House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That is their kind of thinking. Listen to the applause that rings out from the Reform.
On page 4294 of Hansard , the hon. member for Beaver River said: Yes, criminals need attention, rehabilitation, love and caring''. And the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam said:It is not about rehabilitation. It is about providing a fair and just penalty''.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
They want more and they are going to get it.
Also on page 4294 of Hansard , the hon. member for Beaver River said: ``Some murderers and violent offenders are curable. They are not all incorrigible. Some of them will be rehabilitated. Some will care and will have a genuine conversion experience in prison. They will want to make their lives better and pay back to society some of the terrible things they did by doing good work''. That does not fit well with the hon. member for Wild Rose.
Then we have the hon. member for Peace River getting into it. He said: "These inmates do have the right to earn their way out of prison after a period of time. If they do try to upgrade their skills they have a chance to be rehabilitated". Yet the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville said: "I question the need for killers to have any rights when they are in jail".
Listen to the inconsistencies in those statements.
Then we have the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who is considered a moderate in the party and who was reduced to tears after his public caning at the caucus meeting of the Reform Party last summer. On page 3885 of Hansard He said: ``We are not concerned about Olson. He is not going to get out''. We do not need to scare Canadians with that. That is not what the Reform Party is saying''.
Yet we had the hon. member for St. Albert on page 4260 saying: "Mr. Olson and others like him will be able to walk the streets of this country absolutely and totally free after 25 years, perhaps sooner". What garbage. Which one is right, Calgary Centre or St. Albert? Calgary Centre happened to be right on that occasion, but
my goodness, there are so many mistakes and inconsistencies in these statements that it is hard to imagine what is going on here.
Let us turn to the glimmer of hope clause. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says: "The Reform Party has been accused of being without sympathy, but it is simply not true. Reformers believe that sympathy and consideration must be for victims and for criminals".
Yet the hon. member for Crowfoot said: "Murderers should not be given a glimmer of hope or any incentive to ease the burden of the severity of the punishment for what they have done". The hon. member for Wild Rose said: "I frankly do not care if killers' hopes are dimmed by the prospect of no early release". That is what they said. Which one is speaking for the Reform Party, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca or Wild Rose? Let them make up their minds.
We then have the "throwing away the key" quote by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast who said: "The feeling is that the return of capital punishment is desirable and necessary-To cater in any way other than providing the bare necessities for existence to any of these low life individuals-". That is his opinion of these people.
The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley said: "Do not let them out. They should spend the rest of their lives behind bars". I could go on and on, but I want to turn from these inconsistencies to the question of caning.
I have a clipping from the Montreal Gazette dated Thursday, February 27 of this year. In it the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is championing caning. He said: They have a corporal punishment system''-this is in Singapore of course-and the offenders sit up and take notice of it''. Apparently they cannot sit down afterward. ``So I am going to take a look at just how effective it is,'' said the Reform justice critic, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
The article goes on to state that corporal punishment was abolished in Canada in 1972. Said the member for Calgary Northeast: "It was part of our justice system and personally I think it should be back again". He seems to have changed his tune because we all know he cancelled the trip. He wrote a little article for the Calgary Herald that I have here which was published on March 22. Shortly after that he recanted and decided that spanking, corporal punishment, caning and whipping were not things with which we really should proceed. He decided to abandon them.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast decided that the trip to Singapore was going to create waves and cause too much trouble. In fact, one of the former Reform members said that it was extremist and got the boot. She was fired right out of the party. She went to a caucus meeting and what went on there we do not know, but one suspects there was some caning and she got the boot. She said that it was extreme. Do members know something? She was right. I do not know if there is a Canadian here who does not think so except the hon. member for Wild Rose.
I have more. Here is the latest article in the Globe and Mail from the other day. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast got on to the subject of prurient literature in the prisons. Apparently somebody in some prison somewhere, I think it was in Edmonton, had received some bad magazines in the prison, was selling them and inmates were reading them. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is quoted as saying in the Globe and Mail : ``If he wants to entertain himself, give him a good book to read and they might want to start with the Bible''.
Mr. Speaker, of all people to talk about starting with the Bible. I know the hon. member for Calgary Northeast started with the Bible. He got to the book of Leviticus and quit. The problem is that he stopped when he read about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He really should have read on. There is another section of the Bible called the New Testament. If he had read that he might have had some of the milk of human kindness come out in some of his speeches.
I see the member sitting with his leader. His leader's father, as I recall, was something of a preacher and knew something about the gospel. He might do well to sit down with the leader of his party, read the New Testament and try to understand some of the intricacies of the law that was pronounced there. It might help to relieve him of some of the extremism that is exhibited in his speeches and is clearly one that is inappropriate for this kind of article.
Imagine suggesting that inmates sit down and read the Bible. Perhaps he should take a break from his parliamentary duties, which perhaps the electors of Calgary Northeast will provide after the next election, and he can sit down, read the Bible and take up another convocation, another employment opportunity-convocation is the wrong word-vocation. Never mind the "con", it is just "vo". He could get out there and preach the gospel or read the Bible in a public way. I think it would help him with his extremism.
I know some of the newspaper articles are misleading. They suggest that he is the justice critic for his party. I understand he is in fact the solicitor general critic and he is supposed to deal with matters relating to prisons.
We have here in his speeches on this bill some of the most extraordinary statements about the virtues of imprisonment and how people have to be locked up, jailed and put away. He does not say he is going to lock them up and throw away the key. However
one of the members the other day told us right here in the Chamber-I am sure I heard him say it and I think it was the hon. member for Vegreville, but I would not want to misquote and I do not have this one written down-that in fact anyone who is convicted of a violent offence should serve the entire sentence in prison. If a person gets a life sentence for a violent crime, they go to prison for life and they do not come out. If that is not lock them up and throw away the key, I do not know what is.
