Debates of Oct. 19th, 1994

Department Of Agriculture Act

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

No.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you had already called the question and that you had moved on to begin reading the question. In fact there was substantial agreement among the three major parties in the House that we would allow the debate to collapse at this point and have a vote on division on this question.

Perhaps the hon. member who just rose might want to consult with his whip before he insists on making a speech at this particular time. The fact is that the question has been called and we should then go on with the vote.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does any other colleague wish to speak on this point of order, mostly including the whip or the acting whip of the Reform Party?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Reform had agreed that if the debate did collapse on the bill we would have the vote on division. However I was informed that the member for Vegreville intended to speak and had prepared a speech.

However in the din and the excitement between the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette and the response of the member for Burin-St. George's I think he did not hear you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, if the House would be agreeable, we would appreciate it if you would give him an opportunity to speak to Bill C-49.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I made some preliminary comments during my speech. I had intended to make a speech on the issue but I was informed there was an undertaking among the parties that there had been enough debate on the issue and that it was the general wish of the House to conclude the debate. I co-operated by sitting down and yielding 15 minutes of my time to allow the vote to go forward.

I think a deal is a deal. I appreciate the member for Vegreville would have liked to make some remarks on the matter. He should have told his whip or his House leader in due time so that could have been communicated as part of the deal. We had an arrangement here. We have observed the arrangement and in so doing I have forfeited my speaking time. I am sure there will be other opportunities for the member to participate in debate.

I would suggest that technically the Speaker has already put the question anyway. I believe the Speaker has effectively called for the question and I think we should get on with it.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

The agreement was whether or not we would call a recorded division.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

I submit that the question has been put. I also submit that we had an arrangement and we should in honour stay with that particular arrangement.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

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.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for our part, we would be ready to vote. However, if I understand correctly, I believe that the government is adamant on having a vote today.

On the other hand, the Reform Party wants one of its members to be allowed to speak. I think that we are running out of time. If we could have unanimous consent to prolong the debate in order to allow the Reform member to speak before proceeding with the vote, it would be satisfactory to all of us here. We all know that the vote will be taken on division. I believe that if there were unanimous consent to do so, everybody would be satisfied and this would put an end to these incessant points of order, clearing the way for a real debate on important matters.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the member would take her seat for a moment, the time has expired for the debate unless there is unanimous consent from all the members not to see the clock for a few moments.

It was the Chair's understanding that there was an agreement by all parties to end the debate a moment before 6.12 p.m. and

then the vote would be taken on division. On that understanding the Chair was not listening for anybody saying that he or she was not prepared to go ahead.

We are now in a very difficult position. I wonder if the deputy whip of the government party has something to propose.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to accede to unanimous consent, provided the member for Vegreville displays the same courtesy to our agreement that the member for Burin-St. George's did and keeps his remarks equally brief. Otherwise we would have the position where one member was denied his speaking time. I hope he will respect that.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Is there unanimous consent to give the floor to the member for Végréville for a few minutes and then proceed with the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for causing all the problem this evening. It was lack of experience on my part. Indeed I will keep my comments very brief. I will just hit on the points I was going to elaborate on in some detail.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Department of Agriculture Act to give effect to the government reorganization initiated by the previous government. For the most part it is an administrative bill. Its basic intention is to streamline and clarify the mandate of the department. Streamlining is consistent with Reform thinking but when streamlining is done there has to be a positive outcome, or at least Reformers demand a positive outcome.

In the case of the streamlining proposed in the bill there is only a very small efficiency added to the way the department operates. There is no indication at all of any cost saving, which is the other requirement of any streamlining. The bill falls far short of what any reorganizing bill should. It will not improve the efficiency of the department substantially and it will not cut the cost of operating the department.

The specific clause of the bill I would like to address again briefly is clause 7 that deals with reporting to Parliament. The bill recommends and, if it passes, will cause the reporting to Parliament to be removed. These annual reports have been around for some time.

Part III of the main estimates give more detail than the reports do in terms of how spending occurs within the department. The problem is that part III of the estimates do not give enough information to make the finances and spending of the department clear. I would propose this accounting to Parliament and this report to Parliament should remain in the bill so that there is proper accountability.

This is exactly what the hon. member for Malpeque was suggesting in his amendment which was shot down by his colleagues.

I am only asking for what the hon. member for Malpeque was suggesting in his amendment and nothing more. The parliamentary secretary to the minister when addressing this issue said: "Why keep the annual reports because they were always late anyway and they had very little in them?"

That does not sound like the way to handle a situation like this. If the annual reports were of very little value then the annual reports should be presented in a more timely fashion and with enough information to make them worth while.

There are two different views on how to handle a situation like this. I believe that by making these annual reports timely and meaningful that together with the main estimates this House and the people of Canada, to whom we are responsible, would be able to understand whether the spending within the department is done in an efficient and acceptable way or not.

