Debates of March 17th, 1994

Business Of Supply

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will now resume my comments on the Reform Party's motion. I was talking about damage and compensation suits that fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Several provinces have programs to compensate victims of crime. Provincial and federal legislation on this is still inadequate, I agree, but let us at least be honest in our remarks.

We all know that the judge in a criminal trial is not there to pass the sentence desired by the victim.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the two hon. members to my right to maybe move to the back if they want to talk to each other. Thank you.

As I was saying, we all know that the judge in a criminal trial is not there to impose the sentence we or the victim would like to hear but one that he deems fair and acceptable taking into account social standards and the circumstances of the case.

That a victim or his or her loved ones are dissatisfied with the accused's acquittal or shocked by a light sentence is understandable. Many people see a criminal trial as legitimate revenge on a thief or an assailant. They identify with one side of the criminal trial and see themselves as prosecutors. For these people, the trial is a game between themselves and the accused. We must correct this mistake and not reinforce it through comments such as those made in today's debate.

We must tell Canadians that the criminal justice system is adversarial. We have the public prosecutor on one side, the accused on the other, and the judge in the middle. And they all get together to decide if the evidence supporting the charge against the accused is conclusive.

The victim is a witness, not a party at the trial. That is where it would be appropriate, in my opinion, to suggest major changes to the spirit of the Criminal Code and to court proceedings. That is what the Reform Party should say if it is sincere in its motion.

Either the system remains as designed and victims continue to play the role of ordinary witnesses at trials, or the victim becomes a party in the proceedings. That is the true problem: victims as witnesses or as parties at the trial.

I am convinced that we will not start a real debate on improving the lot of victims before the courts unless we make a radical choice between these two conceptions of the criminal justice system. Either the criminal trial remains a judicial inquiry where evidence is presented against the accused, whom a judge or a jury must find guilty or acquit after hearing the defence.

Traditionally, the two opposing parties are the public prosecutor and the accused. Each party calls its witnesses who, in principle, are total strangers and independent in the case.

In this system, the victim must testify on the events he or she experienced, mainly to identify the accused as the one who committed the crime.

Once the evidence is presented, the accused is found guilty only if there is no reasonable doubt about the essential facts

with which he is charged. That is our system. In most cases, it works when the evidence is conclusive.

There is an alternative to this system which has reached its limits. We could now allow the victim to be a civil party in a criminal trial. If I understand what is behind the concerns expressed by the Reform Party, I believe that such a proposal would win immediate support from most of the public. I can very well imagine a victim participating actively in a criminal trial in support of the accusation, making representations on the sentence and demanding full monetary compensation for the material and physical damage suffered.

In France, for example, the victim can be a civil party for such purposes and I do not see why we could not amend our criminal legislation to permit an active presence of all interested parties in a trial.

The victim could be represented by lawyers, produce his or her own witnesses, question and cross-examine those brought by the Crown and by the defence, plead on the evidence presented, suggest the sentence or take part in negotiations; in short, participate in the whole judicial process and even appeal any judgement.

We found out the wording of the Reform Party's motion only late yesterday afternoon. I would have liked a little more research on the subject of the motion, but I excuse the Reform Party because I believe that the motion was improvised and made up just hours before. We will agree that it only conveys a vague criticism of the whole judicial system and of the underlying legislation.

Still, I must admit that this slapdash motion gives us an opportunity to propose a major change in the spirit of criminal law to the government. I believe that the victim cannot be a mere passive witness outside the proceedings in which he or she should be a full participant, like the accused.

I think that if people feel that criminals are better treated than their victims by the courts, this perception is largely due to their exclusion from the proceedings.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member. I was anxious to hear it. At first I was under the impression that she was a newly elected member such as myself who has been here for only a little while. Shortly after listening to the beginning of her speech I began to realize that she was not a newly elected member because she was running on with the rhetoric we have heard over and over from various members who have been here in the past.

It is the same kind of thing we hear constantly. Things are going well. We have a great system. We do not need changes. She was making statements that had nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House but was suggesting that the motion states that a fair trial for criminals should be eliminated.

On searching the motion I cannot see anywhere it suggests anything like that. We are trying to say that in a number of cases, and it is an unlimited number, we have evidence that the rights of the victim are being overrun by the rights of the criminal.