What we have here is the Reform Party trying to capitalize on this issue by saying on the one hand it believes in loving kindness and compassion. The hon. member for Beaver River in her speeches exemplifies this. Then we have on the other hand a group which says no, no, no. Which is party policy? I invite the leader to stand up and clarify the matter for us.
[Translation]
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
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 Bourassa-Citizenship.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-45. Before making my speech, I must say that the way the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands expresses himself is reflective of a situation that we have to put up with in this House.
The hon. member spent a lot of time replying to Reformers to conceal the fact that, in introducing this bill, the Minister of Justice has responded to the comments made by Reformers, particularly regarding the case of Clifford Olson who, as we know, became eligible to apply for parole this spring.
Reformers took advantage of the situation, and the Minister of Justice quickly improvised because, they were speaking up in the west and they still are in this House, even though it is not their turn to do so. The Reform Party made a big fuss over this issue in western Canada.
In some way, this is relatively good for the Liberal Party. When it comes to certain political issues, the Liberals often try to say two different things, depending on whether they are out west or in Quebec. This bill is a good example of that.
So, the reformers often mention that the number of dangerous offenders roaming the streets is increasing. They scare people by referring to all sorts of terrible incidents in their comments, in their questions and in their interventions in debates such as this one. They are very interested in repression, but care little about prevention and the means to avoid a rise in crime.
Once, during the period for questions and comments, I reminded a Reform Party member of a figure, and I told myself that I would bring it up again. What about it? In 1993, Canada had the fourth highest rate of incarceration in the world, 130 prisoners per 100,000 population. The country with the fourth highest rate of prisoners in the world. These figures come from the Department of Justice.
The United States leads the field, with 565 persons for 100,000 population. We are talking here about the land of liberty, where several states have the death penalty. I am speaking about the United States, of course, a country whose judicial system the Reform Party members would like to copy. Let it be noted that the Liberals are very sensitive to the legal concerns of Reform voters. That is why the justice minister introduced this in the month of June.
But what about the crime rate? Canada's homicide rate compares favourably to that of the United States, with 1.98 murders, fewer than 2, for 100,000 population, against 8.5 for 100,000 population in the United States. Internationally, Canada falls within the average of 1.94 for 100,000 population.
Once again, we must look not just at the murder rate, but at who is committing these murders. In Canada, they are committed by members of the victim's immediate family in 36.1 per cent of cases; by immediate acquaintances other than family members in 46.6 per cent of cases; and by strangers-as we keep hearing from the Reform Party-by people unknown to victims, in only 15.9 per cent of cases.
I would like to hear the Reform Party, and the Liberal Party as well, express an interest-as do certain people I know on the health committee-in ways of preventing spouses and former spouses from murdering their partner or former partner, and then attacking and killing their children. I would very much like to hear the Reform Party propose solutions to family situations such as those. As the statistics show, that is the real problem in Canada.
In fact, there is a certain increase in rates, at least in Quebec, because that is where I live. Recently, we have seen many cases of people, men, in particular, it must be admitted, for it is usually men who kill their former spouses and then very often kill themselves. What difference would parole make in these cases?
Why are the Reform and Liberal Party members focusing desperately on one part of the problem, on the 15.9 per cent of crimes that are committed by strangers. And of these strangers-I do not have the figures-a certain number are gangs of criminals, motorcycle gangs. We saw this in Quebec. People were not known to each other, but had a mission. These are senseless murders. Enough of scaring people.
In most cities in Canada, and in Quebec in any event, there are not all that many, but there are some and as long as there are any at all, it is a serious problem. But I am worried. There have been cuts in unemployment insurance, in social programs at all levels. Perhaps it does not come under federal jurisdiction, but there should be more programs so that the provinces can spend more on prevention, assistance to families, to the people going through difficult periods, in order to prevent situations like this from happening.
But no, that is not what they do. There is much fanfare about amending the act, but they are making it up as they go along. They are not consulting the experts in the field, and, without any consultation, they introduced this bill in the House late in June. They waited for the summer to go by and then brought it back. I am well aware that the Liberal majority will impose its point of view and that we will have to live with the result.
I invite my colleagues, those across the way and elsewhere, to take a greater interest in the real problems, the more vital problems affecting families and leading to an increase in domestic violence. That is the real problem.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-45.
Since the Liberals and the separatists apparently share the same philosophy on criminal justice, it has fallen to the Reform members of the House to object in principle to the bill as well as to its details. This they have done with great vigour and distinction. I can add little to their arguments other than to support them with my vote.
What I would like to do is to analyse the bill as a product of the Liberal approach to criminal justice as a whole. What I would like to argue is that not only is the product flawed, but the whole approach on which it is based is flawed.
What are the distinguishing characteristics of the Liberal approach to criminal justice illustrated by the bill which Reformers and growing numbers of Canadians reject? I will refer to three characteristics.
The first characteristic is a perverse set of priorities. The Liberal approach to criminal justice puts the rights of persons accused or convicted of crimes ahead of the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens. We see this perverse set of priorities in the bill, but we even see it in the Liberal inspired charter of rights and freedoms.
Under the charter section on legal rights, there is one general section affirming the right of everyone to life, liberty and security of the person, but that is followed by 16 additional provisions-rights on arrest or detention, rights of a person charged with an offence and so forth-all pertaining to the rights of persons suspected, charged or convicted of crimes. There is one general clause affirming the rights of Canadians to public safety and protection of the person. There are no clauses at all on the rights of victims. There are 16 provisions pertaining to the rights of persons suspected, charged or convicted of crimes.
The Liberal set of priorities when it comes to public safety and criminal justice is perverse. It is perverse because the priorities of the Canadian people would put the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of persons accused and convicted of crimes.
In the bill before us we see exactly the same perverse set of priorities. What was the sole purpose of the original section 745 which the government insists on maintaining and amending rather than scrapping? It was to provide a faint hope of parole eligibility for convicted first degree murderers. It was yet another Liberal effort to affirm the rights of persons convicted of crimes, and the most heinous crimes, while the rights of victims of crimes and law-abiding citizens remain undefined or at risk.
