Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Criminal Code

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this House to call for the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. I speak today from my own beliefs and most important, the beliefs of the many constituents of the riding of Fundy-Royal.

My riding has been concerned about the implications of section 745 for many months. Fundy-Royal residents have firm beliefs about justice. That sentiment can best be summed up in a few words: A life sentence should mean jail for life, or at least for 25 years. Under the present law that potentially has been in jeopardy.

A petition campaign spearheaded by Constable Evan Scott of the Rothesay Regional Police in Rothesay, New Brunswick calling for the repeal of section 745 has been both welcomed and endorsed throughout New Brunswick. I gave the petition my support in a May 17, 1994 letter to the Minister of Justice.

In the letter I expressed my view that to allow a judicial review for persons who may receive parole after 15 years for first degree murder, the worst possible crime in the Criminal Code, is unacceptable. I feel it is imperative to our judicial system that once an individual has been found guilty by his peers for a heinous crime that the sentence provided by the judge should be carried out in its entirety.

I have chosen to speak on this bill today because I have examined the issues surrounding the section introduced in 1976. I have balanced the merits of those arguments with the values of my constituents and I find that the present legislation is unacceptable.

The facts are staggering indeed. A criminal serving a 25 year sentence can be given a 40 per cent reduction in his sentence. Seventy-two per cent of the applicants under this section were allowed to walk out under early parole. Over the next 15 years there are approximately 600 killers who are eligible to seek early parole.

Anyone can submit an application irrespective of the brutality of the crime and at public expense these applications are permitted to be made. Therein lies part of my problem with section 745. Can we imagine the financial cost to the public purse if each of the more than 600 convicted murderers in our prisons today filed for a reduction in their parole eligibility?

Imagine with that large number of cases the series of precedents which could be created. Section 745 could become an impressive mechanism that further restricts the rights of victims.

For example, in the Queen v. Swietlinski, Judge O'Driscoll declared the victim impact statements inadmissible in a section 745 procedure because they were intended to assist in the earlier sentencing process. Therefore they were not relevant to the issue before the jury considering the criminal's application.

Public attitudes have changed since 1975. Today society overwhelmingly affirms that victims, and in the case of a murderer, the victim's family, should have a greater influence in the parole system. This belief is representative of the notion that crime affects society and the victim's family. It is no longer sufficient that the criminal's sentencing and parole be treated independently from the suffering of the victim's family.

When section 745 was drafted its primary concern was how to integrate the convict back into society as quickly as possible. The procedure to determine whether a convict deserves an early parole eligibility is much easier for the convict than a regular trial.

Let me share some examples I find troubling. The jury only needs two-thirds majority instead of 100 per cent agreement. Most of the evidence presented in the hearing comes from those who seek the convicts early release, not the victim's family.

It appears to me that the process is structured in such a manner that the welfare of the victim's family is completely ignored. If I had to choose between this system and one that gives consideration to the victim's needs to believe that justice has been done I would choose the victim's rights every time.

A thorough examination of section 745 warrants that hard questions be answered. Who is the Criminal Code supposed to protect? What is in the best interests of society? I think public confidence in the legal system is of the utmost importance in any democratic society. Is the Criminal Code to be weighted in favour of rehabilitation or the principle that a sentence for serious crimes must be implemented in full? Will criminals now realizing their opportunity to shorten their sentences by 40 per cent subvert the rehabilitation process? Will the public begin to regard 15 years as a life sentence? If this occurs the public wrath should be furious. Let us forgo that process and repeal section 745.

In closing I share the concerns of my constituents in Fundy-Royal, New Brunswick. The current method of determining a convict's eligibility must correspond with what is reasonable. Other members of this House have called for the repeal of section 745. They have often cited the high profile cases of Clifford Olsen who savagely raped and murdered 11 young children.

There is a case which occurred within my own riding. Less than two weeks ago a man who admitted he shot an innocent victim in the back 16 years ago was before a jury explaining why he deserved a reduction in his parole eligibility. When I heard about this case I hardened my resolve. I thought about the family of that victim.

For his family and for the thousands of family members who will be in a similar situation as over 600 convicted murderers apply for early parole eligibility over the next 15 years, I ask and urge that section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed so that justice can be done and a life sentence will mean at least 25 years.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

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.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to support the private member's bill put forward by the member for York South-Weston.

Bill C-226 would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 745 allows prisoners given a life sentence for such crimes as first and second degree murder the opportunity to apply for early parole after serving only 15 years of their life sentence.