I would ask the member the same question which I referred to earlier. To give a lady in Montreal peace of mind, to give her the ability to continue the healing process she is going to have to go through after being raped a number of times by an individual, she requested the perpetrator be tested for AIDS so she could at least eliminate that from her worries. The courts in our system ruled that the criminal did not have to submit a sample to determine if he had AIDS and the request from the victim was denied.

Had the hon. member been the person to make the choice I would like to know if she would honour the request of the victim and have the criminal tested for AIDS or would she make the decision the court made, that the criminal did not have to submit under his rights under the charter.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we keep saying that we are here as legislators and nothing else. So, I will not put myself in the shoes of a judge and, based on the very succinct summary of facts presented by our colleagues, tell you what I would have done. First of all, I would need to be apprised of all the facts, as a judge would, before I could hand down a judgement. I think that it is inappropriate to ask me what I would have done in the place of a judge, since I did not get to hear all the witnesses as the judge did at the time. I think that the hon. member's question is totally unjustified.

On the other hand, the member's comment tends to indicate that the system is flawed. That is exactly the point I made in my speech. In case the hon. member did not hear, I will repeat what I said, because that is exactly what I said: our system is flawed and there certainly is room for improvement. In fact, I brought up a suggestion whereby the victim would no longer be just a victim but rather take an active part in the proceedings. I think it was an interesting proposal, at least that was my opinion, but that may not be what the hon. member heard. So, this is my answer to the hon. member.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the first part of the hon. member's comments. I was a little surprised to hear her criticizing the motion that is before the House. It talks about changing that which has been part of the Canadian system over centuries.

Why is it that when my party talks about changing something because we feel it is not serving its purposes that we are criticized and yet the party that she represents is questioning the whole make-up of the country because it does not believe that it is justified? How can she criticize us for wanting to change the justice system when she wants to change the whole fabric of our country?

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member heard correctly. I did criticize the motion, which is very vague and is reminiscent of what any small tabloid would use as a main headline. That is what prompted me to say this motion was haphazard, disjointed. It is like saying that we are all in favour of virtue and hate winter. In fact, that is very much the style of this motion. I made an effort to debate it in an intelligent and appropriate manner because I found it to be incredibly general. That is why I criticized it the way I did.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion of the hon. member.

As the member of Parliament for Burlington I spent much of my election campaign discussing these issues. As previous speakers on this side have quite rightly pointed out, the government has barely passed the 100-day mark in office.

My constituents are very concerned about justice issues. They are also concerned about crime. They look to the government to address these issues and they want changes that will have a positive impact on Canadian society.

The government has just assumed its position. We have only been here for 100 days but we have already signalled quite clearly and the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have forcefully stated that we are committed to action to reform the criminal justice system.

I speak here of balanced, thoughtful reform that addresses the needs of Canadians for protection and Canadians' belief in compassion.

I must remind hon. members that this government has already provided full details on its policy concerning criminal and justice issues. Even before the election, we laid down our agenda for reforming the criminal justice system once we would be in office.

This agenda reflects the expectations of Canadians, as they have expressed them. The Liberal Party has consulted the people of Canada and obtained their full support.

As a party we said explicitly what action we intended to take on a range of issues, issues such as young offenders, crime prevention, gun control, prostitution, sentencing and rehabilitation of sex offenders, violence against women and children, and we talked about parole.

The range of issues speaks volumes. It cries out for a comprehensive approach, one that considers root causes, that thinks of prevention as a key element of every solution, not just shutting the barn door after the horse has gone.

That does not mean, as the hon. member opposite would have us think, that considered approaches somehow place the rights of criminals over the plight and the rights of victims. This is a cant. This is a one dimensional perspective that does not stand up to scrutiny.

As I have said, we have already signalled clearly that we intend to follow through on our promises. The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have indicated that work is already well in progress on these areas. This work will reform our system so that the victims of crime, the public, both specifically and in the larger sense, are first, the paramount consideration in the operation of our criminal justice system.

The Minister of Justice has indicated in the House that he intends to bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The Solicitor General has said here and elsewhere that he intends to bring forth amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I am pleased that all the foregoing topics are on the agenda next week at the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice which both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General will attend. The government has also signalled its intent to bring forth amendments to sentencing, again with the intent of improving the lot of victims during the judicial process.

Probably the most crucial plank in our paper on crime and justice issues had to do with crime prevention. I am pleased that we are working on the elimination of root causes of crime. Many of Canada's criminals have known a life of poverty and inequality, an environment that taught them little about positive conflict resolutions, an environment quite unfamiliar to many members of the Chamber.