The bill before us alters the procedure but still maintains the original purpose. The bill is the product of a perverse set of priorities and deserves to be rejected on that ground alone.
The second distinguishing characteristic of the Liberal approach to criminal justice, again illustrated by the bill, is an excessive reliance on bureaucratic compromise. If in doubt, especially on matters of principle, compromise. That is the Liberal approach. The bill is nothing but a compromise, a half measure that satisfies no one except those poor souls who believe that compromise is virtuous for its own sake.
There are some policy issues where half measures simply will not do. We cannot be half committed to national unity. We cannot be half committed to fiscal responsibility. We cannot be half committed to democracy. We cannot be half committed to public safety.
The public wants section 745 scrapped. According to the government's philosophy of criminal justice, the section should be retained as it is. But rather than do one or the other, scrap or retain, the government came up with a half baked compromise in the form of this tinkering amendment. The distinguishing characteristic of the government's approach as exemplified by the bill was bureaucratic compromise.
This tinkering amendment exhibits all the characteristics of bureaucratic tinkering. First degree murderers are now to be divided into different categories. Bureaucrats like to categorize. A screening measure is set up for all section 745 applications. Superior court judges, not just the chief justice of the superior court in a province, are drawn into the process, and the rules governing
juries hearing section 745 applications are amended. What can we call all this except bureaucratic fine tuning of a compromise position?
If there is anything worse than government by the lawyers, of the lawyers, for the lawyers, it is government of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy, for the bureaucracy, and this bill smacks of both.
My colleagues and I have no faith in bureaucratic tinkering, particularly with the Criminal Code and indeed in the whole area of criminal rehabilitation.
Thinking of the ineffectiveness of bureaucratic action in these areas, the inability of bureaucratic measures and institutions to protect people or to rehabilitate criminals, I am reminded of a poem by the Canadian poet George Pepki, inspired by the children's nursery rhyme "Humpty-Dumpty":
Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall; All the king's horses and all the King's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.
And what is the moral to this little rhyme? A moral with meaning for men in our time? The moral is this, and its lesson is true: There are certain things that the state cannot do.
If all the King's horses and all the King's men Cannot put an egg together again, Is it not a false hope, an illusion, a sin, To ask civil servants to reconstruct men?
A third distinguishing characteristic of the Liberal approach to criminal justice is its growing disregard for the will of the people.
When Liberalism first emerged as a distinct political philosophy in 19th century Britain, its distinguishing characteristic was faith in the common sense of the common people. That was the essence of Gladstone's great reform bills which extended the franchise to ordinary people; the right to make important governing decisions to more and more ordinary people.
Gladstone treated the people as a great tribunal to which the greatest issue of state could be brought for discussion, not only discussion but decision.
But something happens to Liberals long in office. They begin to trust themselves and their friends and their advisers more than they trust the people, until finally in the last decade of the 20th century, mistrust of the common people has become the distinguishing characteristic of a degenerate Liberalism.
In this House a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for York South-Weston, supported by members on both sides of the House, represented the wishes of the Canadian people with respect to section 745 of the Criminal Code. Their wish was to scrap the section, which was the effect of Bill C-234.
But what has the government done? It attempted to derail in committee the bill which represented the will of the people and has substituted for it this bureaucratic compromise we have before us representing the elitist views of the Minister of Justice and his colleagues. And to add insult to injury, the government now invokes time allocation to cut off debate and force the bill through a reluctant House.
Unless there is a display of courage by government backbenchers in the House, something we see far too infrequently, the government whip will coerce his colleagues to support this bureaucratic compromise and once again disregard the will of the Canadian people with respect to a Criminal Code provision.
In conclusion, Reform MPs reject both the bill and the whole Liberal approach to criminal justice on which it is based: this perverse set of priorities, bureaucratic compromises and blatant disregard for the will of the people. We urge other members to reject the bill and to bring back to the House and support Bill C-234, which more accurately reflects the will of Canadians on this issue.
We look forward to the day when a fresh start will be made on criminal justice in this country, one based on principle rather than bureaucratic compromise, one in which the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens take precedence over the rights of persons accused or convicted of crimes, one in which respect for the will of Canadians becomes the guiding light of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to follow my leader in this final debate on this bill. I rise today to speak once more in opposition to Bill C-45 because it demeans the value of a human life and it is unworthy of support.
I have repeatedly stood in this House, as have my colleagues, and asked one simple question, a question the justice minister and the Liberal government have failed to answer. What is a fair and just penalty for the taking of an innocent life?
Last week when I was in Quebec with the standing committee which is in the process of reviewing the Young Offenders Act, I had an opportunity to meet with several convicted first degree murderers.
One young man had killed his mother, father and brother. Another had stabbed his girlfriend 18 times. I asked them what they believed was a fair and just penalty for their crimes. I asked if 10 years was enough for what they had done. They said: "If we were to ask the victims if 10 years was long enough the answer would be no. If we were to ask them if 25 years was long enough, the answer would still be no". No length of time would be long enough in the eyes of their victims according to these murderers.
What then would be an appropriate penalty? We must answer this question. This unanswered question remains at the heart of today's debate.
On February 24, 1976 the Liberal government introduced Bill C-84 to abolish the death penalty and to create two new categories of murder, first and second degree murder, both of which carried a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Those convicted of first degree murder were to serve 25 years before being eligible for parole while second degree murderers would serve between 10 and 25 years prior to release.
The 25 year minimum for first degree murder was the Liberal government's trade off for the abolition of the death penalty. Instead of the death penalty society was to be protected by the incarceration for life of those who deliberately and with premeditation killed with no consideration for parole until a minimum of 25 years had been served.
However, unbeknown to the vast majority of Canadians, the Liberal government of the day betrayed them by slipping section 745 into the Criminal Code. Section 745 nullifies the term life imprisonment and bestows on killers an unjustifiable right to early release before serving a minimum of 25 years.
