House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was criminal.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to proceed immediately with the vote on the main motion on second reading of Bill C-46.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Department Of Public Works And Government Services ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the House will now proceed to the taking of a deferred division on the motion of Mr. Dingwall, second reading stage of Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the main motion on Bill C-46 to the motion on Bill C-52.
Department Of Public Works And Government Services ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it agreed?
Department Of Public Works And Government Services ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Department Of Public Works And Government Services ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
It being 6.12 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. parliamentary secretary had six minutes remaining when the House adjourned last time.
Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks regarding Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.
There is no doubt that the creation of section 745 was unique in the criminal law of this country. However, this section was included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976 and it was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs committee before it was finally debated and passed by Parliament.
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 and this was done specifically to increase public participation in the process.
There was even a press release at the time which highlighted this provision in the proposed legislation. Clearly there was debate and communication in the public arena and efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as possible.
Let me review briefly how the provision works because there are many misconceptions about the process. An offender whose parole ineligibility period exceeds 15 years may apply for a judicial review hearing after at least 15 years have been served. Provided the criteria are met a superior court judge in the province in which the offender was convicted empanels a jury to hear the application.
In making a decision on the application the jury considers 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 to be relevant.
Some people who are against section 745 hearings suggest that the judicial review process is equivalent to automatic parole, but this is not so.
First of all, I would like to say that even though it is true that 36 applicants out of 47, or 77 per cent, have obtained favourable decisions to date, the fact is that juries are free to reduce or maintain the period of ineligibility for parole.
Several juries, particularly in Ontario and in Alberta, have not allowed some offenders to apply for parole. Moreover, a decision in favour of the applicant does not mean that he will automatically be granted parole.
As noted by the Supreme Court, section 745 simply allows the offender who obtains a favourable decision to submit an application to the National Parole Board. There is no guarantee that parole will be granted.
Therefore, based on information they are given, jury members, our fellow Canadians, choose to allow some offenders to apply for parole.
The jury does not have the mandate to determine the length of the sentence or the manner in which it must be served. An offender who has received a life sentence will serve his sentence for the rest of his life, whether or not his period of ineligibility for parole has been reduced.
Parole does not mean the end of the sentence, but rather the beginning of the "community phase" of the sentence. In short, a life sentence never ends, it stays in effect throughout the offender's life.
Another misconception is that all or even most offenders convicted of murder will apply for a judicial review hearing. This has not proven to be the case. At the moment 128 offenders are eligible to apply for a judicial review but only 71 have actually made an application.
One argument frequently put forward to discredit section 745 is that families of victims are left out of the process and their rights are ignored. I would emphasize that judicial review is a public process. Although judges have not admitted victim impact statements as evidence so far, this government has introduced legislation in the form of Bill C-41 which would permit the introduction of victim impact statements as a matter of course in these hearings. When passed, this amendment would give victims a greater role and achieve a better balance in the process.
In conclusion, I would urge my colleagues to contemplate seriously what the courts have said in relation to this provision. For example in Regina v. Vaillancourt, the court concluded that section 745 hearings strike a balance between the considerations of leniency for the well-behaved convict in the serving of his sentence and the community interests in repudiation and deterrence. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the purpose of a section 745 hearing is to call attention to changes in the applicant's situation which might justifiably impose a less harsh penalty.
While cynics such as the opposition Reform Party members may say that offenders cannot change, the Canadian Sentencing Commission noted that some offenders, and I quote: "genuinely repent or make changes in their lives which alter their risk to the public or alter the public's interest in seeing them so severely punished".
Obviously, the courts and the Canadian Sentencing Commission think it is both fair and justified to have a section that provides for a review of sentences, since human beings can change and rehabilitate.
The clearest message of all probably comes from jurors, who are ordinary citizens like you and me, Mr. Speaker. To this day, 36 juries have determined that the parole ineligibility period should be reduced for some applicants. Is this not clear evidence that this section is both fair and desirable?
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today and speak in favour of Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code. We are debating this evening the repeal of a section of the Criminal Code that has raised outrage from coast to coast across Canada.