The only other comment that I will make now in the extended time I was given is that the main estimates do not give enough information to make the spending by this department or any other department easy to understand. As evidence of this I would challenge any member opposite to a duel at high noon tomorrow.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

I will take you on.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

I will ask questions about the department. I will ask questions and using part III of the estimates, the hon. member will answer the questions. I hope there will be a taker for this challenge, certainly the parliamentary secretary or the minister. I will be absolutely delighted if this challenge is accepted.

I will end my remarks saying that we will not oppose this bill although there is very little in it for us to support.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's

Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

moved that Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak to Bill C-226, which I initially introduced in the last Parliament and reintroduced in this Parliament on March 17, 1994.

I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee on Private Members' Business, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and other members of the committee for selecting this bill as a votable item. As you know Mr. Speaker, it means this bill at some point will be put to a vote in this House, a free vote. Every member will be called upon to exercise his or her discretion in saying either yes or no to repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I am convinced, given the discussions I have had with a great number of my colleagues, that this bill will in fact become law in the not too distant future. I am convinced as well because of the overwhelming public support for the removal of this section from the Criminal Code.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code was introduced in 1976 when Parliament was debating the abolition of capital punishment. At that time there were a series of compromises and deals struck, presumably in the backrooms of the precincts of Parliament, in order for capital punishment to be abolished.

One of those deals or compromises was that in return for abolishing capital punishment there would be a law that said if you are convicted of first degree murder you have to serve a minimum of 25 years in prison before you become eligible for parole. That is not where our predecessors let it stand. A group of others decided that was cruel and unusual punishment. Before giving their support for abolishing capital punishment they argued that what became known as section 745, because they thought 25 years was too long, would give inmates faint hope that they could in effect apply for a reduction in the parole ineligibility period. They argued that it would be used very rarely, only in exceptional cases.

Most Canadians are not aware that section 745 is in the Criminal Code of Canada. It says very simply if you commit first degree murder, it is the worst possible crime in the Criminal Code. This is cold blooded, calculated, premeditated murder. These are the people who plan a murder. They buy a gun or a knife. These are not pleasant crimes, not your run-of-the-mill armed robberies. These are vicious and cruel crimes that result in the victims being mutilated and raped before or after they are murdered. We are talking about the worst crime under the Criminal Code.

Section 745 says if you are convicted of murdering somebody in those circumstances, if you kill one, two, three or more people-Clifford Olson raped and murdered 11 young children and he will be eligible under section 745-regardless of the number of people you murder or how you committed those murders, you can apply to have your parole ineligibility period reduced to 15 years.

Most Canadians believe that the penalty for murder is life in prison. We all know that is bogus. Nobody serves life for murder, or at least not that I am aware of. Most Canadians think it is 25 years, but that is not the case. Right now the going rate which I refer to as the Walmart discount in the Criminal Code is you can get 40 per cent off that 25 years by applying under section 745. These applications just started a few years ago because of the time lag from 1976 and 15 years hence. As of May 1994 there were 60 applications from convicted killers. Forty-three of those 60, or 72 per cent, were successful.

That tells you very simply that the penalty for first degree murder in Canada is fast becoming 15 years. Is that what Canadians want? Is that a fair penalty? I suggest not. In my view it demeans the value of life. It is one of the reasons why Canadians have so little respect for our criminal justice system. It is an example of how the criminal justice system in this country is totally imbalanced. The rights of convicts, the rights of criminals are considered to be first and foremost. The rights of victims and their families are shunted aside.

This Parliament now has an opportunity to create a more equitable balance in our criminal justice system. Section 745 must be removed from the Criminal Code in order for Canadians to at least have some belief in the criminal justice system that it is serving the public and not serving convicted killers.

I spoke of Clifford Olson who becomes eligible for parole on August 12, 1996. It was not that long ago. Most members in this House recall the hideous nature of Mr. Olson's crimes. I have here some comments from Mrs. Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of one of the Olson victims, Daryn Rosenfeldt, who was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered by Clifford Olson. She says and I quote: "I am so repulsed that our justice system

can circumvent a court of law decision. A court of law sentenced the killer of my child to life in prison with no eligibility for 25 years. Who then is lying to me, my family and the public?"

That is the mother of just one of the victims. I can say that in the next 12 to 15 years 600 of these applications will come forward. I have here the list of those who have committed first degree murder or those who have committed second degree murder and have been sentenced to a period of incarceration of more than 15 years. A good number of them have already been successful. Some of my colleagues might recognize some of these names.

In Ontario for example, the province I am from, there is Gerald Chase, Darryl Dollan, William Frederick, Frederick Sweet, Norman Clairmont, Rolf Droste, Allan Kinsella whose case is coming up, and Federick Radike. These cases have all been successful. There are a good number of other cases across the country that have been successful.