An hon. member who spoke earlier is absolutely right when he quoted me as saying a life sentence is not about rehabilitation. I mention it because of the importance of this issue. It is about punishment. What is a fair and just punishment for the wilful premeditated taking of an innocent life, particularly of our children?
It is also about retribution for the most horrible crime in society, the unlawful taking of an innocent life and the devastating affect this has on society. Liberals do not believe in punishment, at least those who run the Liberal government. They do not believe in punishment or retribution, only in rehabilitation. That is what we have been getting from the bleeding hearts for the past 25 years. They tolerate the most extreme crimes in society at the expense of law-abiding Canadians. They mock and scorn the requests of all those who seek the removal of section 745 of the Criminal Code in its entirety.
The pathetic performance today by the member for Kingston and the Islands is a typical example of that mocking and scorning that goes on in this House on such a very serious matter. In the absence of capital punishment I am confident Canadians, as the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police believe, the minimum penalty for first degree murder should be life imprisonment with absolutely no chance of parole until at the very least 25 years have been served.
The government talks about the glimmer of hope. There is the glimmer of hope which all Canadians would support and that is after 25 years give that individual, if rehabilitated, an opportunity for parole.
Bill C-45 does not meet those demands. Bill C-45 does not ensure a minimum of 25 years imprisonment. In fact, Bill C-45 is nothing more than a meagre attempt by the justice minister to sugar coat this repulsive provision of the Criminal Code for reasons of political expediency. This is not just my view. This is shared by victims' groups all across this country.
To amplify this point I would like to read to the House portions of a recent letter addressed to the justice minister by Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy on behalf of Action for Victims:
How can you skate over the glaring surety of a charter challenge regarding slapping an electronic bracelet on an innocent yet potential high risk offender but fail to deal adequately with releasing convicted first and second degree murderers? Oh right, they only lost their freedom of movement for a determined number of years but earn their rights to an early release.
Shelving C-45 and Olson's judicial review and finally giving more than a quick look at high risk offenders by actual legislation looks like, sounds like a pre-election handout to me. It is obvious that you may be able to avoid ever having to deal with Olson's judicial review or the contentious Bill C-45, as they can be put on a slow back burner until the election is over. But we will not fail to recognize that this shuffling of files on your desk is just clever politics.
We hear from a mother who lost her daughter at the hands of a murderer expressing her concern to the justice minister in as eloquent a manner I suppose as I have see yet.
Bill C-45 strips multiple or serial killers of the right to apply for early parole and creates an additional bureaucratic hurdle for single killers to jump before exercising their right to a full jury review of their parole ineligibility. Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which allows for the expenditure of additional funds for section 745 appeals.
When questioned in June, the justice minister said the extra money will be allocated to Correctional Service Canada for longer periods of incarceration for those killers denied a judicial review by a jury. This is misleading and an absolute joke. The justice minister via Bill C-45 has set up another level of appeal for first degree murderers and this is what will incur additional costs. Multiple killers currently incarcerated will not apply directly to a jury but must first satisfy a superior court judge that their application for a reduction in parole will have a reasonable prospect of success.
If the superior court judge denies one of these 28 multiple murderers their right for a judicial review by a jury they can appeal this decision to a higher court, of course at taxpayer expense.
As well, if the jury denies them a reduction in their parole ineligibility, provisions within section 745 allow them to apply again. The same process will be applicable to all first degree murderers. I question the necessity for extra funding in this regard, given the number of criminals, including violent criminals, who will never see the inside of a prison as a result of the Liberals'
alternative measures as contained in Bill C-41 and the change from indictable offences to summary conviction fines as prescribed in Bill C-17.
Bill C-45 may delay but will not prevent killers from getting a judicial review and ultimately a reduction in their parole ineligibility. Bill C-45 and the review of a killer's application by a judge will do nothing but add an expensive layer of bureaucracy to our growing justice industry.
This will add to Canadians' financial strain and undermine their personal security. The minister's June 11 introduction of Bill C-45 just 10 days before the House recessed for the summer was nothing more than a half baked attempt to deflect criticism for not preventing Clifford Olson from once again making headlines despite the fact he had almost three years and ample support to bring this bill before the House.
The minister's efforts to limit child serial killer Clifford Olson's bid for early release failed. To the horror of all Canadians who have shared the pain of the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were brutally ripped from their lives on August 12, 1996, Clifford Olson was eligible to apply for early release.
As revealed in the court challenge on Bill C-68 launched by the governments of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Yukon, the minister did not adequately consult his provincial counterparts regarding that bill. I would respectfully suggest that the provincial attorneys general are not alone. Canadians have not been consulted with regard to Bill C-45. Canadians have not been granted by this Liberal government an opportunity to be heard on the issue of section 745, as they have not been granted an opportunity to voice their opinion on capital punishment.
I conclude by saying again that I oppose Bill C-45 because it is unworthy of my support.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Madam Speaker, during the first session of Parliament I served as one of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is a job I took very seriously since I was one of the select few given the job to look after justice legislation on behalf of 295 members of Parliament.
The most troublesome problem I encountered as one of those members was the Liberal government's deliberate fast tracking of legislation through this House. For example, last year with only two weeks left before the House recessed for the summer, Bills C-41 and C-68 were brought before the House for report stage and third reading, although they had been reported out of committee weeks before. The minister deliberately waited until the eleventh hour and time allocation was used to limit debate and thus exposure for both of these contentious bills.
The most recent example of this undemocratic fast tracking is this bill, Bill C-45. Since 1993 the Reform Party has been asking the justice minister to repeal section 745. The justice minister waited until there were only eight sitting days left for the House last June, knowing full well that the bill could not be properly debated in that short period of time. The most important point is that with only eight days for debate, this allowed only one day for study and review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
There is no way on earth that proper analysis could take place in just one day. This is an insult to the whole process and certainly an insult to the victims of crime who tried so desperately to have section 745 repealed. It also was very repulsive to the number of witnesses who wanted to appear before the committee.
