Stan Keyes

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I owe it to my constituents and the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, CAVEAT, the families and friends of victims of violent crimes and tens of thousands of Canadians who signed petitions, to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

During the last Parliament and through two years of work my own private member's Bill C-330 attempted to introduce similar changes to the Criminal Code that among other things would eliminate section 745. Consequently I applaud and second the member for York South-Weston's bill to reintroduce this initiative to the House of Commons for consideration. I thank him for that honour.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, not with the intention of leading the Chair but rather making a suggestion to the Chair, it has been precedence in the past that in some cases where this has arisen the Speaker recognized the request by the hon. member who may not have had the opportunity to rise in his place at the moment that was important. What that led to was a request for unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the member's request to make the speech. Maybe that could be the compromise the Chair might want to reach on this particular occasion.

[Bill C-41, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will eventually embark on an analysis of Bill C-41. Among other things the legislation proposes changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I rise in the House today to encourage members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to give serious consideration to the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Clearly the time has come to revisit the appropriateness of a legal loophole that allows first degree murderers to apply for a reduction in their parole after serving only 15 years of a so-called life sentence without parole for 25 years.

Many of my constituents, community groups, organizations, people right across this great country have said enough is enough. The status quo is unacceptable.

The choice is clear. Section 745 of the Criminal Code must be eliminated.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member's staff has not kept him abreast with what has been going on in government but the Minister of Transport has a national airports policy which has been released that should be of profound interest to this member and the Reform Party.

It takes away from the particular group that I spoke of, a very eclectic group of lobbyists and contractors and the profitability they might make, into a so-called Canadian airport authority, which has representation not just from government but from the community that it serves. It will give that opportunity to all the citizenry, not just around that airport but around that entire region, to have input into the process of decision making for the airport.

Guess what? It is not a revelation. It is quite simply input by the community. What do they need done at this airport? This is what they need done. Who is going to pay for it? They are going to pay for it with good old fashioned, common sense business practices. That is something else the government stands for and which I hear being touted by that party opposite.

On top of that I find it passing strange that we have a Reform Party, a third party in the House who stand opposed to-or in favour possibly of-this motion, when the motion says that we are looking at ensuring there is an opportunity for that eclectic group of contractors and lobbyists to strip away from the Canadian taxpayers a potential of over $400 million. This comes from a Reform Party, a third party that is concerned with cutting taxes, with ensuring that the debt comes down, with ensuring that the deficit is worked at. They stand and want to support this motion to possibly open the door to give $400 million to these contractors. It is incredible.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would only answer my hon. friend in an honest and straightforward fashion. Beyond that he asked me to bring forward a process which we discussed thoroughly at committee that he knows full well would have extended the debate on Pearson airport for a minimum of months, maybe years, a process that would have Canadian taxpayers watching, being frustrated with it. It would hold back any development, process and progress at Pearson airport.

Canadian taxpayers want to see Pearson airport succeed. They want it to become viable. They need that airport for economic reasons, to sustain what we see as an important, viable piece of infrastructure for travel across this country, to connect this country and the world.

I would only answer my friend in the most honest, straightforward manner.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendments to Bill C-22 sent to the House from the other place.

The motion before us today is quite simply a slap in the face to each and every taxpaying citizen who felt that the previous government had gone too far by attempting to sell terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport to a group of self-interested investors in the dying days of an endangered administration.

Contrary to the statements made by some of our friends in the other place, the proposed amendments to Bill C-22 have little or nothing to do with protecting the legitimate collective interests of taxpaying Canadians. No, the motion before us today is about protecting the private interests and profits of a handful of self-interested individuals over and above the collective interests of the unknown hard working taxpayers of the country.

As chairperson of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport I can report that due process was served when our committee conducted its thorough review of Bill C-22 last May. In addition to a clause by clause analysis of the bill, the Standing Committee on Transport conducted hearings in order to obtain input on the legislation from individuals directly involved in the Pearson deal.

We heard testimony from several witnesses including Transport Canada officials; Hession Neville and Associates, an organization that put an unsuccessful bid on a Pearson contract; Air Canada officials; and representatives of the Matthews Paxport Trust, Mr. Gordon Baker and Mr. Donald Matthews. Of course we will never forget the colourful and melodramatic testimony of the legal counsel representing the Pearson Development Corporation.

In addition to the hearings, the committee considered the findings of a report on the Pearson deal submitted by Mr. Robert Nixon to the right hon. Prime Minister. On this point it should be noted that Mr. Nixon's report contained the following conclusion. Maybe members of the Reform Party would be interested in what it concluded. It stated:

To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable. I recommend to you that the contract be cancelled.

As stated in the report itself, Mr. Nixon's comments were based on what was considered to be in the best interest of taxpayers, the travelling public and general economic development of the area. That statement captures the very essence of my case against today's motion.

