingue. All
in all, I would rather have less experience and more common sense.
This morning, the newspapers reported that, as of August 26, the
government still had no strategy for using the remaining $45
million out of the budget originally earmarked for youth programs.
That makes no sense, considering that one young person out of four
is desperately looking for work.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. How can the minister justify his government's
inaction? Does the government lack imagination or is it hoarding
money so it can spend it during the months preceding an election to
charm young voters?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will leave any question about
charm to the hon. young member. But regarding the funding still
available to create jobs for young Canadians, the plan was
originally, in the spring, to set funds aside to create jobs during the
summer for those young Canadians who are in school.
We realized, however, that many unemployed people did not fall
in the category of students going back to school in the fall. That is
why I plan to work with my colleague, the Minister of Industry,
Science and Technology, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage
and with other stakeholders, including the private sector, to find
appropriate ways of spending these funds. I can assure you,
however, that every penny earmarked for creating jobs for young
Canadians will be spent.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am sick and tired of the government using my generation to score
political points.
When all is said and done, does the minister realize that the
government's reluctance to invest in jobs for young people speaks
volumes about its lack of imagination in dealing with young people
and the terrible unemployment problem?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we never know what to expect
from one week to the next. The hon. member and his colleagues
often rise in this House to tell us we should not get involved in job
creation or spend money on training and in other areas. What we
are doing is honouring our commitment not to meddle in areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
I have no doubt-and I reiterate to my hon. colleague-that all
the money set aside for creating jobs for young people will be spent
in due course and I hope that young people will not be as frustrated
as my friend is.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to follow up on the Prime Minister's comments
with respect to the Churchill Falls contract.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would give the federal
government's view as to whether this deal as a whole is fair or
unfair to Newfoundland. Forget for a moment that the contract was
a
4633
convoluted contract negotiated between the Liberal government in
Newfoundland, the Liberal government in Quebec with the Liberal
federal government looking over its shoulder.
Will the Prime Minister simply comment on whether the
Churchill Falls deal is fair or unfair to Newfoundland?
(1450 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am trying to see the thread to the
administrative responsibility of the government with these
questions, which appear at least on the surface should be asked in
another house. If the Prime Minister wishes to address himself to
whatever question is posed, I would permit him to do so, but I
cannot see the link to the administrative responsibility of the Prime
Minister in the question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I am to comment on every proposition about that type of
question, there will be no end. We are a government here and we
are responsible for the actions of the government.
I replied to the question before: It is a debate between the
premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the premier of Quebec.
They have already talked about the question and I hope that they
will still talk about it because both have an interest in having a
good relationship. There is a lot of potential at the border between
the two and they have to make sure that the atmosphere is the best
possible so it will be conducive to more progress.
It is not my role at this moment to say to one or the other to
respect it or not to respect it. We have courts to settle the question
of legality. I am happy that both said they intend to respect the law
of the land.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I asked the question because there is a way the federal
government could rectify this deal if it is truly unfair outside of the
contract.
The federal government can do two things. First, it could refer
this issue to the National Energy Board and ask it to determine a
fair and reasonable allocation of the profits to Newfoundland.
Second, it could adjust the equalization formula to reduce the
amount that goes to Quebec by the amount that should go to
Newfoundland. Has the federal government considered that
solution to this problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if one is issued payment that is the law of this House, of
Parliament. I have no choice. It has been voted that there will be
equalization payments and there is a formula that applies according
to revenues of provinces. The leader of the third party is asking the
Prime Minister of Canada not to respect the law. I am not that kind
of Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for decades now the government has been dealing out hard blows to
francophones outside Quebec. Their lives are becoming
increasingly difficult. They are losing ground. The rate of
assimilation keeps on growing. And the government picks this
moment to strike another hard blow to francophone and Acadian
communities in Canada through the CBC cuts.
My question is for the heritage minister. How can she agree to be
the one to add yet another blow to the history of francophones
outside Quebec, one which will help to hasten their assimilation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the number
of francophones throughout the country is growing. Another fact is
that, at the present time, after budgets cuts that are hard on
everyone, what will happen to French language television across
the country is that francophones in western Canada will see their
programming doubled from a half an hour a day to one hour.
Of course, French language television in the West hurts the Parti
Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois, who would have people believe
that francophones are to be found only in Quebec. But we are
confident that with one hour of French television in western
Canada, we will be able to improve the situation of western
francophones and of French language television throughout the
country.
(1455)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everyone understands that French language radio programming
will increase, if there are cuts of $20 million and 240 jobs.
Everyone understands that.
How can the heritage minister show herself to be so insensitive
today about the fate of the francophone and Acadian communities,
while being so sensitive to their cause when there are referendums?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find rather
deplorable about the hon. members across the way is that they are
here today claiming that no cuts should be made to the CBC. On the
other hand, on March 16 last year, the hon. member for Rimouski
said the following about CBC cuts: ``If any cuts are needed, there
are big ones to be made at CBC''. In response to the question by
Michel Lacombe of RDI: ``Concerning CBC headquarters, you are
surely not recommending that headquarters be totally cut''? The
hon. member responded: ``Yes.''
4634
The hon. members across the way are claiming both that the
cuts are not necessary and that the CBC headquarters needs to be
done away with. There is a contradiction here.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems
that the cable monopoly and the Canadian heritage department
think negative option billing is a good thing. The people of Canada
on the other hand have a distinctly different opinion.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us what is her stand
on negative option billing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we oppose it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry
the answer was so quick I did not catch it. I do know that yesterday
she did say that she believed in the spirit of it. Clearly, by saying
that she was only in favour of the spirit of it, she did not make a
commitment to it.
My supplemental is very simple: Was her Canadian heritage
department actively lobbying to support negative option billing last
weekend, yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of the
Government of Canada has been, continues to be and will be in the
future that we oppose negative option billing.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Recently I met with the Council of Central and East European
Communities in Canada regarding Canada's support for the
enlargement of NATO to include countries of central and eastern
Europe which have expressed a wish to join the military alliance.
What has Canada done to ensure that these countries will be
integrated into NATO as part of a broad and comprehensive process
of building up a new European security arrangement?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park for his question
and for his strong representation of Canadians of central and
eastern European descent.
Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, Canada has played an
active role in urging the NATO alliance to reach out to countries in
central and eastern Europe.
At the NATO summit of 1994 Canada enthusiastically joined the
other allies in agreeing that NATO should enlarge. At the same
time, Canada is working to ensure that NATO enlargement is done
in a way that will increase the security of all countries in Europe
and that the creation of new dividing lines is avoided. This means
that we will work to enhance NATO's partnership for peace
program and to strengthen the OSCE as a key element for the
European security architecture.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there seem to be strange and troubling links between the
Liberal Party and the carrier Canadian. Let us consider, for
example, the appointment of the Liberal Party's bagman in the
West, Ross Fitzpatrick, to Canadian's board of directors, and that
of the former special advisor to the Minister of Transport, Jeff
Angel, to the position of government affairs officer, again with
Canadian.
(1500)
Does the minister not feel that these troubling facts point to an
incestuous relationship between Canadian and his government?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I indicated to the House yesterday that our policy with
respect to the two airlines was one of even-handedness and equal
treatment.
Airlines are free to hire whom they wish. If Air Canada chooses
to hire a civil servant who was responsible for the negotiation of air
bilaterals, that is all right. If Canadian International wishes to hire
someone previously hired by one of my colleagues on either side of
the House, that is all right as well. The fact is that we are treating
the airlines on the basis of strict equality.
Having said that, I have to tell the House that we have a new
policy in place, one which allows Air Canada for the first time to
fly to Hong Kong, Korea and Japan. It is this government which
made that change and allowed Air Canada to get that opportunity
under our secondary airline policy.
If there is any indication of the importance that we attach to the
competition between the two airlines and the importance of equal
treatment, it is in the record of this government.
4635
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, since the beginning of this Parliament the Minister of
Finance has used Canada's fiscal crisis as a club to suppress caucus
and cabinet pressures for more spending, but now the dam has
burst. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has increased spending
by $160 million.
My question is for the Prime Minister: How many more such
spending increases are in the works? Has the Liberal government
returned to its old ways of buying the next election regardless of
the size of the deficit and debt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that we have a deficit
reduction plan and we are ahead of the plan. In the last three years
in every budget we had a figure of what would be the deficit and we
have managed to operate the government in such a way that the
deficit was always lower than predicted. This year we have
predicted that it will be 3 per cent of GDP. We said at the beginning
of our administration that it would go from 6 per cent of GDP to 3
per cent in three years. Not only will we achieve that, we will do
better than that.
I thought the hon. member was going to get up to applaud us. I
think that now he will.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, prior to the
government's election in 1993 the Prime Minister promised to keep
the Crow benefit and after the election he killed it. Now before
another election he is promising that the wheat board will stay.
Since this government has already placed the wheat board, the
dairy commission and others on the table as identified state trading
enterprises for the 1999 round of trade talks, and since the avowed
purpose of those talks is to eliminate all identified state trading
enterprises, why given its record, should any farmer trust the
Liberal government to keep the board? How does it propose to do
that?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was abundantly clear in the last
round of the GATT negotiations together with trade discussions
since that time that the Government of Canada intends to preserve
valuable trading institutions such as the Canadian Wheat Board.
I had the opportunity to discuss the whole issue of state trading
enterprises with representatives from 14 different countries in the
context of the Cairns group meeting earlier this summer in
Cartagena. It was the common consensus of all of the Cairns group
countries, most particularly countries like Canada, Australia and
New Zealand, but all of the Cairns group, that we have every right
to stand up for state trading agencies, and that we will do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for
International Trade.
France's decision to ban the importation of asbestos products
effective January 1, 1997 may reduce the essentially Quebec-based
Canadian producers' market by another 6 per cent.