In order to let the Canadian people hear a sample of what these witnesses had to say, I would like to take this opportunity to present the testimony of Joanne Kaplinski. She said: "I am a survivor of a murder victim and have been forced to endure a judicial review under section 745. It would also appear that because of the law of the day, I will be required to live through that ordeal yet again, as the co-convicted has advanced his application".
She tells the story of how her brother Kenneth was robbed and later shot twice in the head at point blank range. Forensic evidence revealed that he in all probability was made to kneel before his killer. His decomposed body was found two months later.
She goes on to state: "We, Kenneth's survivors, also received life sentences and became initiated into a very exclusive club, probably more exclusive than the Canadian Club, but it is a club that I assure you no one here would ever want to join. The initiation is the death of a loved one by violence. Membership dues are extracted from us each and every day of our lives as survivors of such violence.
"In sum it has been over 18 years coping with the aftermath of those two parolees' actions. We got on with our lives, or rather we got on with picking up the pieces of our shattered lives, but never would we be able to look at the world with the same eyes again. Evil was no longer some ethereal concept, it was real and tangible. I think our profound despair came from being forced to look into the abyss, the depth of human cruelty and suffering.
"In December 1993 we once again were forced to revisit that same abyss and relive what we had to go through in 1978. All our pain of course was resurrected by the section 745 application of one of Kenneth's murderers.
"We the public feel duped by the machinations and doublespeak of bureaucrats. By making available this section 745, however reworked, the Liberal government of the day is sending a message to Canadians across the country that murder in this society will be tolerated. I think that conveys a very sad statement about the value of our lives, yours and mine, as Canadian citizens. Fifteen years is not adequate denunciation for the wanton destruction of human life. My brother Kenneth was, by volition of those convicted, sentenced to death, and that sentence for Ken was eternal and irrevocable".
As can be seen from this witness's comments, to have a bill of this magnitude fast tracked as it was through the justice committee is appalling. There are many more witnesses with compelling stories. Time will not allow me to convey their thoughts and certainly this Liberal government did not allow them the time to convey their thoughts through the proper channel of the justice committee. It is clear that the whole process of not studying the bill and not giving everyone an opportunity to share their information is nothing but a direct insult to the victims' families who worked so hard throughout this nation to repeal section 745.
After this mere one day analysis, the bitterness started to set in with these witnesses. They felt they were just shoved aside. One of those people was Darlene Boyd. She later sent me a copy of a letter she wrote to the justice minister about issues she had to get off her chest. Her letter is as follows:
Since being in Ottawa to testify before the justice committee, which I felt was a rushed and last minute formality, I have had the opportunity to examine Bill C-45.
My feelings, as you know, concerning section 745 are total repeal. Thousands of Canadian people have supported and continue to support total repeal, believing repeal is the only concrete measure that will keep first degree murderers where they belong, in prison for at least 25 years, this being the maximum punishment provided to us by your government for premeditated first degree murder.
I also understand Mr. Nunziata's Bill C-234 has expired in the Speaker's hands. Bill C-234 should have been voted on for the third time in the House before Bill C-45 was ever presented. Is there no priority given in matter of sequence? John's bill drew positive results for repeal from many Liberals. My question to this is what political pressure suddenly made them support amending rather than repealing section 745?
I am receiving letters every day, as I am sure Mr. Rock has been, from people demanding total repeal. These people I have never met, but truth in sentencing is what concerns them. Most feel betrayed by our justice system.
Mr. Rock has said he is listening to the Canadian people. Bill C-45 does not demonstrate this.
Mr. Rock, you have referred to us as the "victims industry". We never classified ourselves as part of any industry. We are ordinary people who have paid a price far too great to establish such a petty organization. We never asked for this fate and we are not victims, we are survivors.
There is one thing I need advice on and that is how to tell our son, who has not yet put his life back together since his sister's murder, that the man convicted and sentenced to life in prison will be applying for and probably will be granted his day in court to tell everyone what a good person he has become in the past 15 years.
Who will take responsibility when he falls apart? Bill C-45 will be guilty of this crime.
My family is three people. There are hundreds who will be affected if section 745 is not repealed.
Does the charter of rights not protect us, or was it written just for murderers?
I appeal to you not as politicians, but to anyone who holds family and friends dear. Because murder shows no bounds, please reconsider repeal and make it impossible for these killers to once again exploit my family and the families of others.
I have thousands of these letters from victims. I visit them in their homes and at rallies. I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands has never been to a victims rally. He would not know what they are all about. However, when I spend time with these people, I for the life of me cannot understand for the slightest moment why we would adopt a bureaucratic procedure such as Bill C-45 over the good common sense of the people all across Canada who are screaming and demanding loud and clear: "Repeal section 745".
What is the matter with a government that will not listen to the people? It is called tyranny and it is time that tyranny was crushed.
Please bring back Bill C-234 and repeal section 745 on behalf of the Canadian people.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this afternoon to speak again to Bill C-45. I say it is a pleasure because obviously, with the government enacting time allocation yet again on another piece of legislation, we find the unfortunate situation that a number of my colleagues and I am certain colleagues from the other parties as well would have liked to have spoken again on this bill and are being denied, I believe, their right to do just that.
It is a pleasure for me to be allowed the opportunity to once again try to get my message through to the Liberals on the opposite side of the House and the supporters of the justice minister. He continues to bring forward these weak-kneed, half-baked pieces of legislation, instead of doing, as my colleague from Wild Rose so aptly said just moments ago, what the people of Canada are demanding and expecting the Government of Canada to do.
I suppose it could be said that after quite a number of hours of debate on C-45 what more can be said that has not already been said on this issue. Reluctantly, Reform has come to understand that the only way to get through to the Liberals is to repeat our points over and over again. That is unfortunate. I am sure all of us in the Reform Party would much rather be discussing some other legislation today and be moving forward with some other constructive legislation. However, no matter how hard we try, it seems that we
run up against a brick wall and cannot get our message through to the Liberal government.