I am pleased we are focusing on a national crime prevention program because we can perhaps make the biggest strides in helping victims there. I believe we must do our utmost to ensure that as few Canadians as possible become victims of crime in the first place.

Members opposite would have us believe that one dimensional answers such as increasing the rate and length of incarceration would be a key solution. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. If locking up people was a

measure of absence of crime we would be one of the most crime free countries in the world. As I have said, we are looking at approaches that address underlying causes of crime and that integrate crime prevention strategies.

Law enforcement has been the traditional mainstay of crime prevention strategies, but law enforcement is not enough on its own and that has been demonstrated. Experience shows that for truly effective crime prevention law enforcement must be integrated with social development, including social programs and better education, community level participation in crime prevention and in crime solutions, not just locking up people.

Burlington as part of the Halton region has been extremely successful in its crime prevention strategy. Under the direction of Chief Harding, Burlington in the Halton region has become the safest community in North America. Block Parent programs, community involvement in conflict resolution strategies and incorporating support groups such as rotary clubs ensure that we will have a multipronged approach to crime prevention.

It is important to remember as well that Burlington has seen some very sensational crimes and has been wracked as a community by crime. Two of our young women died very violent deaths: Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy. Kristen French from down the highway a ways was found in our community. We were all brought home very horribly one summer to the reality of violence in our communities.

However, the government recognizes that when incarceration is the only solution to protect the public it is in fact what we must do.

The Solicitor General has promised tough measures for repeat sex offenders and high risk offenders who offer little hope of immediate rehabilitation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General has enumerated the reforms the minister shall be bringing forth to offer better protection from those who would prey on the vulnerable. He has also noted that the government does not intend to give up on these offenders.

Surely the mark of a civilized society is how it treats its offenders. Communities need to become participants in the process of safely reintegrating offenders into Canadian society. Rehabilitation programs need to be expanded and improved so that offenders return to our communities with a much lower risk of reoffending. We need more victims aid programs, to be sure, and our crime and justice paper focused on that concern. It also identified the need for more public education and research on criminal justice, recidivism, crime prevention and alternatives to incarceration and victims aid.

Surely a grave cause of concern in the area of victims of crime is the suffering caused by violence within our families. Family violence results in a great many victims, both directly and indirectly. I believe we are paying a very high cost for allowing such violence to continue. We have pledged as a government to do our utmost to break the cycle of family violence.

Statistics demonstrate the undeniable link between sexual abuse of girls in their own families and prostitution. Many of Canada's prostitutes are also drug addicts, condemned to a very dangerous life because of the misfortune of being born into an abusive family.

I believe the Reform motion is motivated out of fear. While we cannot ignore the very real fear and the very justified fear some Canadians feel, we must temper it with rationality. As a woman I am aware that I can become a victim in two ways. Merely because I am a woman I am more vulnerable to assault including sexual assault and, second, the fear of crime takes away my freedom. Like other vulnerable groups, children and the elderly, women must always be conscious of their environment on the streets, at home and at work. We must think of these issues all the time. We must never let our guard down. Sometimes it is exhausting; always it is unfair.

The member speaks of elderly women at home and afraid. I too am very concerned about this issue, not just because I have a significant number of single and elderly women in their homes in Burlington. I also recognize that at one point I too will be one of those women. However, I am encouraged that some of our young women are starting movements and marches such as "Taking Back the Night". My old high school in Hamilton, Cathedral Girls, organized such a march after the death of Nina de Villiers.

I am also aware that pornography, killer cards and sometimes advertising campaigns which present women as objects rather than as persons deserving respect and safety, encourage violence against women.

As a nation we must address these issues. We must educate our young people to respect others, to respect their person and to respect their property. The government must lead that discussion. We must enact laws that reflect our abhorrence of violence against women, against children and against the elderly. These are the issues we must address if we are to ensure the rights of victims. I hardly think we can be expected to redress imbalances in these complex issues overnight, but we can be expected to think long and deep about solutions and to ensure these solutions are comprehensive in scope.

There are many crimes, many victims of crime, and many causes for such crimes. That is what our crime and justice issues paper recognized.

Any knee-jerk reaction that promises to help victims is doomed to failure. I do not condemn the outrage crime causes, especially to its victims. On the contrary. What I do condemn, however, is offering simplistic solutions to complex inderdependent and intertwined problems of society. For example, perpetuating the perception that all criminals are violent is grossly misleading, as is the myth that the system is somehow dedicated to the rights of criminals over the public.