What is this decision's impact on Canadian trade and what will
the government do to protect Canadian producers?
(1505)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an industry that exports in excess of
$300 million a year and over 2,000 jobs depend on it.
There are unsafe uses of asbestos, but on the other side of the
coin there are safe uses of asbestos which is what we are trying to
promote. My colleague the Minister of Health has made
representations to the French government with respect to its ban.
In terms of the safe uses, there could be exceptions. The Prime
Minister announced last week that he would make representations
to the French government. My colleague the Minister of Natural
Resources has also been very active on this file. We are making
representations to the French government. I have made them to my
counterpart. I offered to send some experts over to show the French
government what the safe uses are so it can put them into its
legislative exceptions.
We will continue to work with other countries in the European
Union and around the world to help preserve the safe use of
asbestos in international markets.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence
in the gallery of Dr. Faisal Zerra, member of the Shura Council of
the State of Bahrain.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I also wish to draw to your attention
the presence in the gallery of Dame Janet Fookes, the Deputy
Speaker of the House of Commons of Great Britain.
4636
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4636
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act, be read the third time and passed; and
of the amendment.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has proposed
that Bill C-45 be hoisted for six months. I think that is a splendid
idea. I would like to see the bill hoisted indefinitely, if not forever.
Then maybe the justice committee would have time for a little
sober second thought and could allow this House to pass judgment
on the private member's bill of the member for York
South-Weston. However, we know that is not going to happen
because the juggernaut is rolling.
Bill C-45 is typical of our justice minister's philosophy which
values the rights of criminals far more than the rights of
law-abiding, taxpaying, decent citizens. This philosophy does not
just show up in Bill C-45. There is a pattern. For example, look at
Bill C-68 which my colleague from Lethbridge has already touched
on. In his bill the justice minister has expressed a willingness, an
eagerness to harass and persecute millions of honest people in
order to promote his social agenda.
(1510 )
Now he has a new thing coming forward, Bill C-55. Ostensibly it
is to apply more restraint to dangerous offenders and to have to
some limited extent more control over people who society would
not countenance. I will admit it is a faltering little step in the right
direction. But in this same bill there is provision for the
surveillance and control of people who have never been convicted
or even openly accused of a crime. What in the name of heaven
ever happened to due process?
Liberals are always great on due process. To be entitled to it a
person first has to commit a serious crime, preferably a really
vicious premeditated murder and then the Liberals will love them
to death. Then our justice system will pull out all the stops to
protect their rights. But if the person is an ordinary citizen who has
never done anything to offend anybody, look out. Our justice
minister will have something in store for him, something which
flies in the face of all traditional concepts of British and later of
Canadian jurisprudence.
Some people say that it does not help to keep people locked up.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands probably has
something to say about that. He has a lot to say about everything
else. I just wonder how the people in his riding would feel about his
views about just getting rid of the prisons and throwing the
prisoners out on the street, that they are good folks and we have got
to be nice to them and we should not be mean to criminals.
Does it help to keep people locked up? I will say one thing, it
sure cuts down on recidivism. They do not commit a lot of crimes
when they are already incarcerated.
The government calls section 745 the faint hope clause. The
word on the street is that it is not the faint hope clause; it is the
almost a sure thing clause. To date, although we have only been
really using it for two years, 80 per cent of the people who have
applied for the right to appeal for a reduced sentence have been
granted that right. What kind of a faint hope are we talking about?
The other part of this bill which I find extraordinarily offensive
and which many people have already mentioned is that it
establishes a difference between good murderers and bad
murderers. A person who kills only one person is a good person and
is not really bad and therefore should not be terribly punished. If
someone kills two, look out. What happens if three people kill two
people? What do we do with someone who is guilty of one and a
half murders?
With respect to good murderers and bad murderers, there is one
Joseph Robinson who about 10 days ago was convicted of second
degree murder. Perhaps the House will say I am digressing here by
bringing forward a second degree murder but give me a little
patience and I will explain where I am coming from.
Normally the penalty for second degree murder is life, ten. This
gentleman was deemed to have been motivated by racism. It was a
hate crime. His term for parole eligibility was increased by two and
a half years. I have no trouble with the tougher sentence. As a
matter of fact, in view of the crime that this gentleman was
convicted of, I would not have trouble with a much tougher
sentence. It was an extremely brutal crime and the extra time was
probably warranted, but hardly the rationale.
(1515)
However, if you shoot a police officer for sport, and there are
two well documented cases of this that I am aware of, you have the
right after 15 years to come forward and ask to have your parole
eligibility reconsidered. As was mentioned in this House earlier
today, one person who did just that had his parole period cut down
to 18 years. He did shoot a policeman for sport.
Where in the name of common sense and rationale is the justice
in that? We are making a mockery of our justice system. Nobody on
this side, and I do not think anybody in Canada, is saying hang
them high, hang them often, throw the key away. For heaven's
sake, can we not reintroduce a bit of common sense into a system
that has completely gone off the rails? This is where I come from,
this is where my colleagues come from, this is where the general
public of Canada is coming from. They are sick and tired of seeing
4637
these miscarriages of justice perpetrated by our very own justice
system.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to stand in support of the Bloc's attempt to hoist this
legislation. This legislation is not really worthy of passing this
House.
What I have seen in the debate around Bill C-45 is a pattern on
the part of the Liberals across the floor to focus on the rights of the
poor prisoner, rehabilitation of the poor prisoner, rather than on the
issues that Canadians really care about, the rights of the victims
and the safety of our society. Those are the issues that Canadians
really care about. This legislation shows once again and is part of a
pattern of this Liberal government in not going nearly far enough
on legislation and on its actions as government.
For example, with regard to the deficit and debt this Liberal
government has made a start in that area but has not gone far
enough or fast enough. As a result what we have is almost a $30
billion deficit added to our debt last year. Now our debt is up to
almost $600 billion. It is part of the Liberal pattern, not going far
enough, not being tough enough.
What happens as a result of Liberal inaction? The interest
payments on our debt are almost $50 billion a year and because of
this increase in interest costs the Liberals have cut spending on
programs like health care and education. The Liberals have not
gone far enough.
If Reform's zero in three plan had been put in place, and we
campaigned on this during the last election campaign, we would be
debating what to do with the surplus. Should we reduce the debt
more rapidly? Should we maybe spend more on health care and
education, the areas that are most important to Canadians? That is a
much better type of debate than most of the debates that we have
had in this place as a result of Liberal inaction.
On every justice issue that has come to the House the Liberals
have refused to go far enough. Canadians are very unhappy about
that and very displeased with that. As I have been listening to the
debate on Bill C-45 and other justice bills over the past three years,
it is very clear the government does not have the will to do what it
takes to make our country a safer place in which to live.
(1520)
It should be no surprise because in 1972 it was solicitor general
Goyer and a Liberal government that deliberately changed the
focus of the justice system. This is part of the problem and part of
the reason we have not had changes that are nearly tough enough
and which go in the right direction.
This change was a change away from a top priority in our justice
system, the safety of our society, making our homes and streets
safe places in which to live.
The focus was taken from that and changed. The focus became,
as we have heard throughout this debate, especially from the
member for Kingston and the Islands, the rights and rehabilitation
of the criminals.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands probably got a lot
of votes with the speech that he gave on this yesterday. What he
was saying and showing is great concern for those poor prisoners.
He has a lot of prisons in his riding of Kingston and the Islands. I
am sure he got the prison vote. I hope they are not enough votes to
carry him so that he is here in the next election.
This change in the focus to where the top priority has become the
rights of the criminal, rehabilitation of the criminal, must change.
It is certainly not what Canadians want. The focus that Canadians
want is a focus that places as the highest priority in our justice
system the rights of the victim and the safety of all Canadians in
their homes and in the streets. That is what the focus should be. The
Liberal's legislation that would move Canada toward that goal of
being a safer place in which to live has been dismal indeed.
On the other hand, Reform has proposed several substantial
changes that would refocus the justice system on the rights of the
victims and on safety of people in this country.
For example, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West presented
last spring a victims bill of rights focusing on the victim. The
Liberals refuse to focus on the rights of victims. They do not seem
to care about the victim.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West presented a victims bill
of rights. Had it passed, it would have become law. Did the Liberals
support Reform on the effort to refocus the justice system, to give a
higher priority to the rights of victims? Did the Liberals support
this move? No. They voted against it. That legislation was shot
down. Because of that, the victims still do not have the rights they
deserve.
I want to quickly, because it is worthy of some debate and
recognition, go through some of the points that the hon. member
for Fraser Valley West has put forth in his victims rights bill, which
is the type of legislation that Canadians want.
For example, he said victims should have the right to be
informed of their rights at every stage of the process, including
those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must
also be made aware of any victim services available. It does not
happen now.
They must be informed of the offender's status throughout the
process including but not restricted to notification of any arrest,
upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the
offender from custody, including notification into which
community the parolee is being released and the conditions of
release, parole dates and all that type of information.
4638
We would think in a country like Canada with supposedly a well
developed justice system that the victim would be shown at least
as much consideration as the criminal. That is not the case. That
change is needed.
(1525)
Another proposal by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West is
that the victim would have the right to choose between giving oral
and/or written impact statements before sentencing. It is a right one
would expect in Canada.
If this Liberal government will refocus, if it will come back
again and do what Canadians want, focusing much more on the
rights of the victim and on the safety of society, we will not have
nonsense legislation like this and Canadians will be much more
pleased with what it is doing. Right now Canadians are extremely
upset with the inaction of the Liberals.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could not let the moment pass. I listened to colleagues
opposite who have made a point here this afternoon of detailing in
debate how bad things are. I do not for a moment think the
Canadian criminal justice system is nearly as bad as they say it is.
