Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the debate on these bills under review this evening gives me the opportunity to dispel certain myths concerning the Criminal Code provision which Bill C-226 would repeal and that is the section providing for a judicial review of the parole ineligibility period.
This provision was adopted in 1976. The legislation adopted at that time stated that people convicted of first degree murder or high treason were to wait for at least 25 years before being allowed to apply for parole and for those convicted of second degree murder, the jury would set a 10- to 25-year parole ineligibility period.
But Parliament was wise enough to determine that in both cases, once the convict had served 15 years of his sentence, a jury could be formed and the parole ineligibility period could be reviewed and revised if appropriate.
This provision was based on the principles of justice and rehabilitation, two principles which are still very sound today. Parliament added that section to the legislation because it believed individuals could improve.
They considered then, and the argument is still valid today, that the possibility for the parole ineligibility period to be reviewed could be an incentive for the convicts to make special rehabilitation efforts.
I should remind you that this provision was linked to the abolition of capital punishment which occurred in several countries where authorities instituted life imprisonment without any eligibility for parole as a compromise to please both those in favour and those against the death sentence.
No doubt the creation of section 745 was unique in the criminal law of the country. However the section was included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976. It was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs committee at that time before it was finally debated and passed by the members of Parliament.
In fact, rather than the original proposal to have three judges to hear a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would decide the case instead. This was done specifically to increase public participation in the process.
Clearly there was debate and communication in the public arena. Efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as possible.
Let me review briefly how the provision works. I think the Reform Party-