Section 745 allows early release of convicted murderers. This section of the code sends a confusing message to Canadians. It sends a message that the federal government does not believe that murder is a very serious offence. It sends a message to judges that their sentences are not taken seriously any more. It sends a message to victims of violence that their pain is just not as important any more. It sends a message to criminals that their crimes will be tolerated. It sends a message to all Canadians that their streets and playgrounds will not be as safe.
Unfortunately a family in my riding has had personal experience with section 745 of the Criminal Code. I want to share with all members of the House the experience of Joanne Kaplinski whose brother was brutally murdered.
On January 29, 1978 her brother Ken Kaplinski was working as a night clerk at the Continental Inn in Barrie. He was a hard working law-abiding citizen working to support himself and his little boy John who was then only three years old.
The Continental Inn was robbed that evening of approximately $2,000. Joanne's brother was taken by car some two hours north of Barrie and was shot twice in the head at close range, execution style. His decomposed body was found in a snowbank some two months later. Subsequently two men, Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella, were each convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.
But on January 29, Ken's survivors received a life sentence of their own. They became members of a very exclusive club to which no one wants to belong. The initiation fee is the death of a loved one by violence. Membership dues are extracted from the members each anniversary of the death of their loved one, each birthday that cannot be celebrated, each Christmas their loved one cannot come home for, and each and every day as survivors of such violence.
The Kaplinski family endured two months of not knowing the whereabouts of Ken. They endured the police investigations, the public rumours, the media intrusions loaded with wild speculation and accusations. They endured the identification of his personal effects and the anxious wait for forensic identification of his body. They somehow survived the funeral and the clean-up of the remnants of their brother's life. They raised his young son. In sum, they have spent some 16 years coping with the aftermath of these two killers' actions.
They got on with their lives, or rather got on with picking up the pieces of their shattered lives. Never would they see the world through the same eyes again. Evil was no longer some abstract concept; it became real and tangible. Their profound despair came from being forced to look into the abyss of human cruelty and selfishness.
This past December they were once again forced to revisit that pain, to relive the nightmare of 1978. All their pain and horror was resurrected by the section 745 application of one of the murderers, Allan Kinsella. They 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. They simply could not believe that release after serving only 15 years was an option. For Kinsella to have early
parole seemed to them to make a mockery of the original sentence handed down by the trial judge.
The public perception of lack of truth in sentencing serves to further erode the public's confidence in the justice system. They feel duped by the delays and doublespeak of the bureaucrats. By making available section 745 the judicial system is sending out a very clear message to society that murder indeed will be tolerated. It conveys a very sad statement about the value of our lives, yours and mine, as Canadian citizens.
Fortunately for Canadian society and the Kaplinski family, justice was served in the Kinsella hearing. The jury rendered a decision to deny the application for a reduction in parole eligibility.
However, the story does not have a happy ending. The family will again be required to revisit their pain when the co-convicted advances his application. They may never cancel their membership in the victims club, a club where membership indeed has no privileges.
Joanne Kaplinski may not have had to endure a finding in favour of Allan Kinsella, but this is the exception and not the rule in most of these hearings. As of the end of March of this year, 43 reviews have been held under section 745 and only 11 of these convicts have been denied a reduction in sentence. In the majority of hearings, 31 in total, the criminal has received partial or full parole. This is totally unacceptable in the eyes of most Canadians.
Our criminal justice system is overloaded with cases and burdened with high costs. The Kinsella hearing cost taxpayers over $100,000 and there are 600 more convicts waiting in line for their turn at a potential cost of some $60 million. Why would we even consider revisiting the final conviction of the worst kinds of criminals when there are so many more important cases to try?
This country has a serious debt problem. There is no justification for spending our limited resources on such questionable reviews. Let us get the sentence right the first time, at the conclusion of the original trial and put the offender away for the full sentence with no exceptions.
Many of the proponents of section 745 like to talk about how good it is that victims of violence will be able to read an impact statement at the judicial review. They mention the fairness that this implies. In their view this balances victims' rights with those assigned to the convicted.