The most important thing I want to say here today is that both of
my colleagues opposite have failed to address the bill that is being
debated here now. Each one of them has criticized the section 745
procedure that is now in the Criminal Code. They have attempted
to outline why it is unbalanced, unfair, inappropriate, unjust. But
neither one of them has stated what this bill, which amends the
section 745 procedure, does.
It attempts to redress the perceived unfairness that existed in that
procedure. It increases the criteria that would enable someone
convicted of a capital crime, someone who is serving more than 15
years in prison, to readdress the issue of parole ineligibility.
This bill raises the bar, raises the standards so it will be
extremely difficult for someone to obtain a reduction in the period
of parole ineligibility. Some of my colleagues think this bill goes
too far and is too strict and will make it virtually impossible for a
convict to obtain a reduction in a parole ineligibility period.
I know most of my colleagues on this side of the House support
the bill, support the purpose for which it was put forward. They
believe it will redress inequities perceived by the Canadian public
with respect to the application of this section.
In case anyone would want to take members opposite as having
the complete picture on criminal justice reform, each of the
colleagues opposite has failed to note criminal law reform
initiatives, statutes passed in this House involving the corrections
act, the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Prisons
and Reformatories Act, all of which have been passed and are
being worked on by this Parliament. Not a mention of these
progressive reforms in the criminal justice area. I wanted the
record to show that just in case anybody might have failed to note
that.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a
few words on this topic. I cannot believe that we are taking such
mediocre steps to solve what is a very big problem.
I do not know if all the members here have gone through the
trauma of having a person in their family murdered. We have and it
is devastating. It is absolute abhorrent. It is totally impossible to
imagine. If any of us were to imagine that this evening our life
might come to an end because someone else would choose to take
it, it would give us a perspective on this problem that is quite
different.
(1530)
We need to pay very close attention to what we are talking about
and that is the gravity of the situation. We need to send a message
loud and clear that cannot be mistaken, that in our society, in our
country, it is not acceptable to contemplate and to actually carry out
the taking of the life of another person. If that message does not
come through, then I do not know what does.
I am aware of the fact that we cannot pass a law that will make
people good. I do not think that is possible.
The purpose of the law is to restrain those who are not good. The
purpose of the law is to say to that person who is contemplating the
act of first degree murder that the person is going to have to say:
``If I do this, there are big consequences for me''. Right now in
Canada those consequences are inadequate.
We are talking in this bill about the question of first degree
murder, contemplated, carried out deliberately. I urge members,
especially the Liberal members, who are the ones who can do
something about this, who are the majority in the House, they are
the people ones who can say by voting correctly on this bill we
want to send that message. We want to protect society. We want to
protect the lives of law-abiding citizens.
Failure to do so is failure to exercise our responsibility as
parliamentarians to do what is right in protecting law-abiding
citizens in this country.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
4639
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
[Translation]
During the ringing of the bells:
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I request that the division
be deferred until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.
The Speaker: Tomorrow?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, Mr. Speaker, until 5.30 p.m.
tomorrow.
(1535)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the chief opposition whip has asked
that the vote be deferred until tomorrow. We ask that the vote be
deferred to later this day at the conclusion of Government Orders.
Mr. Speaker, you will have to make the decision.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am thinking about it. I am not
going to think too long because the bells are ringing. If there are
going to be discussions, I am prepared to wait a few minutes while
I discuss this with my chief clerk, but no more than a few minutes.
Unless you want me to make the decision, I will give you a few
minutes to talk about it if you like.
Hon. members have asked me to decide. Of course the sole
criteria for deciding is not who came to the table first. Members
will recall that about a year ago I was asked to make a decision on
this type of matter. At that time I ruled that the vote would be taken
at the later time that was asked for in order that all parties could get
as many of their members here to vote as possible.
My decision is that this vote will be taken tomorrow at the latest
possible time. That is at 5.30 p.m. That is when we will hold the
vote.
* * *
The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and
Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-53,
an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
I have had the chance to observe what has been going on here
over the last couple of weeks and indeed what has been going on in
this House over the last few months. What we have here is a simple
case of Liberal electioneering.
I give the Liberal Party more credit than do most Canadians. The
Liberal Party knows very well that the criminal justice system is a
huge concern in the minds of the Canadian people. Liberals have
done their polling and their homework and know that most
Canadians think there is a huge void between where the criminal
justice system is and where it should be.
Let me be the first to say that my colleagues in the Reform Party
and I take a whole lot of credit for getting out the information to the
Canadian people. It has raised their awareness to a point where they
are starting to say that there is something wrong with the justice
system.
The Liberals know that the Canadian people are very concerned
about the justice system, the way the prisons, the parole system and
the sentencing procedures are. The Liberals are trying to balance
just how much it will take to make the Canadian people think that
they are actually doing something about the disparities in the
criminal justice system. They are trying to balance that and at the
same time not offend the bleeding heart philosophy of the Liberal
Party and most of its members.
If ever there was a definition of a conundrum, we have it right
here between the Liberal philosophy of dealing with the criminal
justice system, with people who commit murders and robberies and
with people who drive impaired and kill people. There is a problem
in dealing with all of those issues in the criminal justice system and
balancing that against Liberal philosophy.
I do not envy the Liberals for being in that position. The fact is
that when it comes to being honest with themselves, let alone with
the Canadian people, when they are faced with this situation they
honestly know they cannot give Canadians what they want because
it throws their philosophy out of balance.
What we have here is a situation of tinkering, smoke and
mirrors, deception, making believe that they are doing something
but they are not. We see the government failing to take the
necessary steps to restore justice to the criminal justice system.
Bill C-53 would amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act by
adding a statement of purposes and principles with respect to the
temporary absence programs. It also permits the provinces to
create additional types of temporary absence programs for people
convicted of crimes. Further, and this comes as no surprise as far as
this government is concerned, Bill C-53 will extend the period of
temporary absences to 60 days. Does this mean that prisoners are
now going to be able to go on a Club Med holiday because they
have more time out of the can?
4640
(1550 )
Finally, the bill sets out the grounds for suspending, cancelling
or revoking temporary absences and confers the power to
apprehend and return persons to custody.
Those are the provisions contained within the bill, but a huge
concern to the Reform Party and of far more importance is what is
not included in the bill. What is not included in the bill is a clear
statement that the protection of society must be paramount, the
most important thing, of prime consideration with respect to
temporary absence decisions. What is not in this bill is a statement
that says the most important thing when considering temporary
absences must be the protection of the Canadian people, of society,
of our wives, of our husbands, of our children, of our
grandchildren, of our cousins, of the Canadian law-abiding people.
Why is this not in the bill? Because this Liberal government has
a philosophy which is held over from the Trudeau days. It is a
philosophy that was brought to this House and this Parliament by
the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Kingston and the Islands,
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and the Prime Minister himself.
All the holdovers from the Trudeau government. I am sorry, the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was probably a little bit
young then but that philosophy is still here.
The Liberal philosophy is that as a Liberal government it must
place the rights of prisoners on the same plane as the rights of
law-abiding citizens and victims. That is the philosophy of this
government. The government may ask: ``Well why do we lock
them up if that is the case?'' The fact that they lock them up is that
the law says they have to, but this government is doing everything
it can do to change that law and let them out. That is the problem
and we have it right here in Bill C-53.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act which governs the
behaviour of the parole board has a clear statement that the
protection of society is to be the most important factor in
determining whether or not a prisoner should be given parole. I
suppose it is only a matter of time before the Liberals will try to
amend that act to remove that statement.
Bill C-53 considers the protection of society to be of the same
importance as the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into
the community. Personally I find it quite appalling that this
government would have the audacity to put the protection of
society, of people who have never committed a crime, our children,
our brothers, our sisters, our parents, the protection of law-abiding
Canadians on the same plane and the same importance as the
prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the communities.
That is the most appalling philosophy I have ever heard and this
government has done it.
Once again the Liberals are elevating and promoting the rights of
criminals. It is as simple as that. Let me just repeat that. Once again
this Liberal government is attempting to elevate and promote the
rights of criminals.
(1555 )
The Liberals may want to pat themselves on the back for that but
I am sure the Canadian people will not give them a hand on that
one. The bill says to Canadians that their safety as law-abiding
Canadians, as families is not the primary responsibility of the
correctional system.
This Liberal government has the nerve, the audacity to put
forward a bill that says to Canadians their safety is not the prime
responsibility of the corrections system. Congratulations. Their
safety is of no more importance than a criminal's rehabilitation.
Congratulations. This is absolutely ludicrous. How can this
government, how can these Liberals even consider the thought?
How can they consider saying to Canadians: ``I am sorry, the
correctional system in this country really does not think that the
safety of our families and our communities is important. Therefore,
we are going to elevate the rights and the privileges and promote
that criminals get out into society quicker. Do not worry, if they
commit another crime, we will just pick them up, put them back in
and then go through the same process again''.
The Liberals opposite are saying that I am crazy. Let us listen to
what the Library of Parliament has to say. These are not my words.
The Library of Parliament says that this bill gives less importance
to the protection of society than does the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. This appears in the legislative summary
prepared for all members by the Library of Parliament. It does not
represent my personal opinion on the bill. This is an impartial
opinion of the contents and effects of this bill.
The legislative summary also states: ``The principles set out
relating to temporary absences are similar to those set out in the
CCRA with the significant exception''-this is the Library of
Parliament-``that in the act the protection of society is to be the
paramount consideration in the determination of any case''. I go
back to what I said before. It is not so much what is in this bill; it is
what has been left out, that is, the consideration of society when it
comes to releasing criminals into the community.