Maintaining that solutions to crime simply involve the criminal justice system getting tougher, meaner, stiffer, is to offer totally inadequate and in the end bankrupt answers. In fact such a philosophy will prevent us from ever getting to and fixing the root causes of crime and victimization. As long as we pretend to the public that there is the possibility of easy answers we cannot count on its support and participation in the search for a multidimentional solution to crime will be limited.

I will concede and even argue that the public is increasingly concerned about crime and about being victimized. That is why the Liberal Party took the unprecedented step of laying out a comprehensive crime and justice agenda almost one year ago. The government plans to act deliberately, methodically and systematically with this agenda. I for one will be an active participant.

We do not wish to rush in with hastily drafted laws, with a scatter-gun approach, so that when the smoke has cleared something would not measure up. These are crucial issues. They need to be carefully addressed, closely studied by Parliament and properly debated. They need a wider public airing in cities, in towns, in villages and in neighbourhoods, and often even within families.

In the end we will be measured by what we accomplish, not by what we promise. We will proceed in a measured pace with our agenda, an agenda I remind members that recognizes the complex nature of crime, its origins, and the corresponding need for proper solutions.

The Canadian public expects solutions from the government and we will deliver on that.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. Her approach is very generous and her objectives noble. I know that she is not a Cabinet member, but I would appreciate it if she could elaborate on some comments she made concerning young people and prevention.

As the opposition's youth critic, I have a particular interest in this issue. Young people are often described as being a problem when, in fact, they are the human resources of the future. I believe it is very important to have programs, especially for first-time young offenders, to rehabilitate them, to help their social reintegration, so that they can become productive citizens.

I want to make a comment before the hon. member answers. I notice that, in spite of the observations made by government members in general, a whole slew of measures, such as legislation on young offenders, juvenile prostitution, etc., are announced by the government. Yet, when we ask why nothing is done, we are invariably told about how difficult it is to implement even existing legislation. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a new piece of legislation, and parliamentarians will certainly co-operate, but it is obvious that the government has some problems with implementation.

I now go back to my question, which is: What specific measures will the government take for prevention and rehabilitation?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This is a pressing issue in my riding and I often referred to it in the election campaign.

I believe there is a serious problem. We seem to be saying in our committee that there is a problem with young people, that young offenders are really dangerous, that they are terrible children, that they murder people, etc. This is not fair since it does not apply at all to the young people I know. We must do something about this notion some members have in our committee.

There is a problem with some young people. When a young person breaks the law, it must be recognized that such an offence will have consequences, and it must be understood that there are laws in our society and that they must be respected.

We often hear some people say that they would like to see young offenders appear before an adult court, which I think is very dangerous. I have a problem with that approach. I think that if you send a young man to Millhaven, you are only giving him the opportunity to become a smarter criminal which, I think, is terrible. This government discussed amendments to current laws with provincial justice ministers, because provinces are responsible for rehabilitating children and young people.

It must be spelled out in the Act that some young people are dangerous and we must have another approachor them, I think. We must have specific rules on this.

I think we must review changes to the system by having, for instance, a record that would follow these young people.

I will have to speak in English on this part or I am going to get myself into trouble.

We have to change it so that there is a record kept on youth who have committed crime, especially when they are very dangerous. We have to ensure that society is protected and that in some cases the record is not wiped out. In some cases we could do a better accounting of these young people and ensure that they do not get caught up in worse crime.

However, in terms of crime prevention I think we can do a lot through education and by removing the root causes of crime. I mentioned family violence in my speech. Kids learn this stuff at home and from television sometimes. They learn it from an environment that is hostile to many people in our communities. They learn that it is okay to be violent against women.

All of us have to take responsibility for that and we have to change that system. We have to tell kids that it is not okay, that they can resolve conflict by discussing things, by coming to resolutions, by using alternative methods whether it is in the school yard, in the family or with others as they grow up.

I think we can do a lot as a nation about improving our society if we can address that. We as a community have done very well in Burlington on some of that. I have been pleased by some of the initiatives in the greater Burlington area and the greater Hamilton area that have incorporated Rotary Clubs and school children and teaching them this sense.

However, we do have to address those issues.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member missed some of the point in the motion of the Reform Party today, the point being that when there is a question of whether the convicted person's rights are to be weighed against the victim's rights that the victim's rights should supersede in every instance.