It would appear that a good number of these applications, unless Parliament acts decisively to repeal section 745, will be made by Olson. Do not let anyone kid you that it is impossible for Clifford Olson, the Canadian version of Charles Manson, to be released. All you have to look to is the Karla Homolka case here in Ontario. A woman who was privy and party to the murder of two innocent young women was sentenced to 12 years in prison. We are not even talking about first degree murder. She becomes eligible for full parole after serving only four years. She becomes eligible for day parole after serving only two years. Something is drastically wrong with our criminal justice system in this country.

There is the case of a family of another victim, in this case a police officer in Saskatchewan. In 1978 a 39-year old RCMP officer by the name of Constable Thomas Brian King had completed his shift on duty and was returning home to his wife and three small children. There were two men who decided that they were going to bag and murder a cop. What they did was remove the licence plates from their vehicle. They were stopped by two police officers. They wanted to get stopped. The two police officers searched the car and levied a fine I suppose. Because there were two officers and only two of them they decided not to do anything to those two officers.

They again removed the plates from their car. This time they were stopped by Constable King. They overcame Constable King, handcuffed him with his own handcuffs and then went around to boast about how they had bagged a cop. Because they could not find some of the friends they wanted to boast to, they took Constable King out and fired two shots into his skull. As he was dying, and I am reading from a synopsis of what occurred, according to the evidence in court, "as the steaming warm blood was gushing on to the two soon to be convicted killers they delivered a few more final blows to the head of their victim and began dragging his body off to the river to discard it". That was in 1978, not a long time ago.

Mrs. King, her three young children and all the other relatives thought that these two individuals would serve a minimum of 25 years in prison. Much to their horror, last year it was revealed to them that one of the killers was applying under section 745 to be released from prison or to have the parole ineligibility period reduced.

The wife of Constable King writes:

This suddenly opened a terrible new chapter in the life of the King family for which we were not prepared. If a book were to be written, it would show enough pain in this one chapter to nauseate or embarrass them into reconsidering the way in which section 745 functions and how it is so counterproductive to the very lives of those whose Canada's judicial and correctional system is intended to serve.

I relate these two cases to you, Mr. Speaker. Here is another. Let me make it three, the Kaplinski family. In January 1978 a young night desk clerk at an inn in Barrie was robbed by two men. Mr. Kaplinski was the father of a very young child. He was a law-abiding citizen, working to support himself and his young family. The inn was robbed and several months later his decomposed body was found in a snowbank north of Barrie.

They came in to rob the guy. They took the money and then drove him up north where they pumped a number of bullets into Mr. Kaplinski's skull and left him in a snowbank. This is what the sister, Joanne Kaplinski has to say about how section 745 has impacted on her family:

We the Kaplinski family received our own life sentence by being forced to look into the abyss of human cruelty and selfishness. However, last December 1993, we were once again forced to revisit that abyss by the application of one of the murderers, Allan Kinsella, for early release under section 745. We thought that after the original trial the men responsible for taking Ken's life in such a cruel and brutal fashion were being made to pay for their actions by forfeiting at least 25 years of their lives under the conditions of incarceration. We simply could not believe that release after only serving 15 years was an option.

She goes on to say:

Fifteen years is not adequate retribution or denunciation for the wanton destruction of human life and we fail to comprehend why the current legislation fails to include protection of the public as relevant criteria being only reflective of the rehabilitation principle of sentencing and ignoring-

She goes on about how this section is a miscarriage of justice.

Those are just three cases. Six hundred others are coming up. Families that were victimized 15 or more years go will be revictimized as a result of this provision in the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is an injustice. Section 745 ought to be repealed. I regret to say that it is not the official position of the Government of Canada today that it ought to be repealed. However I am pleased with the government's commitment to Private Members' Busi-

ness and I am pleased that this bill will have a free vote in the House of Commons.

As I said earlier, I am convinced that it will pass. Not only does section 745 demean the value of life and create a terrible imbalance in our criminal justice system, but it is costing Canadian taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars for these applications to come forward, an estimated $4 million a year over the next 15 years. I believe that is a low estimate, given the fact that those who will be applying will be using legal aid lawyers.

This bill is supported by CAVEAT, the Victims of Violence, the Canadian Police Association and, I would submit, the overwhelming majority of Canadians. I cannot accept the views of the bleeding hearts. I suppose we will hear from some bleeding hearts here in the House who say that 25 years is cruel and unusual punishment.

Those who argue that 15 years is a sufficient period of time for first degree murder, I suggest that they are sadly mistaken or misguided. There are those who will argue as well that those convicted of first degree murder will not reoffend.

I present this statistic for consideration. Between 1975 and 1986, there were 130 murders committed by people who were released on parole. Ninety of those were murder and 40 were manslaughter. Anyone who suggests that people who are released on parole are unlikely to reoffend and commit murder refer to these statistics which were put out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

In closing, I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the bill at second reading. In so doing, it will be referred to the justice committee which will then provide an opportunity for all Canadians, various interest groups and others to come forward and present their views.

When the bill comes back to the House I hope and I expect it will be passed, resulting in a major correction of a flaw in the criminal justice system.