Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and also for producing the numbers. That will save me some time. I am here to support the private member's bill of the hon. member for York South-Weston to abolish section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Something rather strange happened to me a while ago. I had to cross the floor and was in the government lobby. One Liberal friend saw me there and said: "Oh goody, you have seen the light". Well, I have some bad news for him.
I am really happy that some people from that side of the House have seen the light. They have seen the light to such poor legislation and are bringing forward a bill of this type and finding support for it even though it was a piece of legislation that was brought in a few years ago by the very same party.
This section of course allows convicted murderers to apply for a review to lessen their period of parole eligibility. It gives them a process to return to society before serving their entire sentence.
Some of those speaking to this bill have their own opinions on why a convicted murderer should serve a life sentence for killing an innocent victim. Many would admit life should be life, or we in this House should bring back the death penalty. I would challenge the government of the day to seriously consider having a referendum to let the people of this nation decide whether we should have the death penalty.
We are not here to argue that stand. We are here to argue why 25 years in prison should be the minimum penalty for taking another life and how 25 years is just retribution for inflicting untold grief upon the family and friends of a victim of such a heinous crime.
People have free choice. That free choice may include kidnapping, robbery or murder, taking another life. Notice the emphasis is placed on their choice to kill an innocent victim.
When a murderer is convicted in court, the presiding judge decides from the evidence heard what the sentence should be. The judge listens to all the evidence. In a case that clearly demonstrates that the murderer had no concern for human life and no remorse for executing an innocent victim the judge knows a life sentence is just. In those circumstances, the judge knows 25 years without parole is the right sentence for the crime.
I hear from the friends and families of murder victims how they become members of an exclusive club, a club whose only requirement for membership is having one of their own murdered. These club members cannot apply for a reduction of the life sentence given to them for their loved ones. The sentence which entitles them to be members of this exclusive club is indeed for life. Every day for the rest of their lives these club members will suffer. They will be filled with sorrow and will wonder what they could have done to prevent the loss.
Those who murder do not have to serve a similar sentence. They are still alive. They still enjoy the company of others, the benefits of good food, excellent health care and recreation facilities. All this is paid for by the average hardworking taxpayers like those they killed. The only hardship murderers must endure is their restricted access to society. Yet section 745 gives murderers a chance to reduce their separation from law-abiding citizens. That is not justice.
That exclusive club has an annual fee. The fee is paid on every birthday, every Christmas, every occasion that family and friends gather. The memory of the murder victim continues to haunt their thoughts. They simply cannot apply to have their memories reduced. These club members will shed tears where there should be warm embraces and pleasant thoughts of times gone by and times to come. They receive no sentence reduction whatsoever.
These club members are reminded every day of their loss, but that is not the only punishment this current justice system inflicts upon the survivors. This current justice system punishes the survivors further. The friends and family of a murder victim must endure further heartache when murderers apply for early parole. When murderers apply for early parole after 15 years they bring back all the terror and heartache that entered the souls of the family members at the time they were first told of the death.
Why do we continue to punish those who are victims of crime and those who are innocent? I have listened to what a section 745 hearing inflicts upon the survivors. They say they are once again forced to revisit the abyss, to relive the nightmare and all the pain and horror that goes with it. When a murderer applies for a section review of this nature, that is exactly what happens. What more needs to be said? What more evidence needs to be stated that section 745 must be repealed?
If Canadians look at the record of the Parole Board rulings, Canadians see patronage appointees who have little concern for murdered victims or their survivors. These appointees are notorious for listening to bleeding hearts who say the murderer has changed, he has remorse or he has found God and is intending to care for orphans and the elderly now.
These appointees hear reports from psychologists or psychiatrists who have spent a minimum amount of time with the murderer and have decided the murderer has changed. If there is one thing for sure I have learned since becoming a justice critic it is that the worst psychopaths know how to work the system. They know how to con political appointees who only want to follow the mandate of a bleeding heart government. These bleeding hearts believe anyone can be rehabilitated or can feel true remorse for the most heinous of crimes.
All that is needed to believe any political appointees can be conned is to remember that one out of three is given early release by past appointed employees of the Parole Board and one out of three returns to prison.
Section 745 must be repealed so the members of this House can say to the survivors of murdered loved ones they have been given a life sentence, the least we can do is give the murderer 25 years without parole. The most we can do is offer Canadians some minor peace in the knowledge that those who have committed the vilest of crimes will not have early parole.
Let this House recognize the eternal sacrifice of those murdered and eternal pain suffered by their family and friends. Let this House support this bill to end section 745.
In conclusion, I would like to point out one thing that was sent around by one of the members from the Liberal caucus as to reasons why we should not repeal this. It states: "The Liberal Party has never advocated a system of justice based on revenge.
We do not adhere to an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, principles espoused by the Reform Party".
I resent that kind of a statement. What we are calling for is not revenge, it is called justice, something this government has not a clue about and it has demonstrated it year after year in all the legislation it has brought forward.
I do believe that if this government wakes up and realizes there is such a word as revenge, and if we do not start providing justice to our society, revenge is exactly what we can look forward to. It had better wake up to the fact that Canadians are not happy with this justice system. If it does not believe me turn around and ask, it will find out or stand on any street corner in any city in this country and just ask them how they feel. I do not believe that is the Liberal way so I do not think we will look forward to seeing that happen.
Please, I ask everyone here to seriously consider the victims. Remember the victims. Do not vote to keep 745.