The member referred to prevention as far as crime is concerned. That is great. That is exactly the route that we have to go in the long run.

If your house were burning down, I suppose you should at some time figure out what caused that, but before you do that you should put out the fire. That is kind of what we are facing here today.

We have problems with young offenders particularly. I would ask the hon. member if she agrees with the way young offenders are treated today, especially repeat offenders who are not tried in adult courts. I know she made some allusion to adult court treatment. Nobody in the Reform Party, by the way, agrees with incarcerating young offenders in facilities like Millhaven.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I gather the hon. member is asking the hon. member for Burlington to respond. With unanimous consent I can give the member a couple of minutes to respond, if she wishes.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I do not think that I in fact missed the comments in the motion.

I think there is a perception perhaps by some members of our community, and some members of the Reform Party, that suggests that the house really is on fire and that we are all running from it at this very moment. That is not correct.

I have heard hon. members say that people are falling left and right every day. That is not what is happening in Canada. That might be happening in the United States and I certainly will be working to make sure that our community of Canada is never like the United States. But the house is not on fire. There is smoke in one of the rooms, maybe in two rooms, but the house is not on fire.

We have to address the right of victims. I for one believe that we have to consider victim impact statements. In Burlington CAVEAT and other groups addressed this issue and they are working on solutions with the government.

I do not buy this perception and the encouragement of this perception that we are all at risk all the time. I am probably at risk most of the time, but we have to recognize that there is a careful balance. I do not want this government to turn around and have knee-jerk reactions to everything that is going on. We need to have a very careful balance. We need to have a methodical approach. Otherwise we run the risk of making mistakes that will only further encourage crime in our communities and I do not want that.

I will be encouraging the minister, as I have on many occasions, as he will say. I think we are big enough to address crime prevention as well as some of the issues related to the Young Offenders Act and current criminals, as well as prevention and removing some of the root causes of crime. I think we can handle the job.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

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-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I see from the hon. member's speech that he has spent considerable time and effort in doing research and obtaining statistics.

Could he tell the House if he spent an equal amount or any effort in looking at some of the proposed measures in crime prevention that have been studied by committees of the House in the past? Has he reviewed any of the recommendations in looking at whether any of the measures would be of assistance?

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be as straightforward and frank in answering questions as possible. I will try not to duck them or dodge them.

I would like the hon. member to make specific reference to the reports and surveys that have been done. I spent 14 years as a law enforcement officer and we looked at all sorts of plans and programs in the area of prevention. I support any program that will successfully provide results in the area of prevention.

I know that the Young Offenders Act was designed to do that. I know that some of these other measures were designed to do that. However, I would advise the hon. member that mercy does not rob justice. When very serious acts are committed against individuals which denies them freedom to move and takes their lives in many cases, then there must be an appropriate penalty. If through our desire and feelings for mercy we create a justice system that is not going to hold an individual accountable for his or her acts, then do not expect the system to prevent crimes of that nature as a result of the sentence that is imposed. That simply will not work.

If we do not to enforce the law in areas where there is law, if we do not amend those areas that do not hold people accountable for their actions such as in the area of the Young Offenders Act and I refer specifically to 10 year-olds, all the preventive programs in the world are going to fail. We have tried many of them.

I hope my answer satisfies the hon. member.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to intervene and comment for the purpose of clarifying the section 745 provision and ask a question of the member. I have considerable sympathy for his position on this issue and how his views relate to the position of victim, which is of course the way the opposition motion is phrased today.

The section 745 provision enables someone who has a 25 year minimum incarceration to ask a jury if they might have an earlier parole eligibility date than the 25 years. A person who is sentenced to life imprisonment has a sentence for life. Therefore, it is parole eligibility that is shortened not necessarily the sentence.

Could the member comment on how that would relate to the position of victims, victims beyond the person who is dead of course. I guess we are talking about family when we talk of victims of a murder.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I was not able to complete my speech. Perhaps if I had I would have been able to cover that area. The concerns raised by members of families of murder victims, when they see the murderer released early, are very significant. We would like to see provisions whereby the victim's family can appear and testify at the section 745 hearings. We would like that section removed. I would like to see it removed entirely.

The hon. member brings up a good point of whether or not a parole should be granted to someone who is sentenced to 25 years in prison. Those who have advocated section 745 and would advocate the retention of it would say yes. But then where do we stop?

