House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jury.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from petitioners who pray and call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity to provide in Canadian law that no criminal will profit from committing a crime.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions, each on the same subject, from residents of my riding and more particularly the towns of Trail, Nelson and Fruitvale.
The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize that as the legislature of Newfoundland has passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to remove the rights of denominational classes of persons to operate their own schools and further, that if Parliament accedes to these proposals to amend the Constitution at the request of one provincial government, it would set a precedent for permitting any provincial government to suppress the rights of minorities.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament not to amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and to refer the problem of education reform in that province back to the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by non-constitutional means.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a number of petitions to present.
The first petition comes from over 20,000 petitioners, all from within the Kamloops constituency in British Columbia from virtually every community and every part of the constituency.
It states that Canadians, mainly women and children, are becoming increasingly fearful to walk on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, that they believe that many violent and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely or being released without proper treatment or rehabilitation, and they believe that those convicted of dangerous and sexual offences should remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely rehabilitated.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps necessary to amend Canada's Criminal Code and the parole system of Canada to ensure safety and peace in Canadian neighbourhoods.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that are in conflict.
One petition calls on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I have another petition in conflict with the petition above which calls on Parliament to enact legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation and further calls on the government to pass the necessary legislation.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, another petition points out that HRDC funding focuses on services for UI recipients only. The petitioners point out that this will effectively
eliminate most employment programs for immigrants, new Canadians and visible minorities experiencing barriers to the job market.
They point out that these programs have been very successful in helping individuals obtain long term and permanent employment. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to continue funding programs with proven success rates for non-UI recipients.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, one of which came from the Canadian Vietnamese community which calls on the government to use its good offices to ask the Hanoi government to: first, release all political prisoners; second, abolish the communist dictatorship and establish a democratic and plural political regime in Vietnam; third, respect the human right to organize free elections under observation by the United Nations in order that the Vietnamese people can choose a regime suitable to their aspirations.
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by 78 constituents and nearby residents of New Brunswick.
The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code to the effect that a mother or father without serious cause not be able to place obstacles between a child and his or her grandparents, and failing agreement between the parties that the modalities of the relationship would be settled by the courts, and further to amend the Divorce Act so that it would give grandparents access to information about the health and well-being of their grandchildren.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Crowfoot had the floor. There remains to him up to 31 minutes.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my opposition to Bill C-45.
Bill C-45 demonstrates that the justice minister seemingly has no understanding of the horror inflicted on murder victims, their families and society. If he does, it certainly is not reflected in the bill.
The truck driver who witnessed the horror on Melanie Carpenter's face as she sat captive in the front seat of her killer's car understands the terror endured by this victim. The jury that endured the vivid testimony of Karla Homolka and witnessed the graphic audio account of the torture inflicted by Paul Bernardo on Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy understands the pain and suffering of these victims. It understands the constant anguish the families of these young girls live with every day of their lives, lives which have been damaged and altered forever.
Bill C-45 shows the justice minister has little empathy with the families of murder victims and the nightmares they endure as a result of the heinous crime committed against their children and grandchildren.
The members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs witnessed firsthand the horror of Sylvain Leduc's grandmother whose grandson was viciously beaten to death. I ask the House to listen to the horror of Sylvain's grandmother:
The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked and cold in a morgue. My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death. I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I could not stand it until I knew that he had clothes on him. My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this intestinal fortitude, but I call it my soul. It is there that love, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell.
The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb and on other days it is just like jello. It has lost its desire for living. It does not care much about everyday things anymore. It has lost its desire for food, for sex, enjoyment, travel and books. There is an emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it. Horror and fear live there also.
Sylvain's murderers have done this me. When all is quiet, I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull those horrible pictures. I receive psychiatric care but find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense. It takes so much energy to get there. I find it also hopeless. I feel like a dead flower that has been trampled down. I feel like I have been robbed.
Those are the comments of one of the family members of a victim of a first degree murderer. For the justice minister to allow the anguish to keep festering, to allow this grandmother's wounds to be opened and reopened is wrong, yet that is precisely what Bill C-45 allows.
Each and every time a killer applies for a judicial review of his parole, the family and society relive the horrible memories and live in terror of the day these killers will be released early from prison.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code demeans the value of a human life and so does Bill C-45 does. Both are examples of a previous and the current Liberal government's blatant disregard for human life, the families of murder victims and the safety of society. Section 745, which provides killers with an avenue for early release, makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.