Members will note that the author of the Library of Parliament
legislative summary uses the term ``significant exception''. They
picked it up right away. They agree with Reformers when we say
that this bill does nothing to protect society. It will in effect place
the protection of society on the same plane as the rehabilitation and
reintegration of criminals into our society. That is appalling.
Canadians will not and cannot accept that for a moment.
4641
That is just a symptom. That is a result of this Liberal
philosophy that was born in the Trudeau era and brought forward
to this Parliament by members of Parliament who were present
then. We see it so much in evidence today.
The author from the Library of Parliament uses the term
``significant exception'' with good reason. It is very significant that
the Liberals do not consider the protection of society to be their
primary concern. That is significant and we have seen it.
Time after time they have presented government bills in the
House that purport to toughen up the justice system, that purport to
get tough on criminals, that purport to get tough on people who
commit horrendous crimes in this country. In actuality they are just
a smokescreen to fool the Canadian people into thinking this
Liberal government actually cares about whether people who do
crimes in this country pay a price for them or not.
(1600)
Of equal concern to the Liberals, judging by some of the bills
they have brought forth, is the criminal's rehabilitation and
reintegration into society. I believe that this is wrong that they
place these two things on the same plane. The protection of society
must be reflected in every single part of the criminal justice
system. The protection of society must be paramount.
No other part of the criminal justice system deserves to be even
anywhere equal to the protection of our society. No rights of
criminals, nothing to do with the parole system, nothing to do with
lenient sentencing, nothing to do with temporary releases; none of
that should even begin to come on the same scale as the protection
of our society, of our children, of our sisters, our brothers, our
parents in this country. Nothing should ever even begin to climb the
scale to get to the level that protection of society is.
I read these bills and I think are they nuts over there? Where is
their logic? I need to give the Liberals a simple lesson in the
purpose of our justice system. I am even going to dumb it down for
them so they can understand. They should listen closely. We put
bad people in prison to punish them for their bad acts and protect
society from their bad behaviour. Is that too complicated for this
government to understand? We put bad people in prisons and we
punish them.
There is no way that anyone in their right mind could even
consider supporting Bill C-53. It is a bill with so much audacity,
with so much trickery in it, with so much electioneering in it that it
does not even deserve a place in this House. I certainly oppose it
and so do my colleagues.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about
rhetoric. I heard nothing but rhetoric from the last speaker.
If he wants to consult Hansard of last week he will note that even
his colleague from Fraser Valley is almost about to support the bill.
I question whether the hon. member has even taken the time to read
the bill.
We are not talking about a bill which addresses criminal justice
issues. We are talking about a bill which allows provinces and
territories to address the severe problems they have with the
administering of inmates within their jurisdictions. That is people
of less than two years and a day. We are not talking about hard core
criminals.
In the federal system there is a procedure in place for us to
administer the penitentiary system called the National Parole
Board. Some provinces have that mechanism in their jurisdiction.
The majority of them do not have that privilege in their legislation.
The temporary absence system is then used in place of parole to
administer those prisoners who are in for an average of less than six
months.
When I hear the member say this applies to hard core criminals,
we are going to let them out and we are going to endanger the
public security, I have a hard time. I doubt if he even read the bill.
This bill is an initiative which has been discussed by federal,
provincial and territorial leaders, all ministers responsible for
justice in their territories since May 1996. They have asked our
government to give them the same leverage and the same latitude
to deal with the administration of their justice system. It has
nothing to do with what the hon. member was talking about.
(1605)
The provincial-territorial actions program will allow the
provinces to control offenders in their jurisdictions. It will allow
provincial prisoners leave for a specified period of time, with or
without an escort, for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitative
purposes. It is designed to help offenders reintegrate into the
community. They are going to serve their two years less a day
sooner or later.
I ask the hon. member, if all the federal and provincial ministers
are in agreement with the bill, if the Bloc Quebecois is in
agreement with the bill, if members on this side of the House are in
agreement with the bill, what is his concern?
This bill will allow the provinces and territories the flexibility to
tailor their temporary absence programs according to their needs in
their provinces and in their communities. That is all we are dealing
with. We are not dealing with all the issues the hon. member raised.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member
opposite about a little phrase that one of the health groups is using
4642
now: just say no. The reason they say just say no is that doing that
activity will have a harmful effect on them.
I am saying to the government just because someone asks it to
soften up a bit and give a little more latitude in working out a more
lenient way to deal with prisoners in the provincial system, that
does not mean it has to say ``of course, go ahead and do it''.
The government needs some backbone. It should tell them: ``I
am sorry, the Canadian people do not want us to soften up the
justice system. They want us to toughen up the justice system. No,
we are not going to pass the bill. We are not going to give you the
additional freedom to treat prisoners in a more lenient manner. I am
sorry no, the people do not want it''. Why do you not have the guts
to say that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we continue the
questions or comments I would like to make two points. I remind
all members to make their interventions through the Chair and also
to be very judicious in the choice of their words to support their
arguments.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague from the Reform Party is citing such individual cases
that we might perhaps accept, but then they flood us with stories of
this person or that in their questions, they seem to want to go for
guilty and the death penalty. I find that despicable.
I think that a bill whose goal is to protect society is very
worthwhile. However, I would like to add something. I have
worked in secondary schools almost all my life, and when a young
person was a delinquent when he came to us, we had to wonder.
When a young girl had already been involved in serious
misdemeanours before coming to us, we had to wonder. Was it the
fault of this 13, 14 or 17 year old, or was it something in their
background?
As for myself, I would like to see this bill include something
about helping to protect seven, eight, nine and ten year olds in
primary school. We must give young people a great deal of help,
and if we put out the money needed to protect them, they would not
turn up in prison at 18, 20 or 30 years of age, and we would not be
having the sort of discussions we are having today about how to
keep them in prison, essentially rehabilitate them. It is no easy
thing to spend 20 or 25 years in prison. We have to think about that
too.
(1610)
Society must, of course, be protected, and when someone has
committed a crime, he must be punished. I would like to put the
following question to my colleague. Instead of spending hours
talking about how to punish people, should we not be looking
harder at prevention?
[English]
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I actually could not agree with the
hon. member more. Let us talk about prevention. Let us have the
nerve to talk about the consequences of committing a crime in this
country. That is prevention. Let us tell the people out there at the
grade school level, at the university level, people in their 20s and
30s, people of all ages in this country, if they commit a crime in
this country we are not going to let them get away with it. There is
going to be a consequence.
That is called deterrence. However, the Liberal government and
the separatist group here do not seem to understand the word
deterrent. When I was a kid my mother told me: ``If you do that, it
is wrong and you will pay a price. There will be a consequence to
that''. That was a deterrent.
I do not think that kids have changed that much that in their early
learning years to not understand that if they do something wrong
there will be a consequence. What has changed is the attitude of
governments like this and parties like this which say: ``We are
sorry, there is no such thing as a bad person, only a person who has
been a victim of society and these people should be treated fairly
because it is not really their fault''.
I talked about the Trudeau era which started that philosophy and
it is still present today in this Liberal government and with the
separatists here there is no such thing as a bad person. They are not
to blame. Society made them that way. That is bunk.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Prince
George-Bulkley Valley for doing such a fine job in elucidating
this very important issue that affects Canadians from coast to coast.
I think he raised a very important point which the government
tends to forget. Canadians today are more afraid in their homes
than they have ever been in the last 20 years. Sometimes the facts
do not support it, but in many cases the facts do support that. I will
get to that later in my speech.
It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons
and Reformatories Act. The purpose of the bill is to change the
temporary absence program, creating additional types of temporary
absences, and to lengthen the time temporary absences are
available.
Let us stand back and look at what this actually means. If a crime
is committed and a conviction obtained at public expense, and
sometimes it can be a threat to the men and women in our police
forces, the felon is released on a temporary absence program. The
felon does not pay a penalty for actually committing the crime.
That is a very important thing to realize. It means that if a felon
commits a crime and is convicted, the felon is then released back
into society.
4643
Let me give an example. A friend of mine checks on people
out on temporary absence programs. He went to Vancouver to
check up at the home of a convicted cocaine seller who lives in
an opulent home in Vancouver. This person is smiling away, going
full and continues to sell cocaine through his back door. He is
living in a home worth millions of dollars and is laughing at the
police officers who come to his door. That is an example of a
temporary absence program. That is not what the taxpayer wants
to hear. That is not justice. That is not the way the criminal justice
system should work, but in this instance that is the way it is
working. The government wants to make this even more lenient.
(1615)
Let us look at the overall crime situation in Canada with
statistics from the National Crime Prevention Council. In 1994,
contrary to what the government says, the crime rate was 8 per cent
higher than a decade ago, and this is probably under-reported.
A substantial number of crimes are never reported to the police
for a number of reasons. The statistics are truly appalling. It is
notable that 90 per cent of sexual assaults and 68 per cent of
non-sexual assaults are not reported. These are violent crimes that
are not reported to the police. The victims go unheard. They do not
get restitution. The criminals continue to go on their merry way
with no penalty.
About 80 per cent of crimes are committed by only 20 per cent of
the population. For future reference, it is exceedingly important for
us to identify who those 20 per cent are. I know the government
will not disagree with that.
We got some laughs from the other side when I mentioned that
Canadians were more scared today than they were before.
According to the statistics of the National Crime Prevention
Council, not mine, not the Reform Party's, one in four Canadians
feel unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods at night. Only 10 per
cent of males reported feeling unsafe, but 42 per cent, nearly half
the female population, felt unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods.
That is not the society that Canadians want. That is not the
society of which we should be proud, and it is something that we,
the legislators of this country, must change. It must be an
embarrassment to every person in this House to face up to that
statistic.
It means that half the wives of the men in this House are afraid to
walk in their own neighbourhoods. It means that half of the female
children of the people in this House are afraid to walk in their
neighbourhoods. That is totally unacceptable and must change.