The truth is that currently there are no legal requirements for the crown to notify the victim's family so they may testify at these hearings. The judge may decide not to allow such statements. Even if such statements are allowed, what about the victims of the violence? What about the pain they must relive and the public scrutiny they must endure? Many victims may be fearful of the convicted and refuse to testify, and with good reason considering the recent case of Allan Kinsella and the testimony of Joanne Kaplinski.
Now, as many members of the House will be aware, one of Ken Kaplinski's murderers has escaped from a so-called medium security prison near Kingston. As a result the Kaplinski family lives in terror. Joanne Kaplinski is now under 24-hour police supervision because she had the courage to stand up as a victim at the section 745 trial of Allan Kinsella, a trial that should never have taken place.
Many of the supporters of section 745 have talked about the value of offering inmates faint hope. They believe convicts will be better behaved and work toward rehabilitation. We should not be providing incentives for prisoners to behave, this should be expected. Rehabilitation of prisoners is of secondary importance to deterrence and punishment. These arguments in favour of offering faint hope are just plain wrong.
We have an immediate example in the case of Allan Kinsella. This brutal murderer should never have been given the time of day let alone an expensive court hearing and the right to intrude on the lives of his victims once again.
There is no fairness in the system for the victims of violence. Sentencing should be certain and should be determined by the original judge in the original trial.
The justice minister stated in this House yesterday that an amendment would be made to section 745 so that the courts would have to hear from the families of the victims. What if these families are too frightened or pained to testify? What if this is interpreted by the courts as non-interest by the victims and a point in favour of early release? This amendment would offer no guarantees to a public concerned about its safety.
There are three principles that are fundamental to sentencing: deterrence, punishment and the protection of society. All of them may be violated by section 745 of the code. Deterrence is lessened by section 745 because a potential criminal knows his crime may not receive the otherwise full punishment available. Punishment may of course be violated because murderers who have been given a full sentence may get away with only serving three-fifths of it. Protection of society is lessened as more criminals are freed to commit more crimes and serve less time.
For the sake of Joanne Kaplinski, for the sake of her family and indeed for all victims of this most brutal violence, let us put a stop to this madness and remove section 745.
Clearly there is a problem with the criminal system in this country. The criminal system needs the justice put back in it. This was an election issue and I was elected on a very specific platform. The Reform Party introduced a comprehensive policy on criminal justice during the 1993 election. It states very clearly where we stand on section 745.
We support a criminal justice system that places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens above all other objectives. We also state very specifically that we support amendments to the criminal law which ensure greater certainty in sentencing.
I will close by asking all members to think of the Kaplinski family and indeed all other families who have lost loved ones to such senseless and vicious killers. Support Bill C-226 and remove section 745.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-226, tabled by the hon. member for York South-Weston.
I have to admit that, when first asked if I wanted to discuss this issue, I almost decided to resort to demagogic comments such as: A criminal is the victim of his own action. All sorts of ideas like that are expressed and, unfortunately, too often by parties in this House, including the Reform Party, which I certainly respect. However, these comments sometime distort the reality.
I have met a few individuals who did truly regrettable things, including murder. Some of them never repented; they wilfully committed their crime. Even after a rather long time in jail, they had not learned anything. I think they would have been capable of committing the same crime again. Yes, there are such individuals.
We also have in mind the recent example of people who committed unfortunate acts. We know famous elected officials who ruined their careers by mere shoplifting, like the one who took a jacket from a department store.
That is why I have always said that the brain is the weakest organ in the human body. The brain sometimes betrays its owner.
Recently, in the Gaspé region, a father threw himself off a bridge with his three children. If this man had survived, I think he would have been the unhappiest of men. This unexplainable act is still a mystery.
When dealing with a mistake made without forethought and often unintentionally, our society must not act out of revenge in handing down sentences and guarding prisoners. It is not up to society to avenge victims.