If the murderer in court says: "I am sorry and I will never do it again" should that mean we should release the person? Or sentence the person to a month imprisonment? I think there is an area of penalty here that we must address and I do not think the system is addressing it.

I hope I have answered the hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the debate today. I would like to commend the hon. member for Crowfoot on his comments. I did not know until he spoke just now that he was formerly a member of a law enforcement agency. I would like to say that in my years as a practitioner of law, both as a defence counsel and as a prosecutor, I worked extensively with members of various police departments; municipal police in Halifax and Dartmouth and the RCMP, and I have great respect and admiration for them in what is a very tough job. I know that the hon. member has obviously worked in that area and knows what a tough job it is.

I want to make perfectly clear that I am not specifically referring to the member for Crowfoot here, I am referring to the resolution itself but when we debate these matters we tend to forget the basis on which our law is built and the fact that the system which we live under and the system that governs us is, at best, faulty. But it appears to be in the evolution of both politics and law enforcement the best thing we have come up with thus far.

I look at the words of the resolution: "That this House condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim".

I guess I have to say that the resolution is almost charming in its naivety. I am not going to get into the question that the government has been in power a scant four months and that there are many things that have to be done within the legislative calendar to ensure that the government runs as it should and that the government fulfils its promises, which it has done to date and will continue to do. I want to talk about the phrase "the allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim". As always I like to declare my prejudices early in any debate.

As those on this side of the House know, I represent the city of Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia. There is a name that will ring down the annals of criminal justice in Nova Scotia for many years to come, and that is the name of Donald Marshall Jr. I do not know whether my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House are aware of the Marshall case-they certainly should be-but I can tell them that for a period in the province of Nova Scotia, finishing in 1989-90, this case was a preoccupation of a great percentage of the legal profession, both prosecutors, defence counsel, the judiciary. There was a special royal commission to look into what had happened.

Donald Marshall was a young man who served 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Some terrible things were uncovered in the Marshall inquiry in the way criminal justice worked, or conversely did not work, in the province of Nova Scotia.

We have talked a lot in the House lately about questions of racism and bigotry. There is no question that one of the reasons Donald Marshall served 11 years for a crime he did not commit was racism. One of the reasons was bigotry. There were police officers who suborned perjury, there were dreadful miscarriages of justice, a complete lack of accommodation for cultural and lifestyle differences in the fact that even the ability to communicate on the part of the accused was ignored and so on. Evidence was suppressed. It is a black mark on the escutcheon of the province of Nova Scotia.

The Marshall inquiry report is 26 volumes. I know I have a copy in my office and I have read major parts of it, but in the life of a member of Parliament it would be hard to read the entire thing. But it is something that most practitioners of criminal law in Nova Scotia have availed themselves of and have read.

Over and over again what rings through your mind when you read the reports of the Marshall inquiry, when you read the reports of what happened to Junior Marshall, the words "innocent until proven guilty", "the rule of law", "due process" come back again and again.

I want to make another thing perfectly clear. In my years in the courts and practising law, particularly in my years as an advocate for women's rights and for the protection of women who are abused and battered and of children who are abused and

battered, I probably spent more time enraged at the lack of protection that our system has for victims of crime than anything else.

This country is littered, as unfortunately are other countries of the west, with the detritus of violence against women and children. Nonetheless we have to look to the whole picture to solve the problem and not merely zero in on one side and what I think, with the greatest of respect to the framers of this motion, what is ostensibly an inadequate response.

We have talked here about lowering the age of young offenders and with the greatest respect I do not think that is the answer. I can tell you as someone who has thought long and hard about this, someone who has served on committees dealing with criminal legislation in this House over the past five years, the situation that I think we must all remember is those two little boys in England who murdered the baby. This a situation that must come to the fore when we are talking about this very thing today.

I was discussing this in the lobby just a minute ago with one of the minister's staff. On the one hand we both agreed that we are horrified at the actions of those two boys, 10 years old when they killed the baby, to even go back and think of the testimony that came forward at that trial of that two-year old who kept getting up when he was hit again and again.

I am equally horrified that two 10-year old boys are found by the courts in English justice to be bad seeds, if you will. I think it very strange and very unlikely, too much of a coincidence, that two innately evil creatures would end up living next door to each other. There has to be more to it than that.

I use that example to illustrate the fact that merely increasing sentences, merely incarcerating for longer periods of time, merely going at the punishment angle is not going to give us the answer.

