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]