Society benefits from the incarceration system, which removes dangerous offenders from its midst. However, it eventually realizes that these people are rehabilitated-as we often realize from the outset that rehabilitation is possible by reading pre-sentence reports, etc. As soon as offenders start serving their sentences, correctional officers have a pretty good idea if they will eventually be able to reintegrate society.
Jailing people also entails social costs, major repercussions on their immediate families, not to mention purely financial costs. Unfortunately, there have been reports lately that our prisons are overcrowded.
I believe that section 745 of the Criminal Code, which this bill seeks to strike down, has its purpose in the sense that, in certain cases, it provides for the re-evaluation, after the fact, of the state of mind of individuals who committed crimes and allows for an assessment of the advisability of their release. There is nothing mandatory in section 745. The jury hearing the application is not obliged to release the inmate. This review can only take place 15 years after sentencing. Then, people who know right from wrong and can weigh the pros and cons, may recommend that the individual be released.
I believe that in a society like ours, we must be able to afford acts of mercy of this kind since, as I mentioned before, sometimes people who committed crimes were not in their right minds at the time, a situation which can change after a while.
Therefore, in my opinion, it would be mean and would not benefit society. It could even be costly. When people are truly repentant, when they acknowledge their wrongdoings, take appropriate actions to solve their problems while in prison, and get positive results, keeping them in prison would be an act of revenge on the part of society.
A society which acts out of revenge is often ill-inspired and ill-advised. Revenge is a very poor adviser.
I know that there are heinous crimes. The Reform Party never fails to mention a few during Question Period. It is like an endless round of quotes from reporters on the police beat: "In Winnipeg, between 42nd and 32nd Avenue, at 2.25 a.m., So-and-so stabbed and killed Ms. Someone, as she left the hospital where she worked. She was wearing hushpuppies". And so on.
We hear this time and time again, and every time the Reform Party asks for stiffer or longer sentences. There is truth in what they say. Society must not leave crime unpunished and violence should not rule our society. I heard the hon. member for York South-Weston during the referendum debate. I was not a member then, I was not even in politics, but I heard him speak heinously of Quebec. That was at the time of the Charlottetown and Meech Lake agreements and the hon. member was probably driven by his well-known fiery spirit. I can understand that, but in Quebec we were hurt.
We do not bear a grudge against the hon. member who introduced this bill. We understand that this fiery spirit of his and boundless love for this beautiful country can lead to the fits of anger he is known for.
I read in the papers, yesterday, that the hon. member was himself the target of violence, and that he had to seek help and protection from the authorities, and I feel for him. I said to myself: a man of his intelligence must realize how violence feels-parliamentary violence, or verbal or political violence or whatever-we could even talk about ecological violence, for instance. Violence in any form, no matter who the perpetrator, is always bad, and I am sure the hon. member for York South-Weston realizes that now, which probably explains why, since last year, he has become extremely civil in his dealings with his colleagues in the Bloc.
I think the hon. member has seen the light. He is aware that society can and must exercise a measure of clemency at some point. If society does not believe in rehabilitation, why did we get rid of capital punishment?
I am somewhat baffled by all these considerations. The section they want to abolish was used by 40 people in the past 28 years. I have seen no statistics to show that these people became repeaters or abused their freedom.
For all these reasons, and considering the small number of cases that have come before the courts since this section came into effect, I am inclined to vote against this bill.
Warren Allmand Liberal Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to strongly oppose Bill C-226. As has been mentioned the bill would remove the 15-year review with respect to parole eligibility for convicted murderers. I want to make clear that the provision we are talking about does not deal with the reduction of sentence. It deals with a change in the parole eligibility date, that is the date at which an individual offender can go before the parole board and request parole or release on to the street.
We are talking about a provision which can change the parole eligibility date between 15 years and 25 years. It is not a reduction of sentence, because the sentence for murder is a life sentence and a life sentence cannot be changed by any provision in the Criminal Code.