That was clearly demonstrated at the start of the debate this afternoon. After the vote on the government's time allocation motion on this piece of legislation, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands got up and read through transcript after transcript of things that the Reform Party had said but had nothing constructive of his own to say about the legislation. He was merely attacking us for what we were trying to say. If only, and I mean this sincerely, he had listened to what was being said. Instead he simply poked fun at what the Reform Party has been trying to say on this piece of legislation.
Obviously, as it has been said repeatedly and I will repeat it again, the thrust is that the people of Canada are demanding the repeal of section 745. It is that simple. That is the crux of the issue here.
This has been said before and I will say it again and again. The independent member for York South-Weston brought forward a private member's bill. It had the support of the majority of members of the House and moved on to committee. I expected that perhaps with a few minor amendments that piece of legislation would ultimately be passed into law. Obviously it had the support of the people of the country and it had the support of the majority of the representatives of the people of the country. That is what should have happened.
I believe the way the justice committee handled this particular private member's bill is an insult to the private members' process in this place. I am absolutely appalled at the way the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston was treated. I want to draw the attention of the House and the people who are viewing the debate this afternoon to that point.
The second point which I want to make, which has been made before, is that what we should be moving toward, what Canadians are demanding, especially when it comes to multiple murderers, is a system of consecutive sentencing. It does not matter how many lives murderers take, they get one life sentence. We are debating whether they should get 15, 17, 18 or 25 years.
I believe the vast majority of the people of Canada would support consecutive sentencing. It has been implemented in some U.S. states. If a person takes one life they get 25 years; two lives, 50 years; three lives, 75 years; and it keeps on going. Individual lives must count for something.
What I hear when travelling across the country is that people are simply fed up with the weak justice system and the criminals who flaunt it.
We can all quote statistics until we are blue in the face; however, despite whatever the statistics are saying about violent crime being on the decline or whatever the case may be, the reality is that people feel threatened. People feel unsafe in their homes, on the streets and in their communities. They are telling us to do something about it.
Reform members have been endeavouring to do that. We have been trying to drive that message home. We have repeated time and time again what we are hearing from Canadians.
What Canadians are crying for is the bottom line. I can stand and say how I feel, but what are Canadians saying? What is the mood of the country out there?
I had a recent poll done in my riding of Prince George-Peace River. One of the questions that was asked was: "How do you feel the federal government is doing with respect to criminal justice issues?" This was a scientific poll. What we found was that 6 per cent of those polled said it was doing very well. Twenty-seven per cent said it was doing an adequate job. However, 56 per cent said that the government was doing a poor job. Another 11 per cent were uncertain.
Two-thirds of the people in my riding either feel that the government is doing a very poor job with respect to criminal justice issues or they are unsure what it is doing. That clearly indicates that there is a growing sentiment in the country that the government is weak on crime. That has been reinforced again and again by the justice minister, who continues to bring in these half baked schemes which do not get to the root of the problem.
A number of my colleagues have outlined where we should be going and where Canadians are demanding we go on criminal justice issues. We have to concentrate more on victim rights. That is paramount in the minds of Canadians. It is high time this government started to address the real concerns which are out there among average Canadians.
Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the member for Kingston and the Islands was waxing eloquent with quotations from Hansard . You could ask, Mr. Speaker, why he quoted so eloquently from Hansard things that were said by Reformers in this House supporting the views of Canadians across the country but he never bothered to quote from the victims' families, the people who have suffered from the crimes of these people the member for Kingston and the Islands is trying to protect. He did not bother to quote from the people who suffer because of his liberal minded rules about law and order.
Since the member for Kingston and the Islands is so fond of quoting from the printed word, I would like to quote a few things that he said. I have here an article from the British Columbia Report of July 15 of this year in which the member for Kingston
and the Islands, when talking about the protection of VIA Rail tickets that members in the House had, said: "I think we were hoodwinked by the people who introduced the bill". The people behind the alleged plot are members of his own Liberal government, reports the reporter in the article.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said: "I think we were hoodwinked by the people who introduced the bill". On this bill before us I would venture to say the member is being hoodwinked again: "The MP for Kingston and the Islands suspects faceless bureaucrats were negligent in their duties although he is not quite sure who is to blame for introducing the bill but he says `I don't know anyone who reads every bill. I don't"'.
No wonder he is so easily hoodwinked. He does not even read the bills. Since he does not read the bills I can tell that he also does not bother listening to his constituents or he would know that repeal of section 745 is supported by an overwhelming majority of Canadians coast to coast. We do not have to be a rocket scientist to find that out.
Just as they support the repeal of section 745, they also support a complete and effective overhaul of the Young Offenders Act. They want a referendum on the return of capital punishment. They are totally dissatisfied with the Liberal's performance on justice issues.
These Liberal trained seals on the other side of the House support a closure motion to shut down meaningful debate on an issue of great importance to the people of Canada. They stand there and call us extremists for speaking the minds of Canadians coast to coast. That is too bad. The real extremists in this place are the people who sit on the government side. They are the ones responsible for a debt that will hit $600 billion on November 22; 600 billion of debt on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren. They are the extremists who let murderers and sexual offenders out of prison early so they can commit more crimes.
There is ample evidence that letting these people out before they have served their sentences causes a great many more crimes. I am going to quote some bureau of justice statistics of 1989 from a study that was done in the United States between the years 1973 and 1989. In 1989 the bureau of justice statistics issued some estimates of how many crimes are prevented while criminals are locked up rather than walking the streets.
Analyst Patrick Langan concluded that higher incarceration rates between 1973 and 1989 cut the number of rapes by 66,000, robberies by 323,000, assaults by 380,000, burglaries by 3.3 million, and that imprisonment clearly contributes to major cuts in the number and cost of violent crime.
Those Liberals can stand there and call us extremists, but they are the extremists. Because of their policies, Canada has probably
suffered tens of thousands more rapes, tens of thousands more violent crimes, hundreds more murders and God knows how many million more burglaries; simply because of their wishy-washy justice approach.