What we have to do is look at the causes. There are a variety of causes. I know that my colleague from Crowfoot and my colleague from Calgary who is also a former police officer would agree that other things come into the formation of criminal activity, that poverty is a part of it, that lack of education is a part of it, that poor nutrition is a part of it, that lack of education is a part of it, that the cycle of violence within the home is a part of it and on and on and on.

Criminals are made. They are very rarely born.

The whole question of how we deal with victims and how we deal with criminals should not be connected in this death battle if you will that is one before the other. The rights of victims must be respected. They must be listened to. There must be services for victims unquestionably.

The fact that we have not addressed this as a nation and as a society is, I agree entirely with the mover of the motion, something that we have to deal with and we have to deal with soon.

It is not an either-or situation. It is not going to improve the lot of the families for example of the McDonald's victims in Sydney River, Cape Breton, if you extend the sentences for the murderers, now convicted. Revenge is not what the framers of the criminal law should deal in. What we deal with in legislating the criminal law has to be deterrence and protection of society. Those are the reasons that we legislate in criminal law.

If we look at it as redress, how do we redress the families of the McDonald's victims? How do we redress those families? We cannot restore the lives of the victims. We cannot restore shattered families in the emotional sense. No money could possibly come along to fill that terrible void at the loss of young people. No money can do anything to restore the fact that the McNeil girl has major and serious brain damage and that however long she lives, she will never be the bright articulate young woman she was when she went to work in that McDonald's restaurant last May. Nothing can change that. It should not be connected.

Yes, we prove the crime and we have the appropriate response to the crime and we deal with the victims, but we are dealing in a separate theatre. We are dealing in a separate area.

When we talk about the rights of victims vis-à-vis the rights of criminals, I go back again to the Donald Marshall case. To hon. members across the way who I feel think that we on this side are somehow lax on the criminal law, I say to each one of them to remember the adage that those of us who suffered through law school will all remember, that it is a truism in legal education that it is better for a thousand guilty to go free than for one innocent to be convicted.

I wonder whether those on the other side would agree with that or not. I see that my friend from Calgary does not agree. It is an interesting point that that phrase has hung around for a very long time. I wonder if each of those members on the other side would look at that question and if it was not objective, if it were subjective-in other words, if you were the innocent victim-does that phrase become more valid? If it were your child who was the innocent victim, does that phrase become more valid? If it was your neighbour's child-all politics is local, all issues are local-think of it within the context of your own group, your own circle, and whether that makes it more relevant.

It has been talked about here today that we should lower the age of young offenders. I do not have children. I borrow my friend's because I can give them back. I know that most of you on the other side are parents and you do have children and you

know that children get into difficulties. They make mistakes. Is the answer to deal harshly?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It is? I guess I have to say that is the reason that you are on that side and I am on this side and we are the ones with the majority, praise the Lord.

I can only say that in my years as prosecutor under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act I saw a number of cases where the child was given the benefit of the doubt. I remember one in particular where a young man came up before us accused of 40 counts of break and enter. He had made the mistake in the particular exercise on the day. He was breaking into cars and stealing car stereos. He happened to be doing it in a shopping centre in Halifax. The cars were all parked against the fence and an off duty policeman who happened to be mowing his backyard heard the noise, looked over the fence and the inevitable happened.

The boy was charged and I was prosecuting. There were a number of people who came along. It was a very difficult family background.

A very well respected school principal came to speak for the boy, who had scored very well on intelligence tests, who had certainly a lot going for him as he had a lot going against him. In consult the prosecutor, the defence, the judge, the probation officers, the police officers, everybody got together and asked: "What are we going to do about this?" There was a compromise reached. A family member would be willing to take responsibility for this young man and ensure that he was not subjected to the same influences he had been subjected to in the family group, that he would not see the rest of the family who were the bad influences, et cetera.

To make a long story short, that young man eventually won a scholarship to a famed international institution of higher learning and is today leading a very productive and wonderful life in this country where he is making a great contribution.

I do not hesitate to say in the interests of truth, justice and the Canadian way that was one of the success stories. As I know my two colleagues on the other side from law enforcement would be quick to agree, we did not have a lot of those success stories. We had more of the other kind.

The point again is if that young man had been, as we used to say in those days, piped to the juvenile detention home I do not think he would be where he is today. I do not think he would be a productive member of society. I think he would probably be in super max or he would be dead in all likelihood.