I saw the Minister of Justice on a CBC television program saying
that violent crime is not as bad as we think. Let us look at an
independent statistic on that matter. According to police statistics,
the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased fourfold in the
past three decades. That is 400 per cent in the last three decades.
Bear in mind that those statistics are under-reported, as I said
earlier. The vast majority of violent crimes never come to the
attention of the police.
Youth crime is worse. Criminal Code offences by youth have
increased by 16 per cent since 1986 and violent crime among youth
has escalated dramatically. We have heard this time and time again
from my colleagues and the government has repeatedly ignored
them. But it ignores youth crime at its peril.
The public has repeatedly said to the government and to us that it
wants this fixed and fixed now. Canadians no longer want to be
fearful of walking in their own backyards, something we as
Canadians should never have to do.
Since 1962, when penalties started to be reduced for committing
crimes, when governments got soft on crime, rates began to
increase. What the government said to the public was that if you are
victimized you will not see restitution; you are not going to see
retribution.
(1620 )
What it said to the police is that no matter what hard work they
put into it they will not be able to put criminals behind bars. What
is happening now is many of them are standing back and asking
why they should do it any more. It is a sad thing.
What it tells the public, who feel they are not being protected by
the justice department, is that they now have to take matters into
their own hands and vigilante justice may be their only recourse.
That is not something we would like to see in Canada. If we start
having vigilante justice we progress along that slippery slope
toward anarchy.
The real reason for Bill C-53 is that jails are too crowded. The
government wants to decrease the pressure on the jails, which we
completely understand. However, in doing so, it wants to put more
and more people on these temporary absence programs.
We are not opposed to temporary absence programs, but it must
be done with forethought and within a certain framework. The most
important overriding concern in this framework has to be the
protection of the public and of innocent people above all else. That
is the role of justice first and foremost. It has other roles certainly,
but the government has forgotten that. The roots of this began in
the early 1980s when the solicitor general of the day, a Liberal, said
that from now on the justice department's primary role would be
not the protection of society but serving the criminal. It is going to
be the rehabilitation of the criminal, not the protection of society.
That is a significant departure. What we want to do here is get
the justice department back to having as its primary focus the
4644
protection of innocent civilians. It is not to say that the
rehabilitation of the criminal is not important. If we ignore that we
ignore it at our peril. However, there are intelligent and effective
ways of doing that. I will get back to that a little later because the
experience in the United States has been very fruitful and cost
effective.
The framework must be, as I said before, the protection of the
public. This cannot apply to violent criminals and must certainly
not apply to any criminal who is going to continue doing what got
them into jail in the first place. It cannot apply either to non-violent
criminals who demonstrate no remorse. A non-violent criminal in
this situation is going to commit criminal acts again.
It is also in the public interest to understand the situation that is
taking place right now in our criminal justice system. When a
person is convicted of a crime, automatically one-third of the
sentence gets knocked off and often times that person will only
serve one-third of the total sentence. Therefore, two-thirds of a
person's sentence is knocked off for good behaviour. A criminal is
automatically deemed to have good behaviour and have one-third
of his or her sentence knocked off by the system. That is very
disingenuous to the victim who believes that if a person who is
sentenced to 15 years that person will spend 15 years in jail.
Perhaps the most glaring example of this is section 745 of the
Criminal Code which states that if a person commits first degree
murder by killing a police office he or she can get out in 15 years.
There is a list longer than my arm of individuals who have
committed first degree murder and have been let out shortly after
their 15th year of prison. We want to see that revised because first
degree murder means first degree murder and it means the person
spends 25 years in prison. It does not sent a clear message to those
who commit this most heinous of crimes that they should be getting
out after 15 years. If they do the crime they must pay the time.
I would also like to give some examples of the absurdity that is
taking place in our criminal justice system.
(1625 )
I was at a correctional facility treating some patients not so long
ago. The first patient I saw had a large laceration in his arm. I said
to him while I was sewing him up: ``How did you get this?'' He
said: ``Doctor, I got this because I was making a knife''. This man,
while incarcerated in jail, was making a knife. He was not the only
one making knives because making knives was part of their
program in that medium security jail, one of our newest I might
add.
This same jail, which cost $175,000 per cell to build and which
has a beautiful foyer with vaulted ceilings, has cameras. In the area
where the inmates are housed they have their cells and then they
have a communal area where they eat, play cards and talk. The
guards are in the middle of this without any protection.
Furthermore, the charter of rights prevents a camera from being on
that communal area because it is an infringement of their privacy,
the same individuals who are making knives in jail.
I am sure the taxpayer would be very interested to know that they
are paying $60,000 to $80,000 a year to house individuals in jails
where they are making knives. That is not justice, for crying out
loud.
In the jail previous to this one, the inmates decided to set the jail
on fire. There were soiled clothes and water everywhere. The
inmates were locked up. Who was cleaning this mess up, but the
guards, not the inmates. That is the situation that we have.
The guards are afraid for their own safety and they are afraid of
actually doing a number of duties that they have to do for fear of
retribution from the inmates. That is the situation in many of the
correctional facilities across the country. That speaks well of our
criminal justice system, but it speaks of what this government and
previous governments have done to completely turn our criminal
justice system on its head. Justice must protect society at all costs.
It is not doing that at all.
Last, I would like to let the government understand that there
will be some superb suggestions coming from my colleague from
Calgary Northeast and my colleague from Wild Rose on a number
of areas on how to revamp our justice system and prevent crime.
We in the Reform Party have often been accused of being
hang'em high. We are not hang'em high. We want effective
solutions to address crime, the appropriate punishment, appropriate
protection of the public and appropriate, effective methods of
rehabilitating criminals.
We do not want the situation we have today, which has proven
not to work but cost effective solutions that will work. I will give
some examples. These are not examples that my colleagues will
mention because they will announce this in the very near future.
These are a few from my personal experience.
We have to separate the psychiatric patients from the
non-psychiatric patients in our criminal justice system. One of the
silent tragedies that is occurring is the closing of psychiatric
hospitals.
There has been a mindset of taking these psych patients and
putting them in the community. For some, that is acceptable. For
many, unfortunately, it is not. They are not given a choice. The
choice is not there for them.
All we need to do is walk along the streets, even in Ottawa, and
see the number of burnt out schizophrenics walking the streets.
4645
Many other psych patients are not medicated and walking the
streets, often falling afoul of the law and often suffering.
It does a disservice not only to these people who are ill but it
does a disservice to the public too, who have to suffer from the
unfortunately criminal activity that these people engage in while
they are perhaps psychotic. That has to be done. These people have
to get the appropriate treatment, otherwise they will never get
better.
(1630)
To address the recidivism rate, we have to pull out that 20 per
cent of the prison population which repeatedly continues to show
an abhorrent respect for Canadian society. We must pull them out
and deal with them in a much firmer and very different way than
the 80 per cent who do not repeatedly run afoul of the law.
While in jail skills training should be obligatory for individuals
so that when they come out they can gain employment and become
integrated back into society. One of the problems with individuals
once they get out of a correctional facility is there are not many
support programs for them and there is not a lot for them to do.
They have a great deal of difficulty integrating back into society
because they do not have the skills necessary to deal with that. This
must be dealt with.
Also, alcohol and other substance abuse problems have to be
dealt with while incarcerated in jail. That should be obligatory. If
an individual is not prepared to deal with it, they should be dealt
with differently too. There is no point in putting them back on the
street as a cocaine addict if it contributed to the reason why they
ran afoul of the law.
Last, it is wise for us to look at the experience in the inner cities
of the United States. Columbia University did an excellent job of
taking children at the age of four and five in school, bringing the
parents into the schools and teaching the children not only their
ABCs but also about self-respect, respect for others, appropriate
conflict resolution, drugs, alcohol and so on. They learned that. The
parents also learned these skills if they had never learned
themselves. The outcome was a much lower rate of teen pregnancy,
violence and drop-outs.
I thank the House for its time and consideration. I sincerely hope
the government pays attention to these suggestions and the
suggestions of my hon. colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I always listen to
the hon. member for Esquimalt-Jean de Fuca with respect, for
normally he uses good judgment. This time, while being less
zealous than his Reform colleagues, he is still speaking along the
same lines.
I understand what fear is. He speaks of people being afraid to go
out in their own neighbourhoods. I do not have the statistics with
me, but in Quebec, at least when I looked at the figure for my
region, 80 per cent of murders were committed by people known to
the victim. More often than not, three out of four times I think, the
murderer was a former partner, and in more than half of these cases
or something like that, he then took his own life.
I certainly take no pleasure in such statistics. We are seeing the
increase of such cases, but at the same time the crime rate in
Quebec and in all of Canada is decreasing. Yet the Reform Party is
still raising the argument that people are afraid.
I am not all that old. I have not yet turned 50, but I can remember
how frightened my grandmother was, how frightened my mother
was, how frightened women have always been, both in cities and in
the country. If we take fear as a criterion, there is unfortunately no
polling company that can do a historical study for us, but I am sure
that, if such a study were done, it would be seen that there have
always been people who were afraid.
Yes, there are worrisome things going on, particularly where
young people are concerned. I say that there are too many violent
shows on television, and that could be one explanation.
(1635)
As I know the member who just spoke to be level headed and
usually of good judgement, I would like him to confirm to me, as
he is a doctor, that there has been an increase in violent crime,
leaving out the crimes committed by ex-spouses, people who know
each other and criminals settling scores with other criminals. Is
there really an increase where he lives in Vancouver, and is it that
serious in this region? If so, he should warn us, because I may have
to go to Vancouver next week.
[English]
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my honourable friend from the Bloc Quebecois. Merci
beaucoup pour votre question.