Over the past 20 years or so our justice system has tended to concentrate on this wonderful theory of rehabilitation and treating the root cause of the crime. Everybody has had this terrible childhood. "Oh, my God, the reason I am such a bad guy is that I had this terrible childhood. Nothing ever went right for me. I did not win the Lotto 649. It is just dreadful". Some of these people have to start taking responsibility for that they do.
Everybody in Canada, except the people who sit on the other side of the House, are sick to death of this "oh, dear the poor things". It is time for some justice.
I would like to mention another experiment that took place in the United States. The police commissioner for New York, Mr. William Bratton, was quoted shortly after he was appointed security director for the subway system in 1990: "Eureka, we have discovered the root cause of crime. It is criminals".
He adopted a hard line approach in addressing the problems of graffiti, fare evasion, panhandling and assaults that were taking place in the subway system in New York. He said: "The way to get this thing under control is to take a hard line approach of zero tolerance on graffiti, spitting on the sidewalk, all of that sort of stuff". He took this hard line approach where he insisted and the security people clamp down on any incidents of panhandling, graffiti, spitting on the sidewalk.
Within one year there was an impressive improvement. Robberies were down 75 per cent; serious felonies on the subway, a drop of 64 per cent.
Mr. Bratton subsequently became the police commissioner for New York where his methods have resulted in a 31 per cent drop in murders, a 25 per cent drop in car theft and a 22 per cent drop in robberies. How much evidence do we need?
The people who were flagrantly disobeying the rules of law, when they discovered there was zero tolerance for minor crimes, realized that there would be zero, zero tolerance for the major crimes and they stopped committing them.
As long as they were getting free counselling and free rehabilitation and were told how terrible their childhood was, they just kept disobeying the law. For God's sake, we are such patsies. When are we going to get real? It is time to get tough. Not a day goes by, and I believe this applies to members on the other side as well, that I do not get phone calls and letters to my office telling me people are sick and tired of this pandering to criminals. They are sick and tired of it and it is really time we started to do something.
On May 11 this year the Ottawa Sun reported that during a meeting of the attorneys general, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario pushed for the total repeal of section 745; Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC
A great province says my colleague from Ontario. They are all great provinces. The attorneys general knew what the people wanted. They knew they needed to get rid of this section in order to return some stability to the sentencing and serving of punishment.
Members on the other side constantly get excited if we talk about punishment. For some reason we are not allowed to punish people for committing crimes. Please do not punish them. These things can be carried to extremes.
The justice minister suddenly thinks it is okay to let people out after 15 years where there is evidence that they will not commit the crime again. Let us let them out. Why keep them locked up? We can carry that argument to the extreme and say we recognize they committed murder, but why lock them up? They will never do it again. Why does it have to be 15 years? Why not 15 hours? They are so repentant and they promise to take counselling and they will learn French and do whatever is necessary. And they are let free. It has to stop
When the attorneys general of the provinces start pushing for the repeal of these sections, it is time the justice minister started listening. The attorneys general are telling him his gun control bill is misdirected. They told him Bill C-33 was misdirected. They have told him that section 745 is misdirected and they have told him the Young Offenders Act revisions were misdirected. When is he going to start listening?
It is a travesty of justice that closure was moved on this bill today. I urge members, please, in a last minute appeal, vote against it.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the reason I have only five minutes to speak is that the government has moved closure again on a bill. I would like to talk for the couple of minutes I have left on why this bill is symbolic of two things that have become obvious of this Liberal government.
One thing that has become obvious is that Liberal leadership is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a Liberal leader. There is a Liberal follower, there is a Liberal bootlicker, there is a Liberal cave in, there is a Liberal puppet, there is a Liberal wishy-washy half-baked social engineering attempt at doing something, but there is no Liberal leadership. That is what I would like to talk about.
I would like to show how this bill is symbolic. Out on the west coast there is a symptom we know of when we talk about fish, that the fish rots from the head down. What we have in this example is the fact that not only is there no Liberal leadership, there is no such thing, there is also a rot at the top. The rot at the top has started to create a stench. It is not only something that maybe we could say is a mistake but an actual stench surrounds what is going on here today.
We should be debating the private member's bill from the member for York South-Weston. We should be debating in this House the elimination of section 745. This House passed that private member's bill. We in this House said that we approve in principle the bill of the member for York South-Weston that we will abolish-not tinker with, not play with, not jack around with-we will abolish section 745.
This House passed that bill. It was approved by all members of this House. It was sent to committee and then what happened? That Liberal leadership, the concept that is foreign to the government, said to their Liberal committee: "This bill must not ever see the light of day". What is it? Was the bill too popular, was there too widespread an appeal?
I will tell you what it is. The bill was sent to committee. The bill was then sent from committee to cyberspace. The Minister of Justice should be showing some leadership on this. If he had the guts to vote against it that is one thing, but instead he just says: "Let us hope it goes away".
People have talked about the government's half measures, that it moves half way on different things. It is not half way, it is nowhere. This bill has no support. The Canadian police chiefs will not support it. The victims of crime will not support it. The Canadian people will not support it. If the Liberals were to ask in their own ridings, there is no support for this half measure. There is none. Canadians want this section eliminated. Reform members have gone through the reasons it is not supported by anyone.
Maybe the reason the member for Kingston and the Islands wanted it is that he knows the prisoners can now vote. Maybe there is something in it for him. Maybe it will swing the riding.
What has happened here in the House is that the Liberals have told their backbenchers: "We can have a free vote on private members' bills whenever you want". It is like a drug. They say: "Oh thank you. I feel so good about this. I will vote my conscience, I will vote what I think my constituents want".
They did that, to give them credit. They did that on the bill from the member for York South-Weston. When they were appeased, when they felt good, when the drug and the sedative was flowing through their bodies, what happened? The bill was sent to committee to never see the light of day. I do not know where the sedative is. I do not know whether someone has to take it with a double shot of rye to make them feel good.
