Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken at report stage of the supply bill to the motion now before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would find consent for the House to proceed now with the motion on Bill C-46, the Department of Industry motion for third reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Department Of Industry Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the main motion for third reading of the supply bill to the motion now before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service), be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Unemployment Insurance Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, December 6, 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Mr. Hanrahan's amendment at third reading stage of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service).

The question is on the amendment.

As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the amendment sitting on the same side of the House as the mover to my left and then those sitting on the other side will be called.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the amendment lost.

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bankruptcy Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, December 7, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on second reading stage of Bill C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims).

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House resumed from October 26 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 Code

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following: if a recorded division is to be taken on the motion before this House this evening, that it be deferred until next Tuesday, at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to the bill tabled by the hon. member for York South-Weston, which would delete section 745 of the Criminal Code. This section gives an opening to those sentenced to life imprisonment in Canada because they were found guilty of murder.

The purpose of the bill is simply to delete this section of the Criminal Code. When I read a bill like this one, I always feel embarrassed, because there are two aspects to be considered in such situations.

First of all, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the victims and their families, who went through the horrible tragedy of seeing loved ones murdered. We say to ourselves: It is quite normal for people found guilty of such crimes to go to prison for the rest of their lives, since it was the sentence handed down by the court, the jury, the judge.

Yet, other considerations must be taken into account. First, Parliament put this provision into the Code following the great debate held in the mid-1970s on the abolition of capital punishment in Canada.

As you know, Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 following a great debate in Canadian society. Those opposed to doing away with the death penalty demanded that lawmakers see to it that the people convicted of first- or second-degree murder in some circumstances be incarcerated for life.

However, Parliament introduced into the Criminal Code a provision allowing those who have served 15 years of a life sentence to apply for parole to the Chief Justice in their province.

A whole process is then initiated to review their applications. A jury is empanelled to represent citizens and hear the application.

This is not an automatic process, therefore, in that the application is reviewed. When making its determination, the jury must take into account the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence and the nature of the offence for which he was convicted.

The members of the jury represent Canadian citizens and they must make a decision based on the information provided by prison authorities. They must decide whether to reject the application, accept it at a later time, or let the applicant be paroled. In other words, this provision in our Criminal Code does not mean that those who serve life sentences can be set free after 15 years.

Why did Parliament introduce this provision in the Criminal Code? I believe it was felt, rightly so-as this was the prevailing philosophy back in the seventies and still is-that after a person has spent 15 years in jail, it might not be a bad idea to see if he should be paroled.

This has nothing to do with erasing a past mistake or offence: It is simply a matter of providing the possibility of serving one's sentence outside, instead of being kept in jail. The whereabouts of a person released on parole are still monitored and the parolee must still meet a number of conditions in order to continue to qualify for parole.

I think that the lawmakers were right to include this provision in the Criminal Code. They believed that after 15 years, a person who had committed a horrific crime could change, after thinking about we he had done and after receiving counselling from professionals while in prison. Of course, there are many people who believe-and this is somewhat the reasoning behind the motion of the hon. member for York South-Weston-that if a person has committed a crime and been sentenced to a certain number of years in prison, he must serve out his full sentence. He did what he did, the person must be locked up and a rigid approach must be taken.

However, this mind-set seems to be characterized by vengefulness and the belief in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is an approach that denies the possibility that human beings can change and improve, that under certain circumstances, they can adopt a different attitude, and once released, they will no longer necessarily pose a threat to society.

In closing, I would like to say that since this provision was first introduced into the Criminal Code, of all the applications received, 128 have been deemed admissible. Of the 128 inmates concerned, 71 have actually applied for parole. Of course, many realized that because of their conduct and the nature of the crime they had committed, there was no chance at all of their being granted parole. Of all the applications received, only 43 have actually been reviewed. Some were turned down, some saw their sentences reduced, and some were given a conditional release.

I think it is fortunate that under our Criminal Code, individuals can take advantage of an opportunity like this one. It is not very permissive. Canadian citizens who are on the jury still have the right to consider the case and to pass judgment on behalf of society. We then have an opportunity to consider the individual's potential for rehabilitation and ability to make a valid contribution to society.

I think Canadian society should be proud of having such provisions in its statutes. It shows we are not a closed society, not an intrinsically punitive society, and that we still provide certain opportunities for offenders who have served part of their sentence and who have rehabilitated themselves.

I think everyone will agree it is normal for people who have committed a crime to be punished, and no one in my party wants to make it easy for these people, but I think it is important to have a provision on the books that shows we do not give up entirely on people who have the potential to be rehabilitated.

Consequently, I will vote against the bill, because I believe that in Canada, this is a valid and useful provision to have in the Criminal Code.