The statistics I am very happy to share with the hon. member do
not come from the Reform Party. These statistics come from the
National Crime Prevention Council of Canada and they
demonstrate unequivocally that the rate of crime, violent crime in
particular, has increased and this in fact is paralleled by an increase
in fear among the Canadian populace. In terms of breaking that
down to those who knew their assailant and those who did not, I do
not have that breakdown.
I concur with the member that most people who are victims of
violent crime do know their assailant but I do not know whether
those numbers are increasing. However, the overall picture clearly
demonstrates that there is an increase in violent crime particularly
among youth and that people are afraid across this country
including les gens de Québec about their personal safety. That must
4646
be dealt with and is something that all of us collectively in this
House can put our minds to and address.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the last two speakers from the Reform Party have spent an
awful lot of time focusing on the general background of criminal
law legislation, the fears of Canadians and those types of things.
While those issues are important, although I am not saying I agree
that there is all this fear they say is out there, surely they again have
missed the point of dealing with the legislation at hand and I want
to ask the hon. member to comment on this.
This particular statute addresses the institutional aspects of
responding to criminal behaviour after people have been sentenced
by the courts. It deals with institutions that deal with offenders who
have sentences up to two years.
The federal legislation for the federal institutions that deal with
all of the other longer term offenders, the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, was recently amended here in this House
for the second time. First on the list it deals prominently with
public safety.
This statute which we debate here is an attempt to parallel and
incorporate much of what is in that CCRA statute by concept and it
deals with the administration of temporary absences. It tightens up
on the administrative ability to terminate, cancel and administer
them. In other words, addressing public safety.
Does the hon. member not think he has failed in addressing this
bill to and acknowledge that the government in this case is
updating the Prisons and Reformatories Act to bring it in line with
the CCRA, which has as its number one focus protection and safety
of the public?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to point out to my hon. friend that nobody in the Reform Party
ever fails, and he should understand that very clearly first of all.
I think we ought to cut to the chase. The real reason for this bill
is to empty the jails because the jails are overflowing. This and
previous governments have been completely unable to deal with
increase in crime that we see in a number of sectors.
I think it is disingenuous for the government to admit anything
else. The lengthening of temporary absence programs is merely
sending a message to the criminal population that if they are going
to commit the crime there is less chance they will have to do time.
(1640)
It is high time we all put our minds to developing better solutions
which prevent people from running afoul of the law and to ensuring
that the 20 per cent of the people who will be repeat offenders will
be dealt with in a very forceful manner. For the remainder, the 80
per cent, the temporary absence programs must be based on merit.
The temporary absence must be earned, not automatically granted.
We must have, first and foremost as our primary motive the
protection of society.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-53 which is before us today. I am not
pleased to speak to it because it is a substantial piece of legislation
or because when the bill passes it will make changes to improve the
system. It will not. I am pleased to speak to the bill because it gives
me a chance to very clearly point out the difference between the
Liberals and their totally ineffective legislation on crime and
justice and Reform and our substantial and comprehensive
proposals which will make the system better. Our proposals are in
line with what Canadians want.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River in asking a
question to the previous speaker pointed out that the legislation
only deals with sentences which are less than two years in duration
and, therefore we are not really dealing with serious offenders. I
disagree.
If that member were to ask his female colleagues in the House,
he would find that they are not only concerned with being raped
and murdered, they are concerned when they take that walk into the
parking lot at night that somebody might try to steal their purse or
that somebody might give them a violent push. They are concerned
that when they are at work their homes might be broken into.
These crimes are not considered to be serious. These crimes
violate what I believe is a right of all Canadians, a right to feel safe
and to be safe in our streets, in our parking lots and in our homes.
I completely disagree with the member. These are very serious
offences which do very serious damage to people not only
physically but also psychologically.
We should not make light of this issue just because we are
dealing with sentences of under two years. That is a big mistake.
I am going to take a little time to go through Bill C-53. It is an
act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. It would add a
statement of purpose for temporary absence programs and it would
authorize the provinces to create additional types of temporary
absence programs.
The key issue for Reform is that although the principles relating
to temporary absence are similar to those set out in the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, there is one substantial and very
serious exception. In the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
the protection of society is to be of paramount consideration,
whereas in this act that is not the case. In that way this legislation is
actually a step backward. That principle is found nowhere in Bill
C-53.
4647
Bill C-53 would consider prisoner rehabilitation and
reintegration into society as equal to the consideration of the
protection of society.
(1645 )
Again, this resulted from years and years of Liberal thinking, the
same Liberal thinking that led to the changes in the justice system
which took the focus away from the protection of Canadians so
they can feel safe in their homes and in their streets. But I will talk
more about that later.
Bill C-53 is an extension of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and would expand the scope and number of temporary
release programs in Canada. Past experience has demonstrated that
temporary absence, especially for violent and serious repeat
offenders could jeopardize public safety.
For example, Daniel Gingras was out on a temporary escorted
absence when he escaped at the West Edmonton Mall and went on
to kill again.
The concept of temporary absence illustrates that there is little
truth or honesty in sentencing. Many Canadians feel that this
approach is wrong, specifically that criminals owe a debt to society
and this debt should be fulfilled in its entirety. They want certainty
in sentencing. None of this out on early release with half the
sentence or less carried out. Canadians are truly fed up with that
and they want a change. This legislation does not offer substantial
change.
Mr. Milliken: Tell us your views on caning.
Mr. Benoit: The member for Kingston and the Islands seems
obsessed with the issue of caning. He asking me once again to talk
about caning. I would much prefer to talk about this piece of
legislation, as weak as it is, and to talk about Reform's substantial
proposals which I will present later.
The programs of temporary absence are an extension of the
status quo correctional philosophy. I believe it is important to talk
about that philosophy a bit. First, it says that most criminals
commit crimes because they are also victims. How many times
have we heard that from the members across on the government
side and from the separatists in the House? It is an excuse. I am
sure that the people who are committing or thinking about
committing a crime think that they will always have this excuse to
fall back on. This excuse has found its way into our justice system
that most criminals commit crimes because they are victims of
crime.
Second, this philosophy states that crime is mostly a product of
social conditions and that the most effective remedy is for the state
to intervene through programs such as a step up in welfare
payments, more money handed to these poor people so they do not
become criminals. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the
case in Canada in particular. This philosophy is flawed from the
start. So of course the legislation which flows from Liberal thinkers
would be flawed.
I would like to talk a bit about temporary absences. It is another
in a long list of language which is used by people who believe in
the Liberal philosophy. It is the language which is preferred by
welfare state criminologists, which includes conditional release,
mandatory supervision, statutory release, community sentencing,
alternative measures and other newer labels which are essentially
built on the same theme, the same philosophy. They build on the
notion that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation.
As we have heard from speakers from the government and the
separatist side, the focus is on rehabilitation of the criminals and
the rights of the criminals. This is the philosophy that has driven
the change of this government. Because of that we get this type of
legislation which really is not going to help one bit when it is
passed. Again, it will be passed because the Liberals will vote as
they are told to vote.
I would like to talk a bit about something else which should find
its way into the philosophy of people who are trying to redesign the
justice system. That is the deterrent to crime. We need to focus
more on deterring crime.
(1650)
Reform is sympathetic to opponents of the status quo in
corrections and parole who argue that substantial crime savings can
be made through deterrence rather than programs of temporary
release and that type of thing, the changes that are proposed in this
bill for example. Reform is very open and I would say that we
support that philosophy.
The answer is not to throw people in jail and throw away the key.
In some cases a longer sentence and certainty in sentencing is what
we need. But in other cases, we need to look at other options.
There are people sitting on the government side who are not even
willing to consider other options. We have to look at every possible
option that we can find to deter crime. This is not happening on the
government side. But all the options are being talked about and
considered, for example, boot camps for young offenders. These
are the kinds of things we have to discuss.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Benoit: As you can hear, Mr. Speaker, the members across
the floor are kind of laughing at this idea of having a stronger
deterrents.
I would like to use an illustration I have used before in the
House. They obviously have not hear it so I will present it again. I
will talk about deterrence to crime and how it works. I will use the
example of I believe his name was Bratton. He was hired as head of
security for the subway system in New York City.
4648
His philosophy was entirely different from the Liberal
philosophy which I have talked a little about. He said that we have
to focus on the so-called petty crimes. If we are really tough on
petty crime like vandalism and that type of thing, then criminals
will not go on to commit the more serious crimes.
He found that his philosophy was absolutely right. Through the
application of that philosophy, by getting very tough on so-called
petty crime like panhandling and graffiti being painted on walls,
the crime rate for the more serious crimes dropped off
dramatically.
Mr. Bratton was later hired by the city of New York as chief of
police and as chief of police they found the same thing. If you get
tough on the so-called petty crime, you are using a strong deterrent
to crime. That is what he did and he is very successful as chief of
police for New York City. That demonstrates how we can use
deterrence to crime effectively. For that reason the subways in New
York City are much safer than they were before he came in and
started to do his job.
I will talk more about the changes that Reform proposed in this
area to fix things up. Part of our job as an opposition party is to
critique, both positive and negative criticism. That is part of our
job, which we do. Sometimes it is negative criticism which has
been earned in many cases. We also offer positive alternatives to
what we hear from the government side which I will talk about.
An hon. member: Let's hear it.
Mr. Benoit: I am so encouraged that some of the members over
there are expressing their impatience, their eagerness to hear
Reform's alternative proposals. I am really pleased to hear that. It
pleases me to no end.
What does Reform say? Here are the positive alternatives. First,
offenders should serve the full sentence for committing violent
crime. Violent offenders should serve full sentences. Reform
believes that Canadians' faith in the justice system needs to be
restored.