The backbenchers should be angry over this. They should say to the government: "When we pass legislation in this House, when it goes to committee, we want to vote on it". They should have the right. It was wrong. There is no leadership over there. This thing stinks.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Hon. members, pursuant to order adopted earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion please say yea.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was adopted on the following division:)
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give RCMP officers the right to unionize and to bargain collectively under the Canada Labour Code.
Mr. Speaker, is it not somewhat of a paradox, although it is not perceived as such, that today I should stand up in this House and defend what is undoubtedly one of Canada's best known symbols? This is proof that nobody in this House will be able to say, either in the future or in reference to the past, that the official opposition has not lived up to its responsibilities.
I expect the parliamentary secretary to generously mention it in his reply; as you know, if there is someone who is often critical of the official opposition, it is my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil.
On a more serious note, I believe that as parliamentarians we must realize that discrimination of a peculiar kind has been going on for years within the RCMP. Around 16,000 officers are finding themselves in a legal vacuum the likes of which is unheard of, a very unhealthy situation indeed.
People listening to us must realize that the RCMP officers are protected neither by the Labour Code nor the Public Service of Canada Act. Therefore, the situation is that some clearly essential workers are discriminated against and cannot exercise their rights to collective bargaining.
It is quite paradoxical, because members of Parliament are certainly already aware of the situation.
At least three commissions of inquiry have stated that labour relations were among the difficulties pointed out to the legislator. We cannot rise today and plead innocence saying that we did not know about the situation, that we do not know what it is all about. On the contrary, the situation was brought to the attention of the cabinet and of the parliamentarians. But there has always been some reluctance to act on this issue.
Closer to home, the labour minister, also a member for Montreal, asked for a task force, which reviewed and reported on part I of the Labour Code, which we want to update, and rightly so. Among the recommendations in the report Sims, named for the commission's chairman, there was obviously a finding to the effect it was unacceptable that all police officers in Canada, except RCMP members, had the right to collective bargaining.
It was recommended to take action to see how this group could be unionized. We will come back to what this right to unionize means concretely. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, and knowing how sensitive you are, I am sure you will have great difficulty admitting it, but it remains that, despite the information available, despite three inquiry commissions, despite the recent tabling of a report, the minister responsible for this issue has still taken no action.
Let it be clearly understood: currently in Canada eight provinces and 200 municipalities use the RCMP as their police. We have to remind Canadians and the people who are watching us how flagrant this discrimination is since two categories of employees who do the same kind of work do not have the same rights. That is the situation we want to correct.
When I tabled my motion, I had clearly in mind what this means in the workplace, how unhealthy it can be when employees cannot collectively determine, influence and work to ensure they have a voice on the working conditions they will be subject to. That is why, periodically, there have been labour relations problems in the RCMP.
In order to restore a healthy labour relations climate in the RCMP, I think that a certain number of requirements must be met. First of all, employees must have the right to collectively negociate their working conditions. This is not a meaningless statement. What is a collective agreement if not a consensus expressed on paper setting out the rules, procedures and avenues of appeal available if the parties cannot come to an agreement?
Not only are RCMP officers prohibited from making representations on collective bargaining, but they are in a practically unprecedented situation. Anyone who is familiar with labour relations knows how unhealthy this situation is, since, as a manager, the RCMP Commissioner must implement directives and make deci-
sions, acting as both judge and jury. One does not need a law degree to realize how unhealthy this is.
Again, this government-with its cow-like disposition-refuses to step in and take the measures needed to correct the situation.
As I said earlier, for healthy work conditions to prevail within the RCMP, officers must have the right to bargain collectively. They must, of course, have the right to form an association, to have democratically elected representatives recognized as such, and to submit grievances to an outside organization that is independent and neutral.
I trust that the parliamentary secretary will, when he rises in a few minutes, admit that when there are disputes in the Public Service there is an outside third party to judge grievances and reach a decision, as well as appeal mechanisms of which both the employer and the workers are aware. That third party is the Public Service Commission, or in certain specific cases Treasury Board, or the Public Service Staff Relations Board. These are known bodies and have a precise role. Their independence of action is acknowledged, because they are accredited by both management and labour.
This is the crux of the debate. It is all the more admirable because these are not workers who have shirked their responsibilities. They are all very aware of their responsibilities which, moreover, have a special nature in the RCMP relating to national security and protecting the public interest.
This is why the representations they are making to us as parliamentarians are not for the right to strike. That is not what is involved when RCMP employees, through a national association, are calling for recognition of a certain number of rights. What is involved is the right to compulsory arbitration, outside the RCMP of course, but they are not calling for the commissioner to be bound by the decision, and therefore not for a final and binding arbitration such as there is in place today. There are already clauses within part I of the Labour Code which permit this.
The employees of the RCMP have even facilitated the work of the legislator. So much so that they proposed a bill containing a certain number of stipulations. If we wanted to go ahead and be serious about the attention we give employees of the RCMP, any member in this House, but especially the government majority whose responsibility it is, could well introduce a bill giving those employees the right to collective bargaining and the right to group together into an association.
I hope that people who are listening tonight understand that this is what this debate is about, something harmless, the basis of work relations.
Believe it or not, RCMP employees-officers, I am not talking about civilian employees, I am talking about officers-have been waiting for this decision for at least ten years. How is it that nothing has been done? Since 1993, we have seen a total lack of understanding of what is going on in the RCMP.
Let us take the following example: there is currently a divisional representative process. However, this process is more like a small shop union than like what exists elsewhere in the public service. As an MP, I suggest that we give a legislative framework to the RCMP so that those people can form an association and collectively decide, collectively negotiate their collective agreement.
If ever there is no majority, I am quite convinced, and I would even dare to bet on a large beer, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us in a few minutes, when he stands up: "Yes, but there is already a negotiation process."
Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC
Did you read my speech?