The penalty for premeditated first degree murder is life imprisonment without the eligibility of parole for 25 years. A life sentence is not about rehabilitation. It is about punishment and retribution for the most horrible crime in society, the unlawful taking of an innocent life and the devastating effect it has on society.
The justice minister does not believe in punishment or retribution, only in rehabilitation. That is what we have been getting from what some of his own party call the bleeding hearts for the past 25 years. They tolerate the most extreme crimes in society while mocking and ridiculing those who would bring a sense of sanity back to the justice system.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code nullifies the penalty for first degree murder. It provides murderers an opportunity for a judicial review of their parole ineligibility after they have served just 15 years of a life sentence.
Bill C-45 does not repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code despite strong opposition to that section existing within our statutes today. Victims groups, the Canadian Police Association and a majority of Canadians believe section 745 should be eliminated completely.
Nothing except the full elimination of section 745 is acceptable to the Reform Party, and 98 per cent of our delegates at our national convention last week voted for the complete elimination of section 745 after debating and voting on this issue.
Bill C-45 is nothing but a meagre attempt by the justice minister to sugar coat this repulsive provision of the Criminal Code which bestows on killers an unjustified right for early release.
Bill C-45 strips multiple or serial killers of the right to apply for early parole. However, this applies only to multiple murders committed after the passage of the bill. This creates categories of killers, good killers and bad killers. Good killers are being granted special status, a hallmark of the government. Good killers will have the right to appeal for early release from prison while bad killers will serve out their life sentence.
Clifford Olson will still be able to apply for a reduction in his parole ineligibility, as will all multiple killers currently incarcerated in Canadian prisons.
As of December 1995 there were 574 first degree murderers incarcerated in Canada. Of those, approximately 5 per cent were multiple killers. Multiple killers sentenced after the passage of Bill C-45 will not be eligible to apply for a reduction. This provision of Bill C-45 does not appease the Rosenfeldts, whose son was murdered by serial killer Clifford Olson.
The Rosenfeldts, the Mahaffys, the Frenchs and many other Canadians will not be satisfied until multiple killers receive fair and just penalties, consecutive life sentences for each of the lives they took. Clifford Olson should be serving 11 consecutive life sentences. This is the only fair and just penalty for the taking of 11 young, innocent lives.
I often wonder when we debate this kind of a bill who we represent and who we speak for. Are we speaking for that narrow slice of community as represented by the justice minister this morning? Are we speaking for the Canadian Police Association, the chiefs of police, the victims groups and the vast majority of Canadians who have a real concern and fear about the growing laxity on the part of the government when dealing with such serious matters?
Because of Bill C-45 Clifford Olson, as all other multiple murderers, cannot 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. What does that mean? We are not quite sure what a reasonable prospect of success means.
If a superior court judge denies Olson or any of the other 28 multiple murderers currently incarcerated the right to a judicial review by a jury they can appeal to a court of appeal. They can also make application to a superior court judge again. Therefore what we have are circles within circles where it seems there is an endless opportunity and process whereby first degree killers can continue to appeal using taxpayer dollars in order to do so in what seems an endless attempt to re-enter society early.
As well, if the jury denies them a reduction in their parole ineligibility, provisions within section 745 allow them to appeal again and again. The same process will be applicable to all first degree murderers.
Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which allows for the expenditure of additional funds for section 745 appeals. When questioned yesterday, 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 a misleading joke. The justice minister has set up another level of appeal for first degree murderers and this is what will incur the additional costs.
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 Liberal's Bill C-41, which grants alternative measures to violent offenders, and Bill C-17, which reduces indictable offences to summary conviction of offences which may include jail sentences or nothing but a fine.
More money is needed for the added hurdles killers will have to jump before exercising their right to a judicial review of their parole ineligibility.
Bill C-45 may delay but it will not prevent killers from getting a judicial review and ultimately a reduction in their parole ineligibility. According to the judicial review reports of March 31, 1994, 128 first degree murderers were eligible for judicial review. Of the 71 who had applied, 43 had completed their judicial review while 28 applicants were outstanding. Out of 43, 19 received immediate full parole eligibility, 13 had a partial reduction in their parole ineligibility and 11 had been denied.
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 a growing justice industry. Bill C-45 is nothing but the government's attempt to tinker with the penalty for first degree murder.
Bill C-45 is not the first attempt by a Liberal government to fiddle with or amend the penalty for first degree murder. Successive governments have tinkered to the point where our justice system has been skewered in favour of the criminal. As a result of this bleeding heart approach to justice, the rights of criminals supersede the rights of victims in this country.