We believe that violent offenders as defined by section 752 of
the Criminal Code should serve their full sentences with no
eligibility for parole. Our proposal makes punishing crime and
protecting law-abiding citizens the top priority in our justice
system.
(1655)
The precise resolutions that were passed by Reformers at our
assemblies over the years dealing with this issue are these. This is
what Reformers, normal Canadians, have said at the assemblies
and these are the resolutions they have supported which give us the
policy which we build on here. This is what is in the Reform blue
book, our policy book, which by the way was presented to
Canadians long before the Liberals ever came out with a red book.
There are some substantial differences between our blue book and
the Liberal red book. The Reform blue book has our substantial
policies in place. It says what we will do when we gain power and it
is very clear and comprehensive, which differentiates us
substantially from the red book.
The Reform Party supports the requirement that violent
offenders serve their full sentence. Some violent offenders and all
repeat offenders once released should be under parole supervision
for the rest of their lives.
The second resolution dealing directly with this is that the
Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the
punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and
their property ahead of all other objectives.
If there is any one thing that differentiates Reformers from the
Liberals, that is it. We clearly in our policies place as the top
priority the protection of Canadian citizens. The Liberals' top
priority, which we have heard again and again and too often over
these last few days, is the rights of the criminals and rehabilitation
of criminals.
I can understand that from the member for Kingston and the
Islands. He is going to need the prison vote to get him elected next
time. We know there are many prisons around Kingston. I can
understand him but the others I cannot forgive. There is no excuse
for it. I am sure he will get the prison vote very handily. Reformers
sure will not because we believe we have to be serious with
criminals.
The second thing which Reform is proposing and is related to
this issue is Reform thinks that two convictions for violent crimes
or sexual crimes against children is enough to prove that an
offender poses a serious danger to society. Therefore we would
deem that any person who commits on two separate occasions an
offence causing serious personal injury, as defined under section
752 of the Criminal Code, a dangerous offender and subject to an
indeterminate period of imprisonment.
Again, this came from Reformers, everyday Canadians, who
care enough about this country to make changes which are going to
make it a safer place to live. The Reform MPs who are working in
this area have taken this policy from assembly and have built
substantial policies which will make things better.
The third resolution is Reform believes that the National Parole
Board must be accountable to Canadians. We believe this can be
achieved by ending patronage appointments. I hear groans across
the floor. I am sure some of the Liberals are counting on patronage
appointments after the next election. We believe in ending
patronage appointments, hiring its members on the basis of merit
alone and ensuring that they answer directly to the Solicitor
General of Canada. In order to fully restore confidence and reflect
new accountability we will rename it the merit release board.
4649
As the name would indicate, a person does not get early release
unless they earn it. They have to earn it based on merit. That is
important to note.
Reform has proposed many changes to the criminal justice
system and some to the Young Offenders Act are substantial
changes. It is a comprehensive package that will be tougher on
young offenders. It will also look for ways, other than putting them
in prison, to deter young offenders who so often offend again and
again until they have formed a pattern of crime. We put forth
proposals that will deal with this and hopefully end their life of
crime early. That is needed.
(1700)
The member for Fraser Valley West has put forth substantial and
very important proposals which would give victims rights under
the law. We put forth positive proposals.
I would like to close by repeating that Reformers have clearly
distinguished themselves as being completely different from the
Liberals. We have put forth changes that Canadians favour. Those
changes when implemented-and we will get a chance pretty
soon-will truly make Canada a safer place in which to live.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was delighted to hear the hon. member indicate how I
would need help in the next election in order to get elected in
Kingston. I attribute that to my rationale for expressing myself
yesterday in my speech on Bill C-45.
I have two questions for the hon. member arising out of his
remarks. First of all he said at one point that he did not believe, and
neither did any of his colleagues, in the policy of locking them up
and throwing away the key, that that was not part of the Reform
agenda.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is laughing at that
because he knows that is his position. Indeed, it is the position of
many members of his party. They have said repeatedly in this
House in the course of the debate-and I am surprised that the hon.
member who just spoke was not here listening-that they favoured
locking them up and throwing away the key. In their view, when
life means life, when someone gets sentenced to life imprisonment,
they should go to jail for life. If that is not locking someone up and
throwing away the key, I do not know what is. That was the
proposal I heard from many of the members opposite.
Perhaps the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia could get up later and explain his view on this
but I think it was lock them up and throw away the key. Then he
said that their policy was not that, that they did not approve of that
policy, that that was not any part of it. In the next moment he said
on crimes of violence when someone got a sentence they stayed in
prison for the full length of the sentence.
If it is a life sentence and someone goes to jail for life-I assume
he considers murder a crime of violence-is that not locking
people up and throwing away the key? I just wanted to clarify this.
Is murder a crime of violence for the purpose of his definition?
When someone gets sentenced to life for a crime of violence, do
they not then go to jail for life under Reform policy? If that is not
the policy, I would like to hear about it. I would like him to clarify
that and I am happy to give him that opportunity.
The second matter goes back to a subject that nobody opposite
dares talk about any more since the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast blew the whistle on the member for Calgary Northeast on
caning. There are parts of Calgary in different directions which
seem to get very confusing. I have trouble remembering which
member came from which district but I think I got it right that time
because I checked in the book.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast blew the whistle on
extremism in the Reform Party and she got the boot. One of the
things she went on about on extremism was caning, which the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast said he thought he should have a
good look at. He wanted to go to Singapore to learn all about
caning.
I am wondering if from the discussions in caucus concerning the
problem of caning, which no member on the other side seems to
want to talk about, the hon. member for Vegreville could clarify for
us what the Reform Party position is in respect of caning. Is that
part of the new package of prison and reformatory matters that are
dealt with in this bill that Reform will be introducing as
amendments later at the committee stage?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, in regard to more prison time, what
Reform has said is that we must target. For those offenders who
pose a serious threat if they are released, in those cases they should
not be released. That is what we say. In other words, our top
priority is the protection of Canadians.
On the issue of corporal punishment, Reform has no policy on
corporal punishment. Some Reform members have views on
corporal punishment. My personal view, which is shared by many
in my constituency, is that corporal punishment is something we
should look at very seriously. We should debate it in this House and
across the country and let Canadians tell us whether they want
corporal punishment to be a part of our penal system, pure and
simple.
(1705)
Liberals clearly do not understand the idea of listening to
Canadians on issues like that, but they will know after the next
election.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party in dealing with this topic
4650
seems to continuously deal with particular offences. Of course
Reformers want to punish young offenders more.
Let us talk about young offenders. Let us talk about an eight-year
old or ten-year old who may be stealing a candy bar in a store. If he
or she struggles with the owner and runs away I guess that is a
violent offence.
However, the Reformers never mentioned the fraud experts who
steal hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars. There is no
suggestion that any of those people should be thrown in jail to serve
their full term, no suggestion that they are dangerous and maybe
should be held in custody for the full term. There is no suggestion
that they are dangerous offenders even though what they have done
is taken funds from people and caused people to lose their life
savings. Some people when they lose their life savings commit
suicide.
What is Reform's position on offences such as major frauds in
this country?
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of fraud and getting
serious with that type of crime, I fully agree with the hon. member.
Some people tend to think that a so-called white collar crime does
not hurt people. Well it does and people are robbed of their life
savings. People are hurt in a way that can totally turn their life
around for the worst.
I believe the member is a lawyer and would know that this type
of crime is serious and should be taken very seriously. That is also
the Reform's position on this issue.
_____________________________________________
4650
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for the
following motion as there have been consultations among the
House leaders. I move:
That, pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the
Young Offenders Act, phase II, and specifically to observe how the youth justice
system operates in practice, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
(six members: four from the Liberal Party including the chair, one from the Bloc
Quebecois and one from the Reform Party), be authorized to travel to Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Yellowknife from Sunday, October 6 to Friday, October 11, 1996
in order to hold public hearings, visit sites (young offender facilities and programs),
and meet with officials, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
4650
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53,
an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon we are debating Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons
and Reformatories Act.
Canadians who are watching should not be misled that this
amendment is in any way going to further the protection of the
public. It simply gives more flexibility to the consideration given
to prisoners. It would add a statement of purpose and principles to
the temporary absence programs. The question arises in the minds
of those who are watching: What is a temporary absence program?
Mr. Morrison: It is when you escape.
Mrs. Ablonczy: It is not when you escape. The purpose of a
temporary absence program is to allow a prisoner to be absent from
his incarceration for the following purposes: for medical purposes;
for ``humanitarian purposes''; for rehabilitative purposes; or to
help offenders integrate into the community; or for any other
purpose established by a province and relating to prisoners
convicted under provincial law. For any of those purposes there can
be what is called a temporary absence.
(1710)
The bill before us would amend the Prisons and Reformatories
Act to add a statement of purpose and principles which would
apply to the temporary absence programs. It sounds good. There
certainly should be purposes and principles for these kinds of
programs and processes. Unfortunately, the effect of the bill is to
expand the practical operation of these programs no matter what
the purposes and principles are. In fact the purposes and principles
are sorely lacking in one important respect.
Also this bill for the first time authorizes the provinces to create
additional types of temporary absence programs. That was done at
the request of the provinces as they administer much of the
practical result of our justice system.
Also this bill will lengthen the maximum duration of temporary
absences. In fact it will lengthen them by four times. Right now the
maximum temporary absence can be for only 15 days. Under this
bill it will be expanded to 60 days. Even after the 60 days under this
bill the temporary absence can be renewed. That is something else
4651
to consider when we talk about whether the bill is good for
Canadians.
Also under this bill the grounds for suspending, cancelling or
revoking temporary absences are set out for the first time.
There are some greater certainties or particulars in the bill. What
we want to look at is what Canadians actually get in the bill.
