Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-226 which seeks to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.
In 1976 Parliament restructured the law of homicide. At that time Bill C-84 essentially brought into being the current regime for murder. It reclassified murder according to degrees, first and second degree murder, and provided a mandatory minimum life sentence. For first degree murder parole may not be considered for 25 years. For second degree murder that period is generally reduced to between 10 and 25 years as imposed by a judge.
Bill C-84 at that time also created the application for judicial review which has become section 745 of the Criminal Code. That section provides that a person who has been convicted of high treason, first degree murder or second degree murder with a parole eligibility date beyond 15 years to apply to the appropriate chief justice in the province where the conviction took place for a reduction in the offender's parole ineligibility period. The application may only be made after the offender has served at least 15 years.
Some hon. members and others would have people believe that this provision was hidden away in the bill and was sneaked through Parliament without parliamentary scrutiny. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The solicitor general of the day who sponsored the bill called attention to the proposal during second reading debate. During the deliberations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to which the bill was referred, the provision was again closely examined.
Indeed during the committee hearings the provision was amended. The amendment was subsequently endorsed by the House of Commons and by the Senate. At second reading of Bill C-84, the solicitor general of the day explained that the proposal provided a built in additional incentive to motivate the inmate to rehabilitate himself or herself and provide a protection for prison guards.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code provides these same benefits today. The very fact of having section 745 in the Criminal Code can serve as an incentive for an inmate to attempt to change his or her ways. As many murderers are ultimately released on parole, it behoves us to do all we can to encourage these persons to rehabilitate themselves. The interests of public protection are better served having section 745 in place than by repealing it as the bill seeks to do.
We should also keep in mind the enormous economic and social costs of detaining inmates for prolonged periods of imprisonment. Moreover, to repeal this section would make the life of prison guards that much more difficult in managing murderers serving life sentences, people without hope within the walls of our penitentiaries. I am one of those Canadians who feels that prison guards perform an important and difficult task for the benefit of the rest of us and that they deserve our protection and our support. Accordingly section 745 should remain in the Criminal Code.
Originally Bill C-84 proposed that the offender would have the right to apply to a chief justice for judicial review. The chief justice would then appoint three judges to consider the application. An amendment was moved at committee to have the proposed three judges replaced by judge and jury, in which two-thirds of the jury must agree on the decision to retain or reduce the parole ineligibility period.
According to the procedure which still exists today the public's interest is expressed by the persons acting as a jury in these proceedings. The change was made to ensure that sufficient public input would be brought to bear in these hearings. The change was a good change because it ensures that the community's view of the matter will prevail over the system professionals. It was a change that made sense and it is not surprising that it received parliamentary support.
Even today the decision to retain or reduce the offender's parole ineligibility period at section 745 hearings rests with the jury. Jury members are drawn from the province in which the conviction took place. They represent that community.
In making its decision the jury shall consider the character of the applicant, the applicant's conduct while serving his or her sentence, the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted, and such other matters as the presiding judge deems relevant in the circumstances. The jury is thus not bound to agree to the applicant's request. It makes its decision in light of information brought forward at the hearing.
I believe these hearings can be very difficult for the families of victims. Part of the reason for this is that in the past victims' families have been frustrated by being denied any participation. In many cases they could not make representations or be heard at all.
The present Minister of Justice in Bill C-41, the sentencing bill introduced in the House last June, addresses the issue. That bill proposes to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to ensure that if an offender applies for early parole eligibility, the court will be obliged to admit into evidence information from the victim's family. This evidence will be considered by the jury in deciding to retain or reduce the period of parole ineligibility. This proposed change would help victims' families. It does not force them to testify. It makes their evidence admissible.
It is worth noting that there are a number of other proposals in Bill C-41 which deal effectively with other concerns of victims. I would like to make one thing very clear. Because an offender is allowed to apply for early parole this in no way means that it will be granted. The jury has the absolute power to say no to an offender who applies for a reduced ineligibility period. A reduction or immediate termination of the offender's parole ineligibility period is not guaranteed. Further, if the jury decides to reduce or terminate this period, the offender's actual release on parole is not guaranteed.
Discussions of section 745 bring out a tide of emotions on all fronts. Victims' families and victim action groups must have a strong voice in our criminal justice system. Their experience and perspective offer very specific and valuable input. With the victim impact statement they are given the opportunity to have their voices heard. We need to establish a balanced approach toward every aspect of our criminal justice system, and I think section 745 provides that balance.
With this in mind it is important in this debate to say a few words about conditional release and to discuss the important role that the National Parole Board plays in the overall process. As well, ongoing initiatives by the government to strengthen the National Parole Board merit our attention.
The decision whether to grant parole to an offender is the responsibility and the decision of the National Parole Board. The granting of parole is not guaranteed to an offender who has been successful before the court in having his or her parole ineligibility period reduced or terminated at a section 745 hearing.
Understandably the National Parole Board has a difficult job to do but it is equipped to do it. National Parole Board members come from diverse background and from all regions of the country. They take their jobs seriously. Board members are assisted in their decision making by a set of criteria developed by the board to assess an offender's chances of obeying the law if released on parole. They are also assisted by information provided to them by Correctional Service Canada, the RCMP and other police services throughout the country.
I am thoroughly in support of the government's steps to strengthen the National Parole Board. The appointment process is currently under review to make certain that appointments to the board are on the basis of competence. As part of this process openings for full time board members will be advertised in the Canada Gazette . The qualifications of applicants will be carefully examined with board members chosen on the basis of merit, competence and integrity.
As hon. members will know, last June the Solicitor General tabled Bill C-45. Among other things the bill proposes that a mechanism be created to permit the discipline or removal from office of National Parole Board members in specified circumstances. This measure was introduced to increase accountability.
The board itself remains committed to ongoing training for board members. The training programs are geared to improving sensitivity in decision making and to increasing responsiveness to community needs. All new members, for example, undergo an intensive orientation program.
To conclude, I believe that section 745 hearings serve a useful purpose. Mechanisms are in place to ensure adequate public protection. The Minister of Justice has introduced Bill C-41-