Murder was first classified as capital or non-capital in 1961. Before then one punishment was prescribed for murder, the death penalty. After 1961 only capital murder was punishable by death, capital murder being the planned and deliberate taking of a life or the murder of a police officer or 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 sentences to life but were eligible for parole after seven years. However, this too changed but for the better and after 1967 all those serving a life sentence for non-capital murder could not be recommended for parole before serving at least 10 years.
On February 24, 1976 the Liberal government introduced Bill C-84 to abolish the death penalty and 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 of those for life who deliberately and premeditatedly killed with no consideration for parole until a minimum of 25 years had been served. However, the Liberal government betrayed Canadians by slipping section 745 into the Criminal Code. We heard today from a Bloc member about the shenanigans that went on behind the curtains and in the House during that debate.
According to a former Liberal parliamentarian, section 745 was to provide "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". I wish I had the opportunity to ask this former MP what he felt was a just and fair punishment for the deliberate taking of a human life. What murderer has ever given his victim or his victim's family a glimmer of hope?
A killer does not deserve that which he denied his victim. Murderers should not be given a glimmer of hope or any incentive to ease the burden or the severity of their punishment for what they have done. The glimmer of hope advocates have made a farce of our penal system by extending to murderers rights they deliberately and viciously denied their victims.
Convicted murderers, rapists and others who take it upon themselves to assault or take the life of another person, another human being, throw all their rights away the minute they launch their deadly attack. For the criminal justice system to provide a criminal with a so-called glimmer of hope or to restore their rights is a further injustice to the victim and the victim's family and is an offence to Canadians. I am confident all Canadians would agree with this statement, particularly the Potts family of Hamilton whose daughter was murdered 15 years ago by Norman Joseph Clairmont.
In 1978 Clairmont 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. After making application for early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code, Clairmont was granted a reduction in his parole ineligibility. On February 8, 1993 a jury in the Ontario court deliberated less than three hours before granting this killer a chance at parole after serving only 18 years of a life sentence. This decision allowed Clairmont to immediately apply to the parole board for unescorted temporary absences. Clairmont was eligible for parole in 1995.
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 non-capital murder, won a reduction in his parole ineligibility to 16 years under section 745.
Convicted of the first degree murder of a Calgary policeman during a credit union hold up and hostage taking in 1976, William Nichols won a reduction in his parole ineligibility period to 20 years at an Alberta hearing.
Jean-Louie Rodrigue, convicted of second degree murder in the killing of a Montreal police officer, won a reduction in his parole ineligibility from 25 years to 15 years, as did Charles Simard who murdered two teenagers. Convicted killer Gilles Lavigne did as well.
Murderers like Clairmont, Nichols, Rodrigue and Simard are lining up and will continue to line up to take advantage of the glimmer of hope provided by an irresponsible bleeding heart government and endorse the current government. Bill C-45 may dim but it will not extinguish that glimmer of hope.
Reform, as a majority of Canadians, believes life means life. The only just and fair penalty for the taking of an innocent life is life imprisonment. Let us forget the glimmer of hope because that glimmer of hope was snuffed out in each one of their victims.
If the justice minister had truly consulted Canadians on this matter as he has indicated, he would know a majority of people share this belief. The minister's own caucus believes section 745 should be eliminated completely. This was evident last year when the House voted on private member's Bill C-226. Seventy-four Liberal members, including the then Minister of Transport, voted against the justice minister and voted in favour of repealing entirely section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Despite the results of the House of Commons vote and despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Canadians want section 745 repealed, the justice minister has produced Bill C-45, a flawed, half measure piece of legislation which continues to demean the value of a human life.
In closing, we are going to add to the list of pain, horror and sorrow as each year goes by. If the statistics hold true, we are going to see at least 40 people murdered at the hands of juvenile offenders. We are going to continue to add to that horror within our society, the sorrow, the suffering and the grief, and the justice minister and the government are adding to it by bringing in this half measure they call Bill C-45.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to add my words to the debate on Bill C-45. I wish to inform the Chair at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.
This bill shows that once again the justice minister has seen fit to bring forward a piece of legislation that is half baked, weak kneed, bleeding heart and which simply does not do the job where section 745 of the Criminal Code is concerned.
Millions upon millions of Canadians are telling the government that section 745 has to go. It is that simple. In reality what we have is Bill C-45 which is some 16 pages long and simply deals with categorizing murder. It is absolutely abominable that the government would try to categorize some murderers and therefore the victims and their families, as more serious than others, or that one murder is okay.