I want to give a little background. Section 745 was introduced in 1976 by the Solicitor General of the day who currently sits as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Section 745 was part of Bill C-84 and this bill also abolished capital punishment and established two categories of murder, first and second degree. Both categories of this horrendous crime carry minimum sentences of life imprisonment.

Let me be clear. When Reformers and millions of Canadians speak of life imprisonment for despicable crimes such as murder, it must mean life imprisonment.

A number of states in the U.S. have taken the right steps. They have abolished parole boards to ensure that criminals serve their entire sentence no matter how small or how large their crime.

Here in Canada we maintain parole boards which increasingly come under fire for releasing dangerous criminals into our society. We maintain section 745, giving murders, people who commit horrendous crimes in our society, the opportunity to apply for early parole.

As well, as I understand it their chances of being successful under section 745, under that appeal, are pretty good. As of May 1994, 60 applications have been heard under this section and 43 of these 60 have received some form of early parole. That is about a 72 per cent success rate. That is absolutely unacceptable in Canadian society.

It is my opinion that if the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who introduced Bill C-84, had his way ruthless killers would be out walking the streets after serving only 15 years.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce argues that keeping someone in prison for 25 years serves little purpose. For a crime as heinous as murder, I and millions of Canadians say that 25 years are not nearly enough.

In addition to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce there are many other bleeding heart Liberals in this government who contend that 25 years-

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I am proud to be one.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There are many other bleeding heart Liberals in this government who contend that 25 years in prison is a form of cruel and unusual punishment and that section 745 gives the prisoner some hope or something to look forward to after he has completed 15 years of his sentence.

To them I say what about the cruel and unusual punishment of the victim? To them I say what of the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the victim's family or the victim's community? What of the cruel and unusual punishment that is inflicted on society as a result of the fear that is created from the knowledge that ruthless killers are out early and walking the streets? What about that cruel and unusual punishment? They do not speak of that when they talk about letting prisoners out early, about letter murders out on to the streets.

The second chance that section 745 awards to criminals is denied to the victims and the victim's families. They do not have a second chance to undo a vicious crime such as murder.

In a statement to the House on October 4, I brought to the attention of all members the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had recently allowed a first degree murderer another chance at early parole under section 745 because during his first hearing the crown consistently and improperly appealed to the jury's passions. Does that mean the crown was describing the vicious crime this person had committed? This is improperly appealing to the jury's passions.

It would do well for the bleeding heart Liberals opposite to listen to this. This man was convicted in 1986 for stabbing his victim 132 times-are you listening over there-and using five different knives in the process. Because of section 745 it is possible that this vicious killer will be out walking the streets after serving less than 25 years.

In this specific case I would not hesitate to go beyond simple repeal of section 745. I would reinstate capital punishment for this kind of crime. At very worst this government, this House,

should recommend that such a vicious criminal spend the rest of his life behind bars.

On July 5, 1994 the government created a national crime prevention council, no doubt at great expense to Canadian taxpayers. This council reports to the Minister of Justice on various crime prevention strategies. I would hope that this council would take note of the proceedings here this evening and consider advising the minister to abolish section 745 in the interests and safety of Canadians and our communities, and to bolster the sagging confidence level that Canadians have in the criminal justice system in this country.

I would hope also that the bleeding heart Liberals present here tonight are listening to the speeches from their own colleagues and from members of the Reform Party. I would hope that this council would listen to the pleas of millions of Canadians who are crying for a reinstatement of the death penalty for crimes such as murder.

There are some major problems with the procedure in the way applications are heard under section 745. For instance, under this section hearing the criminal cannot be subject to questioning regarding his offence. Give us a break in this country. However, he can give oral evidence as to his successes and what a good person he has been while in prison.

There have also been cases in the past in which Correctional Services Canada has used the Privacy Act, if you can imagine, to deny the crown information relating to the criminal's behaviour in jail. This amounts to suppression of information which could have a profound effect on whether that person should be out.

Last but not least, it is the taxpayers who are paying for these appeal hearings. In the light of these costs, it is absolutely incomprehensible that the bleeding hearts in this government would continue to support section 745.

The continuation of section 745 is simply not acceptable to the victims of ruthless killers in this country. It is not acceptable to the Canadian people. I hope that the bleeding hearts in this government, in this Parliament, will for once listen to the voice of the Canadian people.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Accordingly, pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the division stands deferred to Tuesday, December 13, at 5.30 p.m.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the House that we view the clock as reading 7.07 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I addressed a very simple question to the Minister of Justice. I do not think the seven million gun owners out there will be very pleased with his response.