Prior to 1976 when capital punishment was on the books in a very limited way and the sentence for murder was life, the parole eligibility date was 10 years. When it was set at 10 years there were very few tragedies. As a matter of fact the average date of release on parole was not 10 years, although that was the eligibility date. It was more or less 15 years. The average date for people who were paroled was near 15 years. A good number of people who were eligible to go before the parole board at 10 years were never released; they spent their entire lives in prison under a life sentence.
The suggestion that parole eligibility dates mean automatic parole is nonsense, misleads the public and misleads the House.
With the abolition of capital punishment in 1976 once again the sentence for murder was fixed at life. The parole eligibility was set at 10 years for second degree murder and 25 years for first degree murder but with the provision that an offender could seek review of the parole eligibility date at 15 years. Once again I repeat the sentence remained a life sentence.
I hear people talking in this debate, in the press and so on about a 25-year sentence being reduced to 15 years. That is not the case. By the way, no one is automatically released at either 15 or at 25 years. Offenders are paroled by the parole board and not by the provision of section 745. They are subject to conditions of parole, must report to a parole officer and can be returned to prison to continue a life sentence if they commit not only a minor offence but if they break the conditions of parole. I will deal with that in a minute.
A person on parole is serving his sentence on the street, outside the institution, rather than serving it inside the institution. Under the section 745 process the offender must apply to the court in the province where the offence was committed for a review of his parole eligibility date. If the parole eligibility date was 25 years, the offender can ask the court to reduce it to at least 15 years. It can be set at any time between 15 and 25 years. The matter goes to a jury and the jury can only make a decision to reduce the eligibility date with a two-thirds majority; it is not a simple majority.
If the jury reduces the parole eligibility date by a two-thirds vote the person is not released as suggested by the Reform member who spokes a few minutes before me. When the date arrives, if it is 17 years, the individual offender must go to the parole board to prove that he is no longer a danger to the public and has been rehabilitated. If he cannot prove that he is not paroled. It is never automatic. It is not automatic with the section 745 process and it is not automatic before the parole board.
Furthermore the provision is not a loophole, nor was it ever hidden. It is a very specific provision written into law and set out very clearly. When members of Parliament voted on the measure in 1976 they knew exactly what it was and so did the press. It was not hidden. It was in the bill like any other measure. It can be read in the law right now. It is not a gap or a crack in the law. It was provided for intentionally. It was Liberal Party policy put forward by a Liberal government and supported by the majority in the Liberal Party and by the majority in the House. It is consistent with long time Liberal policy.
Why is it there? It was put there because we in the Liberal Party believe that a reasonable parole eligibility provision is an incentive to reform. It gives hope. It provides for correction. It provides for redemption. It provides for an opportunity to start over again. It is also a control mechanism. When there are reasonable parole provisions people who work in the penitentiary or the institution can expect that prisoners will attempt to behave well. There are carrots or sticks and parole is a type of carrot which is an incentive to good behaviour and to reform.
In addition, if the person is really reformed and no longer a danger to the public, that person after 15 years can be put back on the street to earn his or her living, to support his or her family and to pay taxes rather than being paid for by the state while in prison, while the family is being supported by welfare. I am talking about a person who is no longer a danger to the public, who is no longer a risk and who is deemed to be rehabilitated by the parole board.
This is a Liberal Party policy and always has been. I can understand members of the Liberal Party wanting to change it if it did not work, if there was some massive failure in the 745 provision, but that is not the case. Since 1976 when this provision was brought in, 128 people have been eligible to apply under section 745.
Only 71 people have applied. The others perhaps felt they would not be accepted and did not even bother applying. As of March 31, of the 71 that have applied, 43 cases have been heard by courts with judge and jury. Of those 43, 19 were granted full reduction from 25 years to 15, 13 were granted a partial reduction, which means somewhere between 25 and 15, and 11 were denied any reduction whatsoever.
My colleague from the Reform Party did not mention that those persons that were granted a reduction in parole eligibility date were not released from prison. They had to go to the parole board when the eligibility date came up to apply for parole. What happened to them? After a change in their parole eligibility date, 30 of those cases finally went to the parole board. Of those only 11 were granted full parole; 6 were granted day parole; 2 were granted temporary absence and 11 were denied any kind of parole.