Some of our friends in the Tory dominated red chamber and their friends in the Tory dominated Pearson development deal would like us to believe that Bill C-22 is a Draconian piece of legislation that, among other things, breaches the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights by taking away the fundamental right of Canadians to legal recourse in the courts. Indeed the level of romanticized fiction in that argument is similar to that which might be found on any given day in a cheap supermarket tabloid.

With regard to the constitutional issues surrounding the legislation, it is worth while to examine an approach that has been used by the Supreme Court of Canada when interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to put things in their proper perspective. I am referring to the so-called purposive approach to interpreting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as stated by Canadian constitutional law expert, Peter H. Russell. He said:

The main thrust of the purposive approach to charter interpretation, fashioned by Chief Justice Dickson in some early cases, is to inquire into the reasons a particular right or freedom came to be valued in the history of western civilization and thereby to identify the interests each right or freedom was meant to protect.

I would like to focus on the latter portion of that statement pertaining to identifying the interests each right or freedom was meant to protect.

In most democratic societies, including our own, it is a generally accepted principle of democracy that with some exceptions the legitimate interests of the collective are held in higher regard than that of individual private interests.

As I stated, however, there are exceptions to the rule: for example, a situation of some sort of social or economic injustice or inequity brought on by such social phenomena as racism, sexism, poverty or any number of things that might characterize a historical disadvantaged or disempowered minority group or individual in our society. Under such circumstances it is incumbent on us to ensure that the interests of the disadvantaged or disempowered minority are not overpowered by that of the majority. If we apply this approach to the current Bill C-22 and its proposed amendment we can see that in fact the government is attempting to act in a forthright manner.

In this particular instance, by cancelling the Pearson deal through Bill C-22, the government has clearly chosen to protect the legitimate interests of the collective taxpaying populace as opposed to protecting the individual private interests and profits sought by a handful of lobbyists and contractors.

I do not have any sympathy whatsoever for those lobbyists and contractors because the deal they signed in the dying days of the previous administration was simply not in the best interests of the taxpaying Canadian public as a collective.

In short, I challenge any hon. member in the House to prove that the organization this motion is designed to protect, namely the Pearson Development Corporation, represents the interests of a historically disadvantaged or disempowered group. Prove it.

Are these lobbyists and contractors in a situation of significant disadvantage such that the interests of the majority should be over-ruled in this case? No. All members of the House know full well that the motion before us today was created in the interests of protecting the so-called foregone profits of a very small but extremely privileged minority in our society. It is simply a shameful attempt to impede the legitimate purpose of Bill C-22 which is to cancel a dubious contract made under dubious circumstances by a dubious administration that was not acting in the public interest.

Let us not be fooled by the people in the other place who claim to be fighting for the rights of Canadians. Make no mistake. They are fighting purely for the profits of their corporate colleagues.

In closing, I implore the members of the House to take a purposive approach to the legislation in question in order to properly identify which interests are most appropriate to protect in this case. Should we be looking out for the majority of taxpaying Canadians who stand to gain only what they deserve if the motion before us fails, namely justice? Or should we join our friends in the Tory dominated red chamber by giving their colleagues in the Pearson Development Corporation a chance to take the citizens of Canada to the cleaners on a deal Canadians never wanted the previous government to make in the first place.

The choice is clear. This motion has no merit. Let us dispense with it and get on with serving the legitimate interests of our fellow Canadians.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, for his remarks to this House today. Over the past six years I have often approached my experienced and

learned colleague for advice on the issues we have been addressing.

I appreciate his and our minister's belief that the sentencing practices in Canada must be responsive to the concerns and values of Canadians. For the most part Bill C-41 reflects the government's commitment to a fair and balanced justice system, hence my support for it.

I am here to represent my constituents from Hamilton West and others across this country. My support is for victims of violence and their demands that section 745 be repealed.

This is not a new subject for the parliamentary secretary in discussions we have had in the past. It is a courageous first step that our minister is going to permit the victims of violence to make their impact statements at those judicial reviews. It was a curious statement by the parliamentary secretary that it was a tremendous impact on judicial reviews. A tremendous impact how? What is the aim of that statement? What would result if a victim had their say?

Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister explain why section 745 would not be completely repealed, and if at committee there is proof in the pudding-

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

As I said in my earlier statement I too had a private member's bill and my question is to the hon. member who just spoke. Those irresponsible bleeding-heart politicians that the member referred to did help the courts to create the best country in the world according to the United Nations. It is not as though we are all going to hell in a handbasket on one bill.

I would hope that the member opposite is not so opposed to this bill, as he stated at the end of his remarks, that he would not consider coming to the justice committee when it deals with Bill C-41 in order to give us his background, knowledge and expertise on section 745.

It is very easy for anyone to stand up in this place and condemn. I used to do it myself four years ago from across the way to the government. I always took the opportunity, when given, to go before a committee to try to reason with the government on why it did not act, or attempt to team up with other members of Parliament who wanted change.

I would hope that the member opposite will take the opportunity to make representations to the committee on justice in order to try to change the government's mind on section 745.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing and other acts in consequence thereof.