The minister dismissed opposition from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta justices ministers, saying:

I have a decent respect for the opinion of my provincial and territorial counterparts but in the final analysis this is a matter for this federal government to deal with.

As I said in my question yesterday, the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan has voted unanimously, all three parties, to oppose any further gun controls. The chief law enforcement officer for the province of Saskatchewan has written to the minister expressing his government's opposition. He is concerned about how he will be able to enforce gun control laws which the majority of voters in the province know are unfair and unnecessary to control violent crime.

In September the minister told over 10,000 law-abiding, responsible gun owners that he is not interested in making laws by taking a head count and yet he continually refers to bogus polls, which is a head count, to support his biased view that the majority of Canadians actually support his useless, ineffective gun control proposals.

A Ph.D. with 30 years of experience who teaches an honours research design and analysis course at Concordia University described an Angus Reid poll on gun control as fraudulent,

saying his students found a dozen fatal flaws in the five questions asked in the minister's favourite poll and stated: "Any student who submitted such biased questions would fail the course". This is what the minister is appealing to.

When a Gallup poll asked a well worded question, 69 per cent of the respondents felt passing more severe laws over legitimate gun owners would have very little influence on criminals. This is the exact opposite view expressed in the minister's oft quoted poll.

If the minister is going to govern by polls then he must ensure that the polls ask fair and unbiased questions. Further, if he really believes in implementing laws which reflect the will of the majority, he should at least allow the members of this House to have a free vote on the gun control proposals.

Frankly, I do not think the minister is a big believer in true democracy or direct democracy. I think his answer to my question yesterday proves that specifically.

I specifically asked the minister if he had taken a head count of all the justice ministers in this country to find out which of them support his proposals and which do not. The Minister of Justice answered "we govern by what is right", referring to the Liberal gun control proposals tabled last week in the House of Commons. He dictated that this is the government's assessment of what is right.

What have Canadians learned from the minister's reply? We learned that he has indeed consulted "with officials of every provincial and territorial attorneys general ministry" but that he does not care what they think. He is going to do whatever he thinks is right, not what the majority of Canadians think is right, not what the provincial justice ministers think is right even though they are the ones who have to enforce these ineffective gun control laws, not what the police on the street think is right, not even what the provincial legislators think is right, and certainly not what the majority of our municipal governments think is right.

His only justification for this intrusive and costly bureaucratic, make work project is that he and the Liberal cabinet think it is right. If Canadians thought for a moment that registering their rifles and shotguns and confiscating guns from law-abiding firearms owners might actually reduce violent crime and stop criminals from acquiring guns, they might actually support him. But they do not.

They know criminals do not obey any laws, especially gun control laws, and criminals will always be able to get their guns.

In conclusion, unfortunately democracy and majority rule take a back seat to what the Liberals think is right. Frankly, I fear a government that will not listen to the people a lot more than I fear a law-abiding citizen with a gun.

I ask my question again: Has the minister taken a head count of all the justice ministers in this country to find out which of them support his proposals and which do not and could he share the results of this head count with all Canadians?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister of Justice. While there were a number of comments in the hon. member's intervention that I could answer I shall somehow find the fortitude to resist.

I am certain that all Canadians support the initiatives of the government that enhance the safety of our communities, whether those communities are urban or rural. The criminal and accidental misuse of guns is just as prevalent in the rural areas of Canada as it is in the urban areas.

Studies show the homicide rate in rural areas is 50 per cent higher than in the urban environment. In Saskatchewan, for example, between 1989 and 1992 there was an average of 5.1 suicides by firearms for every 100,000 residents compared to the national average of 3.8.

The legislation that will be introduced in the new year will not prevent farmers and ranchers, hunters or target shooters from using their firearms for recreational pursuits, in the case of ranchers for predatory control purposes. The minister has made this very clear during his extensive discussions and consultations with firearms' owners and users in all areas of the country.

The government's first objective, supported by all firearms interest groups, is to increase criminal sanctions for the use of firearms in the commission of crime. Second, and receiving broad support, are moves that will be made to control and penalize the illegal trafficking and smuggling of firearms. The last major objective is to address the ownership and use of all firearms in Canada.

I believe, this side believes, the government believes that our gun control law is accepted by a great number of Canadians. I am so glad to see the new politics from these gentlemen.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)