Through this provision, of the 128 eligible since 1976, only 2 have been returned to prison. One was returned, not for committing an offence, but for breaking the conditions of parole while out on the street. This person was put back in to serve a life sentence because the conditions of parole were broken. The other was put back in for an armed robbery offence.
It means that out of 128 eligible people, one person was returned to prison for committing another offence. That is not a failure of the provision. Kinsella was mentioned in the examples that were given. Kinsella was turned down by the system.
I have heard reference to Clifford Olson as if he was going to be accepted for parole. Of course Clifford Olson will have the right to go to the court in 15 years and ask for parole eligibility to be reduced, but he will never get it. He would have to go before the parole board.
I ask my colleagues to look at the profiles of the cases of those who have been released and those who have been turned down. They would realize that it is a red herring to suggest that Clifford Olson would be released under this provision. Charles Manson in the United States has gone to the parole board in that country six times because he was eligible. He has been turned down every time. He is not reformed, he is not rehabilitated and he is still a danger to the public. It is not automatic. We are simply talking about parole eligibility date.
The Liberal Party definition of justice is not the Reform Party definition of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is not revenge. That is not our definition of justice. We believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the public, including the public who work in prisons: the teachers; the correctional officers; all the people that must work in prison. They deserve protection too. That is the purpose of the criminal justice system. We believe that one of the best ways of protecting the public is by rehabilitation through treatment, through correction.
Once people are rehabilitated and no longer a danger to the public it is ridiculous to keep them in prison forever, when they can be on the street doing good. One of the persons released under this provision won the medal for the best volunteer in Montreal a few years ago. That person came out of prison and established a reputation as an outstanding volunteer in the community.
My time is up, but I want to say that the bill being presented by my colleague is not a Liberal bill. It is more of a Reform Party policy rather than a Liberal policy and it should be defeated.
Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-226 today.
This is the type of legislation for which Canadians from all parts of the country have been calling. This is the second hour of debate on the bill and much of what has been said related also to the death penalty. I am not going to be addressing that issue. It remains part of the background of everything that we say. I am not speaking in cliches.
Unfortunately I was not able to be in the House during the first hour of debate. However I did read Hansard to check what the other members of Parliament had to say about this bill. I was particularly outraged by what the Bloc Quebecois members said. I will quote from Hansard directly: ``For a person who has received a life sentence the parole system is the light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think that the victims' relatives will suffer after 20 years. They certainly have suffered and everybody
deplores that fact. However, we do not have to always give in to the people who shout the loudest".
This statement is absolutely appalling. If the speaker had ever experienced the murder of a close friend or a relative I doubt that he would be speaking so casually. I do not think that the sentiments of that member represent mainstream Canadian values.
On February 24, 1976 the Solicitor General of Canada introduced Bill C-84. This bill defined two categories of murder: first and second degree. As well Bill C-84 abolished the death penalty.
According to section 231 of the Criminal Code, first degree murder is that which is planned and deliberate, the murder of police officers or prison guards acting in the course of their duties; or murder committed during hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping.
When Bill C-84 was introduced Jim Fleming, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, said that it was most important to give criminals a glimmer of hope. He said that some incentive has to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals. Incentive for what? My observation is incentive to con the system.
Last week I received a fax from a citizen in Mississauga, Ontario who wrote of the horrendous story involving the murder of RCMP Constable Brian King in 1978. The writer is a nephew of Mr. King. I understand that the member for York South-Weston had previously mentioned this story in his speech, but I think it is too important not to mention it again.
Constable Brian King was an RCMP officer in Saskatchewan and was on that fateful night to be the trophy of two men who were full of hate, determined to stalk, capture and kill a cop. They wanted their friends to see how powerful they were. The two successfully distracted Brian, overpowered him, seized his service revolver, secured him with handcuffs, threatened him at gunpoint and eventually went on to murder him with two rounds into the skull. This was no crime of passion. This was cold, calculated, premeditated murder.