The government leaves the impression that one murder is okay but if a person kills more than once, then perhaps section 745, known as the faint hope clause, should not apply. It leaves people and would be criminals with the impression that it is acceptable. It is not acceptable to Canadians at large. It is not acceptable to victims rights organizations across the country that have been speaking out on the side of victims and it is certainly not acceptable to the Reform Party of Canada.
As I said, the bill is 16 pages long when in reality we only needed one short page of legislation to repeal section 745. I believe very strongly that all acts of murder are reprehensible in the eyes of Canadians. There are no good killers. Killers should not get special treatment because they committed just one murder.
The categorization of murder by the justice minister is an insult to the families of victims of one time killers. That is becoming more recognizable as word gets out of what the justice minister intends to do with this piece of legislation. Yet it does not surprise me. We have repeatedly seen this type of initiative come forward by the Liberal government and this particular justice minister.
I remember two years ago when we were debating Bill C-37, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Reformer after Reformer said that the legislation was insufficient, that it was inadequate and did not address the concerns of Canadians who were deeply concerned about the rising incidence of violent crime by young people. I might add there is a very real concern by the young people
themselves. Statistics show that they themselves more often than not are the victims of these young hoodlums.
Bill C-37 did not adequately deal with the problem. We said it then and we maintain that now. It has become self-evident. The justice minister himself shortly after that bill was passed said that the Young Offenders Act was once again under review. Now we see the same thing happening. It is becoming consistent with this justice minister.
We saw it a couple of months ago with Bill C-33, the legislation on sexual orientation to make it a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The justice minister as was indicated during question period today had maintained and had assured Reformers and the Canadian people that it was only to protect against discrimination and nothing more could be read into it. Now, just a few weeks later we see the results of that. Regardless of what the minister said today, that it had no impact on the ruling by the tribunal, I do not believe it. I do not think the majority of Canadians believe it. It reinforced what was there. That was a concern certainly expressed by the constituents of Prince George-Peace River and I believe by millions of Canadians across the country.
By categorizing murderers in Bill C-45 by the number of victims, we are adding another level of bureaucracy to the justice system. One level addresses multiple murderers; another addresses what the justice minister would like us to believe are the less nastier one time killers.
Instead of differentiating between multiple murderers and single murderers, the justice minister should have proposed consecutive sentencing. That is what people are calling for. For example, Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences. That would have been fair. That would have been justice. That is what Canadians are calling for.
It is ironic that private members' Bill C-226 was introduced on March 14, 1994, and was reintroduced following the prorogation of Parliament in January. In the last session, the House of Commons voted at second reading to refer the bill to the standing committee. Seventy-four Liberals, including the then Minister of Transport who is now the Minister of Human Resources Development, voted against the justice minister and supported the repeal of section 745. Yet private members' Bill C-226 which would have seen the repeal of this section was buried in committee. The bill which has been reintroduced has not yet been dealt with. Instead, the minister brought forward this half baked, totally inadequate piece of legislation.
To give a little bit of history, in 1976 Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal justice minister struck a deal with Canadians and the death penalty as a punishment for first degree murder was taken off the books. Even though the statistics and polling at that time showed that the majority of Canadians still wanted the death penalty for some of the more heinous crimes, the Liberal government did away with the death penalty but left Canadians with the assumption that life meant life.
We want to make it clear that when we talk about first degree murder this type of murder is not committed in a fit of rage. Some thought has been given to it. It is cold blooded premeditated murder. We are talking about the Clifford Olsons and the Paul Bernardos.
I am sure everyone understands how I feel about this issue. About a month ago I was fortunate to have my private members' Bill C-218 drawn which called for the reinstatement of capital punishment. I and a number of my colleagues spoke one evening on that and expressed our support for the return of capital punishment and for having a true free vote on it in the House of Commons. I stated that the Reform Party's position, which I strongly support, is that we should have a binding national referendum on the reinstatement of capital punishment. This was reconfirmed at our recent assembly. Let all Canadians decide on such an important issue.
However, the justice minister, the Prime Minister and others on that side of the House have very clearly indicated that they will not allow the people to have a say on this important issue. Therefore, I drafted my private members' bill and submitted it to the House in the hope that as a second-best alternative we could have a true free vote. Members could get the wishes of their constituents and then vote accordingly. It would not be as we have seen in past Parliaments that have voted on capital punishment, first to abolish it and then to reinstate it and members voted their personal conscience on the matter.