Legislation regarding criminal justice reform has always been of great importance to me. The legislation before us today on sentencing reform is no exception to that rule. As stated in our red book, this government has committed itself to introducing a broad range of crime and justice initiatives to reserve Canada's growing crime and violence rates.

People across this country have said that they want significant changes to the criminal justice system. Thankfully this government, through the work of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, has not only taken the time to listen to the people but we are doing something about it.

So far this government has introduced legislation in several key areas of criminal justice such as the recent amendments to the Young Offenders Act, amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and amendments to the Immigration Act. These initiatives are reflective of a balanced, fair and reasoned approach to the changing and challenging times and of course our criminal justice system.

Bill C-41 marks yet another important step in the delicate process of criminal justice reform. As the minister has indicated, the proposed legislation contains a number of key provisions including a statement of purpose and principles, measures to strengthen the level of fairness in our system of fines, greater penalties on offenders who have breached their probation, the introduction of conditional sentences, clarification of rules of evidence and procedures for sentencing hearings, as well as amendments to part 23 of the Criminal Code in order to create a more coherent and understandable method of documenting provisions related to the sentencing process.

Perhaps the most significant provisions of Bill C-41 are those related to enhancing the rights of victims. In this regard the Minister of Justice has proposed what I believe to be unprecedented amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code which

deal with early parole hearings for persons sentenced to life in prison.

During the last Parliament through my private member's bill, Bill C-330, I attempted to introduce similar changes that at the very least would allow victims of violence to present information during a judicial review or early parole hearing.

Consequently I applaud the minister's intent to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to provide victims of violence with the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the criminal justice system by presenting victim information when convicted criminals apply for early parole consideration. This measure will ensure that victims of violent crimes have the opportunity to speak out about the harm done by the offender. This means that the victim's experience will be taken into consideration when deciding whether the parole eligibility period should be reduced.

This particular provision also has been advocated by various victims rights' organizations and advocacy groups such as the Canadian Police Association, which has publicly acknowledged the merits of the proposed amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

In fact, as I speak, right in downtown Hamilton in my riding of Hamilton West, the Canadian Police Association, the Centre for Victims of Crime and CAVEAT, an acronym for Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination are concluding a three-day conference on various criminal justice issues including victim's rights and parole reform.

Today representatives of the 150 or so conference delegates will be tabling further recommendations to the federal government that will help us continue along the challenging road of criminal justice reform.

According to National Parole Board statistics there are over 2,000 offenders serving life sentences in the Canadian correctional system. According to the National Parole Board, on average approximately 40 offenders per year will be eligible to apply for a judicial review over the next 15 years. At the beginning of this year there were 128 offenders eligible for a judicial review.

The sheer volume of impending parole eligibility hearings which will take place in the immediate future necessitates swift action in the area of parole reform.

Crown attorneys tell me they are not prepared to handle the workload that is about to come crashing down on them. That is why it is necessary to take swift action.

Getting back to the statistics, as of March of this year, 42 decisions were made on early parole applications by first degree murders. Of those 42 decisions, 32 parole eligibility reductions were granted. That means 76.2 per cent of the offenders who applied for early parole consideration had their parole eligibility period reduced.

Many questions arise from this scenario. For example in each of these cases and in the first instance the accused must be convicted of his or her crime by a unanimous jury decision. Yet at the judicial review early parole consideration can be granted to that first degree murderer based on only a two-thirds decision of that jury at judicial review. Why?

In my humble opinion the status quo is unacceptable. I look forward to addressing these and other equally compelling questions when Bill C-41 is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

The government recognizes the shortcomings of section 745 and is ready, willing and able to initiate the ongoing process of change.

In closing I would like to encourage my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, to vigorously pursue his criminal justice reform agenda by continuing to weed out those inappropriate provisions such as section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to develop a balanced, fair and reasonable criminal justice system in this great country of ours. In doing so the government will fulfil its commitment to the people of Canada who have so passionately expressed the need for meaningful and progressive criminal justice reform.

With the support and co-operation of the concerned members of the House, the challenging work going to be faced by members of the justice committee and indeed the concerned citizens throughout this nation I am sure we will be able to meet the challenges we face in the process of rejuvenating Canada's criminal justice system.

[House Of Commons, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the summer recess I cannot help but comment on how proud I am of the work we have accomplished in the eight months that have passed since we were elected.

We are keeping the promise of creating opportunity and hope for Canadians by addressing their needs first and bringing integrity back to public service. Indeed we have all faced many challenges in the Chamber since the House of Commons convened on January 17. However the challenges faced by my colleagues and I in the Chamber pale in comparison to the challenges you have faced in your inaugural session as Speaker of this place.

On occasion the emotion and anxiety displayed in the Chamber have threatened to disrupt the good work of the House of Commons, but you have managed to quench the flames of fiery debate without diminishing its substance. Mr. Speaker, to you and to all my colleagues in the House, have a safe and happy summer with family, friends and constituents.