They were both sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. When the two men were sentenced one commented: "What's 25 years?". Twenty-five years is not a deterrent.
Under section 745 these two same murderers were eligible for an early review. Constable King's family now has to suffer through months of reliving the memories and the grief as well as the fear that these convicted cop killers will be out, possibly to kill again.
The Bloc member who said that the families will get over it in 20 years has not read a letter like this nor has he spoken with any person who has gone through such a trauma. What kind of representation is that?
There is more to section 745 than just the simple direction of it. The entire parole system is in disrepute with Canadians. My office has received letters concerning the operation of the parole system. In almost every case the comments are that the parole board does not do what it is supposed to do. However, the mission statement of the National Parole Board paints a rather nice rosy picture. It states:
The National Parole Board, as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release and pardon decisions and clemency recommendations. The board, by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens, contributes to the protection of society.
On October 6 the new chairman of the parole board appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At that time I asked him whether he could give me a written job description of exactly what the chairman does. Unfortunately at the time he was not aware of any written documentation on this but stated that he would get back to me with some information.
I received a letter from Mr. Gibbs this past Monday but no full job description that could be used for performance evaluation was included. Instead this was what was written: "Further to my recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on October 6 and your request to be provided with a copy of the chairman's job description, I wish to report that such a document has never been produced. I can assure you however that although no written mandate has been provided, my role is well defined in law and policy and my expectations very clear".
After reading this and understanding the climate of unaccountability that this represents, I know exactly why Canadians are upset that they are paying top level bureaucrats six figure salaries to state that they only know by word of mouth what their job entails. It is a matter of trust. It is a matter of public accountability.
Let me talk briefly about the success rate of our great parole system. From April 1978 to March 1988 there were 17,444 cases of offenders released. As of March 1993, 73.6 per cent successfully completed their terms of supervision.
Some might look at that and say that is an excellent result. I do not. The remaining 26.4 per cent were split between two categories: 2,494 cases violated their conditions of parole and 2,111 cases violated parole because of committing a new criminal offence. All in all, this is a rather poor success rate.
This past summer Allan Kinsella, a convicted murderer, asked the court for release after serving 15 years of his life sentence. His appeal for a section 745 hearing was denied. Because of that Kinsella got mad from this procedure and then with another inmate escaped last week. Police are still searching for these two men who are considered to be dangerous.
Let me recap these events. First, Kinsella commits a murder and is sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. Second, at 15 years into Kinsella's sentence section 745 of the Criminal Code kicks in. Third, December 13, 1993 the section 745 review is denied. Fourth, in July Kinsella is transferred to the Bath institution in spite of the fact that the assistant attorney general for Ontario sent letters to the Solicitor General warning that Kinsella was dangerous and unsuitable for transfer and that there was a good chance he would attempt to escape. Fifth, on October 19 Kinsella and another inmate escaped and are now considered dangerous.
I should not be having to give this example because if section 745 had not even been put into place and had the Solicitor General of Canada been doing his job, Kinsella would now be locked up in Kingston Penitentiary, a maximum security prison for dangerous offenders, exactly what Kinsella is and always has been.
The Minister of Justice has stated in the House that the government's position is crystal clear. Let me quote from Hansard : ``We introduced an amendment to section 745 to provide plainly that whenever an application is brought under this section that the court is obligated to hear from the families of the victims''.
I say including the victim in a process may be good but it is not good if a murderer gets out on early parole. I would really question whether Liberal backbenchers across the way know what the minister is really saying. People are fighting for life to mean life and not to make a statement at a parole hearing that might have little effect on keeping a prisoner in prison.
My question to the justice minister yesterday certainly revealed that the government is completely out of sync with what Canadians want on this measure.
People are in prison for a reason. In the case of murder they took someone else's life and for that they should serve life. Section 745 brings disrepute to the operation of the justice system and its presence in the Criminal Code has implications beyond the technicalities of the section.
I call on the members of this House, the people have spoken and now it is time for the people's representatives to speak and vote for this bill regardless of what the justice minister says.