I guess I have to say that success story means more to me than all the ones with whom we did not succeed because they were too far gone, it was too late and so on. The ones with whom we did not succeed went through the detention process, many of them in detention until they had passed the age of being juveniles, until they turned 18 whereupon they went out and committed some further offence and went to Dorchester Penitentiary or Sackville correctional centre.

If we do not take risks to attempt to save young people then we are just consigning young people to a life of crime. That is why I speak against this motion. That is why I say we have to look at the way the child is going. The word child is very important here because we are talking about children when we talk about young offenders. We are not talking about hardened criminals.

I also in conclusion would like to say that given the tenor of this motion and given the statements I have heard from the members of the Reform Party in particular, I am sure that we can then count on the support of such members as the member for Crowfoot and the member for Calgary Northeast to support us when we come in at some future time, as I am sure we will, with stronger gun control measures. I am sure as former police officers both of these gentlemen know how important it is that guns in particular be kept out of the hands of a majority of people who have no idea how to use them.

What about those kids who are potential criminals. You do not want guns lying around the house do you?

I hope that hon. members will see their way clear to support this kind of legislation when and if it comes up in this session of the House.

I have spoken with police officers in my riding in the province of Nova Scotia and among the strongest supporters of tougher gun control legislation are indeed the members of the police force.

At any rate, I would just like to say that I am delighted to speak on this topic today because I am very proud of the crime and justice package that was in the red book. I know that the crime and justice package will in due course come into this House in the form of legislation. I am sure that as with all of the promises in the red book those legislative measures will make Canada a better place. Also remember that being a better place is also a place of humanity and compassion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Before proceeding to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-the environment; the hon. member for Brant-guaranteed annual minimum income.

I would like to apologize to the member for Fraser Valley West for having missed his turn. We will now have the 10-minute questions and comments period.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only applaud what was said by the hon. member for Halifax, especially her concluding remarks on the issue of gun control. As you know, following certain tragic events, a committee was asked to make a thorough review of this question, but the result was a bill that was a compromise, both in substance and form, since in most cases any action that may be taken will be based on regulations that have yet to be approved by Cabinet or the government. At the time, the minister was able to get a bill through Parliament that could be seen as a major step forward but left the government with considerable discretion in drafting regulations, unlike the previous legislation, and this, we felt, was a major shortcoming.

Not surprisingly, we now have regulations that are largely unsatisfactory. For instance, so-called semi-automatic weapons, which are practically assault weapons, are still sold across Canada. The weapon used at the Polytechnique can still be purchased as a hunting weapon.

I know the Minister of Justice intends to take action. I simply want to point out that he can act very quickly on many aspects of gun control through the regulations, without having to go through the legislative process.

I may add that we would welcome improvements to the legislation itself, especially with respect to the registration of firearms. In the course of our consultations, I met many hunters and groups of hunters who had no objection to firearms registration. And contrary to what was said at the time, especially with respect to the cost, since we register cars and a number of other products, it would not be very difficult to use our current system to register firearms. We both encourage and request the government to act.

Would the hon. member for Halifax support us in our endeavour to get the government to speed up the passage of firearms legislation, perhaps even before the Act comes into effect?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As he knows, unquestionably the minister has responded in the House on several occasions by referring to his own commitment to the subject of gun control.

On the actual legislative itinerary the member will have to ask the minister. Certainly it is part and parcel of our policy. Certainly, as the hon. member knows as well, this question is extremely close to my heart and one that I along with many members on this side support very strongly.

I suggest to him that if he is just patient all things will come in due course.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has quite a spirit of debate, undoubtedly obtained through her years in the courtroom. I should point out that to debate an issue such as this, there has to be some basis of fact.

The example of the Marshall affair in Nova Scotia was one where Mr. Marshall had actually contributed to his own demise in the sense that he lied to the police as was evident at the trial.

I would also like to point out the member brings to mind certain things that happen in society that may be contrary to the norm, where mistakes in judgment could be made in court. We do not live in a perfect society. This is one of the reasons we have laws. We also have high expectations for members of Parliament, yet often they have gone awry. MPs should be held accountable and are not above the law, yet it has happened that they seem to have been above the law on occasion.

Justice must not only be done but it must be perceived to be done. I believe the hon. member should get out of the committees she is on and into the society which she talks about. We cannot have deterrence if we do not have punishment. Would the hon. member address that point. How can we have deterrence if we do not have punishment?