Madam Speaker, this is a very strong motion. It is strongly worded in that it condemns the present system. Condemn is a strong word, but the people of Canada are in fact doing that.
Certainly in my area of the country they are condemning various aspects and portions of the criminal justice system that turns murderers and rapists out on the street to commit those offences again, that cannot even hold 10-year-olds accountable for criminal conduct. These are some of the things that I will be touching on in my speech.
I am sure the Young Offenders Act was not a knee-jerk reaction. It was well thought out and planned by the previous Liberal government. We see the fruits that are being borne by that ill-conceived piece of legislation, at least in parts of it where now it has to be reformed. I ask, as I asked before in this House, where was the leadership and where was the vision.
Past and present governments inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, which is of course the topic of today's opposition motion, is of particular concern to me.
I rise today to speak about a section of the Criminal Code which I believe is a blatant example of the growing disregard for the rights of victims versus the rights of criminals.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code, which gives convicted murderers access to the courts to seek a reduction in the number of years they must serve in prison before being eligible for release on parole, is a prime example of this disregard and makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.
I would like to briefly provide members of this House with a history of this section of the Criminal Code. Murder was first classified as capital or non-capital in 1961. Before then only one punishment was prescribed for murder which was the death penalty. After 1961 only capital murder was punishable by death. This was the murder that was planned and delivered for the murder of a police officer or a prison guard. This was further reduced and only the killing of a police officer was punishable by death.
Persons convicted of non-capital murder were sentenced to life but were eligible for parole after seven years. However, this too changed and after 1967 all those serving a life sentence for murder could not be recommended for parole before serving at least 10 years.
In 1974 amendments were made to the Criminal Code which allowed the sentencing judge to increase the parole eligibility period to a maximum of 20 years. On February 24, 1976 Bill C-84 was introduced to abolish the death penalty and to create two new categories of murder, first and second degree murder, both of which carry the minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
Those convicted of first degree murder would serve 25 years before being eligible for parole, while second degree murderers would serve between 10 and 25 years prior to parole eligibility.
Apparently the 25 year minimum penalty was the trade-off for achieving the abolition of the death penalty. Instead of the death penalty, society was to be protected by incarcerating murderers for a minimum period of 25 years. Prior to Bill C-84, death sentences commuted to life imprisonment had resulted in an average of only 13.2 years served prior to release on parole.
Contained within Bill C-84 was a clause which created section 745 of the Criminal Code. Although first and second degree murderers are not eligible for parole for 25 years, under section 745 after 15 years murderers can apply for a parole review which effectively decrease their sentence.
Section 745.(1) of the Criminal Code reads:
Where a person has served at least fifteen years of his sentence-he may apply to the appropriate Chief Justice in the province in which the conviction took place for a reduction in his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
In my opinion section 745 makes a complete mockery of the so-called life sentence. It provides what one parliamentarian said: "A glimmer of hope, if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals". This former parliamentarian obviously had no consideration whatsoever for the victims of murder or their families.
What murderer in this country has ever given his victim or his victim's family a glimmer of hope? When a murderer takes an innocent life it cannot be returned. The victim cannot be brought back to life, and likewise when a murderer is given life imprisonment it should mean exactly that, life, with no glimmer of hope nor any incentive to ease the burden or the severity of the punishment for this awful crime.
The glimmer of hope advocates have made a farce of our penal system by extending to murderers a right they denied to their victim. Section 745 had not been reviewed until 1991 and 1992 when two private members' bills were introduced in the last Parliament challenging the existence of section 745.
This morning the hon. member from York South-Weston introduced a private member's bill to get rid of this law which gives convicted killers a chance for early parole. I would like to tell the hon. member that he has a great deal of support from our party for that bill. I am confident he will also have the support of many Canadians, including the Potts family of Hamilton, Ontario, whose daughter was murdered 15 years ago by Norman Joseph Clairmount.
In 1978 Clairmount was handed the statutory life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years for the brutal and savage murder of the innocent 19-year old Potts girl.
On February 8, 1993 an Ontario jury deliberated less than three hours before deciding to reduce the number of years. This murderer is eligible for parole in 18 years instead of 25 years. Because of section 745 and the jury's finding in favour of Clairmont, he was immediately eligible to apply to the National Parole Board for unescorted, temporary absences. He is now eligible to apply for full parole in 1995 instead of the year 2002.
This is not an isolated case. A number of convicted murderers have been successful with their section 745 applications.
Brian John Boyko of B.C., convicted in 1974 of capital murder, won a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility to 16 years from 20 after a 1990 hearing.
At a 1990 review hearing in Winnipeg, Larry Sheldon, convicted in 1974 of non-capital murder in the rape-murder of a nine-year old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 20 years won a reduction to 17 years.
Convicted of first degree murder in the shooting of a Calgary policeman during a credit union hold-up and hostage taking in 1976, William John Nicols won a reduction of his parole ineligibility period to 20 years at an Alberta hearing.
Jean-Louis Rodrigue, convicted of second degree murder in the killing of a Montreal peace officer, Charles Simard who murdered two teenagers and convicted killer Gilles Levine, all of Quebec, won reductions in their parole ineligibility period to 15 years.
Also in Quebec, Real Chartrand, sentenced to hang in 1972 for killing a police officer after an armed robbery, obtained full parole after serving 17 years of his sentence because of section 745.
There have been numerous applications made under section 745 of the Criminal Code. Some murderers have been successful and some have not but those who have not can make application again and again, all at a tremendous cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
Under section 745(1) the convicted person must apply to the chief justice of the province in which the conviction took place. The jury review must take place in the same province which means the inmate must be transported to the appropriate jurisdiction.
The Canadian Police Association believes this is only the beginning. It says that approximately 655 murderers over the next 15 years and as many as 180 in the next four will apply for early parole under section 745. This, it contends, will effectively reduce a life sentence by about 40 per cent. In other words, killers could serve just over half of their 25 year sentences. This raises two important concerns.
The first is with regard to the financial aspects and the second involves the integrity of the criminal justice system. Repealing section 745 will result in an enormous reduction in the costs associated with holding jury reviews and in transporting inmates to the province in which they were convicted.
The greater issue at the heart of this matter and the purpose of today's opposition motion is that the criminal justice system is allowing the rights of the criminal to supersede those of the victim.
Section 745 is a prime example of this fact. It gives a convicted killer the right to apply for a reduction in his sentence in which a jury reviews only selected evidence-