There is another act which is quite similar to the Prisons and
Reformatories Act. It is called the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act. In the Corrections and Conditional Release Act these
words are stated: ``The protection of society is to be the paramount
consideration in the determination of any case''. In the amendment
to the Prisons and Reformatories Act the principle that the
protection of society is to be paramount is absent. I would like to
ask the government why that is. Canadians are entitled to know
why. By implication, by omission, the protection of society need
not be the paramount consideration when permitting convicted
offenders to be out of prison on temporary absences.
In 1971 the Liberal solicitor general of the time rose in the
House and made the following statement: ``We are going to put the
rehabilitation of individuals ahead of the protection of society''. In
other words, in 1971 the Liberals decided that our justice system
which for centuries had as its primary purpose the protection of
law-abiding citizens and their property would now serve a different
master. Its main purpose, focus and reason for being would be to
rehabilitate people who had violated the rights of others and the
protection of society would come second.
(1715)
It was strange to me, although I was quite a bit younger at the
time, and I do not want to say exactly how much younger, that there
was not a big uproar about such a fundamental philosophical shift.
One of the main reasons why we have an organized society and an
organized government is to protect the lives and property of
law-abiding citizens. However, the Liberals made that tremendous
shift in the focus of the justice system.
We have been urging the government, indeed all of society, to
consider whether that shift in the focus and priority of the justice
system has in fact served us well over the last 20 some years. Of
course my party and I submit that it has not. The protection of
law-abiding citizens and their property and the protection of
society, the safety of our families and communities should be first
in the justice system. Rehabilitation measures, important and
necessary as they are, should be second.
This is very important when we come to judging whether we
should support these amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories
Act in Bill C-53, which expands the operation of temporary
release. This philosophical decision or choice is very important. If
we are going to put the rehabilitation of prisoners first and
foremost then these additional tools to use conditional release in
the way we treat prisoners and the way we deal with them would
make perfect sense. That is probably why the Liberals propose it
and why they are supporting it.
However, if we are worried and concerned and have as our
priority putting the protection of society and law-abiding citizens
first, then we would have some extremely serious concerns about
the provisions of this bill. The reason is that temporary release can
and has jeopardized public safety, can jeopardize the safety of our
communities, can jeopardize the right to security of innocent and
law-abiding citizens.
Canadians are increasingly outraged at how little truth or
honesty there is in the sentences handed down by the Canadian
justice system. We had a huge debate on this on Bill C-45 where
life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years really means
possibly 25 years in prison with the possibility of parole after 15
years.
Under the provisions of Prisons and Reformatories Act an
offender may be sentenced to incarceration but in fact there are a
number of provisions whereby this incarceration can be changed to
something quite different and the public is not always aware that
this is the fact.
In addition to parole, which we talked about in Bill C-45, in
addition to this temporary absence for medical, humanitarian,
rehabilitative, reintegration or any other purpose, convicted
offenders may have the benefit of conditional release, mandatory
supervision, statutory release, community sentencing and
alternative measures.
If we are going to put the protection of society and law-abiding
citizens first and foremost, and if we decide that people who violate
the rights, liberties and the freedoms of others, should be subject to
criminal sanction and have a debt to society then the question
arises: Why are criminal's rights and the rights of law
abiding-citizens to security of the person so much at variance?
Why is the balance being continually shifted by these kinds of
social experiments?
(1720)
Again, it comes back to what Canadians want as the underlying
philosophy, the underlying purpose of our justice system. Do we
want it to attempt to rehabilitate offenders, people who have shown
a willingness to choose to violate the rights of others, above the
protection of society? On the one hand we have rehabilitation. On
the other hand we have the rights of victims and the protection of
society.
There is a very simple resolution to the proper balancing of these
two considerations because they are both important. I suggest that
4652
when the desire for rehabilitative measures and the need to protect
the law-abiding citizen conflict, then the justice system should err
on the side of safety for law-abiding citizens. That is why in the bill
I think we should see a statement to the effect that the protection of
society is to be the paramount consideration in the determination of
any application for temporary absence. But it is not in there. I
would suggest that the measures in this bill fail Canadians.
In the bill principles are set out which would guide decisions
relating to temporary absence. These are the principles. First, the
decision should be the least restrictive one on the prisoner, keeping
in mind the protection of society-good-and prisoner's
rehabilitation. Both are given equal paramountcy in this statement
of principles. Again, the protection of society is not given
paramountcy. The clear principle is that the decision on behalf of
the convicted person, the person who owes a debt to society, should
be the least restrictive on that person.
There is a lot of protection of prisoners having information
relating to the decision, reasons for the decision, access to a review
of the decision. Guess who gets to pay for all of the time, the people
and the resources it takes to make sure that the rights of offenders
are tenderly and carefully protected? Again, mention of the rights
of law-abiding citizens seems to be a poor second.
Then there is the matter of giving information about these
programs to prisoners, victims and the public. This is something
which needs to be highlighted. We need to have a real debate on the
philosophy underlying these measures and, indeed, our entire
justice system.
The Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the
punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and
their property ahead of all other objectives. Interestingly enough,
previous considerations of this whole area by the House have been
consistent with that Reform principle.
I would like to refer the House to the report of the Standing
Committee on Justice which came down in October 1991. This was
a report relating to a consideration by the House justice committee
on the escapes of Daniel Gingras and Allan Legere. Members will
know that both of these individuals murdered other Canadians
when they were out of prison on temporary absences.
On June 29, 1987 Daniel Gingras, an inmate at Edmonton
Institution, escaped while on escorted temporary absence to West
Edmonton Mall. He was later convicted in 1988 and 1989 of two
separate first degree murders committed while he was at large.
Allan Legere, an inmate at Atlantic Institution, escaped on May 3,
1989 while on an escorted medical temporary absence. Later there
were several charges of murder against him which he committed
while he was at large.
(1725)
According to the committee both of these incidents raised
serious concerns in the surrounding communities. As a result, there
were requests from many sources for the release of the reports
concerning the circumstances surrounding these two escapes.
In early 1990 the Correctional Service of Canada reviewed these
two reports and released them with numerous deletions under the
Privacy Act. Many passages in the documents were deleted, thus
making any complete understanding of the underlying findings and
analysis almost impossible.
The report goes on to say that it took over a year for the
committee to obtain access to the two unexpurgated reports. When
the committee finally did, it said this in October 1991: ``The first
priority of any correctional system is protection of the
community''. That recommendation of the justice committee has
stood since October 1991. I would submit that here we are in
September 1996 completely ignoring a strong, explicit
recommendation that came out of one of our own committees
relating to two terrible consequences of crimes committed flowing
out of temporary release.
I will read it again, because I know some members of the House
are having little visits and perhaps did not hear this point. The
committee said: ``The first priority of any correctional system is
protection of the community''.
We have a bill here which vastly expands the consideration given
to convicted criminals in the matter of temporary absences. There
may be reasons for that. We could debate whether this is desirable
or undesirable. Leaving aside all that, I would say, at the very least,
we should make it very clear in this legislation that the protection
of society is to be the paramount consideration in the determination
of when temporary absences should be permitted. That is not in this
legislation.
For that reason I urge this House to either amend the legislation
to include it or to reject this bill by voting it down.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has occasion to remind me of some work that
I and other members of the House participated in on the justice
committee in the previous Parliament, including the member for
Moncton who is here this afternoon with us.
I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member that following
that report and in the drafting of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act legislation which followed, the matter of public safety
and safety of the community was inserted. If I am not mistaken in
the first draft of the act perhaps it was left out. I am trying to
remember and I think it may have been. This was five or so years
ago.
4653
I believe the work at the committee stage resulted in the
insertion of that principle. If am not mistaken in this Parliament
a CCRA amendment was going forward, or perhaps it was the
sentencing act, and the issue of public safety was listed at about
number five on the list of criteria. For cosmetic purposes we were
successful in moving that up the list to number one or number
two. In any event, the member has made a good point. If the issue
of safety to the community, public safety, is missing from this bill
and it is not already present in the statute it amends, then perhaps
this House through the committee which will study the bill should
consider inserting it as a principle. She may wish to respond.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Scarborough-Rouge River. It is good to have people with us who
have institutional memories which some of the rest of us are just
acquiring. He is correct.
I mentioned in my intervention that the primacy of the protection
of the public is in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. My
whole contention was that is good and is another argument for its
inclusion in the bill before us.
I would welcome adding that amendment to the bill. It would
make our party a great deal more comfortable with the bill. If he
and other members of the justice committee would recommend and
bring forward that amendment to the House and support it, I would
certainly applaud that and I would applaud him for making that
move.
I thank him for his intervention and look forward to perhaps
having that carried through.
_____________________________________________
4653
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(operation while impaired), be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on
the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-201, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired).
Call in the members.
(1750)
Before the taking of the vote:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As it is the practice, the
division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then
proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same
side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion
sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed
to the motion will be called in the same order.
All those at my left in favour of the motion will please rise.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 128)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Assad
Baker
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chatters
Crawford
Cummins
Dromisky
Duncan
Easter
Epp
Finlay
Frazer
Gaffney
Gilmour
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Penson
Peric
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Ringma
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Terrana
Thompson
Ur
Verran
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-96
NAYS
Members
Adams
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
4654
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brien
Bryden
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Collins
Cowling
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Guay
Harvard
Hickey
Irwin
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mercier
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Wells
Young-127
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Caccia
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Jacob
Lalonde
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
(1805)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
defeated.
4654
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the
motion and amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of
Mr. Williams on Motion No. 7 under government business.
The question is on the amendment.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 129)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -90
4655
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-142
PAIRED MEMBERS
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Caccia
Caron
Cohen
Gallaway
Jacob
Lalonde
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Sheridan
St-Laurent
St. Denis
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
defeated.
It being 6.13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________