It is of interest that the first judicial review using this faint hope clause was in Alberta in 1992. William Nichols was in jail for robbery-
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired. Does he wish to share his time or does he wish to use his full time? That is really what it comes down to.
Allan Kerpan Reform Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the entire portion of my colleague's speech. I wonder if he would tell the House the example of the gentleman from Alberta he was beginning to speak about. I think it is important that the House hear it.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was to inform the House about the first example, William Nichols. I believe my colleague for Crowfoot did refer to that example.
After the review, although he was found guilty of robbery, kidnapping and killing a police officer, his sentence was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. This is the first example of how this clause has been used, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians.
I find it very interesting that one of the reasons, one of the excuses the justice minister has used to bring in gun registration, for example, with Bill C-68 was that he was responding to the wishes of Canadian policemen, those individuals across the country who lay their lives on the line to protect society every day and night.
Yet what we find is that the Canadian Police Association has passed other resolutions the justice minister is ignoring. In other words, he picks and chooses what he wants to move on.
I will read from Canadian Police Association resolutions passed at its convention:
Whereas the penalty for those persons convicted of murder is currently subject to varying parole eligibility, and this has produced a great measure of uncertainty amongst Canadians about the credibility of the justice system in Canada, be it resolved that:
First, the Criminal Code be amended so as to allow a discretionary capital penalty for those persons convicted of first degree murder as currently defined;
In other words, capital punishment should be brought back for some of the heinous crimes.
Second, all other persons convicted of first degree murder but not sentenced to capital punishment be imprisoned for life with no chance of parole or conditional release in any form, except for emergency medical treatment, until the expiration of 25 years;
Third, section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed.
In other words, do what the government said about the GST; abolish, kill, do away with. It did not do that and it will certainly not do it with section 745 regardless of what the Canadian Police Association says and regardless of what millions of Canadians across the country want. I find that absolutely disgusting. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-45.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-45.
I think it is clear in Canadian law what the juries and judges decide when a person comes to trial. When this government changed the rules to not allow capital punishment it gave a trade-off to the Canadian people who felt that was still an important part of the judicial system.
The trade-off was that if a person is convicted of first degree murder they would be given a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years.
If there is any concern whether or not they can prove this individual committed first degree murder, premeditated murder with intent, then they are not convicted. They reduce the conviction to second degree murder. That is not the issue here.
The issue here is that the trade-off for getting rid of capital punishment was life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. That is what Canadians thought they were getting. Nobody advertised that what they were getting was a faint hope clause added to that at a later date that says after 15 years they can apply to be eligible for parole. That was not the understanding when Canadians accepted reluctantly the removal of capital punishment.
If the courts are not convinced without any doubt at all that a person is guilty of premeditated murder, then they do not convict them of first degree murder. We are talking about only those individuals who are given this sentence when there is no doubt they committed the crime.
It is not that everybody who murders will end up with life without eligibility for 25 years. It is only those few individuals convicted of premeditated murder. The others are either convicted of second degree murder or of manslaughter if their crimes are considered to be unintended in the first place.
Having given Canadians this assurance that somebody who took a life, who intended to take a life, who planned on taking a life, would get a life sentence, we are now faced with a justice minister who is talking about making a difference between those who planned and intended on taking one life from somebody who planned and intended on taking more than one life. That is irrelevant. Those are the kinds of decisions juries and judges make at the time.
I find it abhorrent that we feel the decision made by a jury of peers and by a judge, people who heard all the current evidence of the day and made a decision, can be overturned at the whim of somebody else who was not there to hear the testimony.
That in essence is what we are deciding when we deal with this bill, and what the individuals decided when they brought in the faint hope clause, to totally disregard a decision that was made in our judicial system which we uphold and which the justice minister and his colleagues say is a great system that does not need to be changed that much because it works really well.
That is the system that decided whether these individuals would be tried and convicted of first degree murder, and that is the system that decided whether they would get life in prison without eligibil-
ity of parole for 25 years. Why is that system not being regarded? Why is their decision being put aside after 15 years? I and a lot of Canadians feel that is not right.
Instead of the government talking about looking at that challenge to a decision made in a court of law by a judge and jury, instead of asking if it is right to have that decision challenged 15 years later, maybe we should remove this clause that questions the judgment of those people, the minister will tamper with it. He will decide and have judges and juries decide whether a person is a serious killer or not, whether he is a bad killer or a good killer.
That decision was made years 15 years before, when the jury and the judge decided that person should be charged and convicted of first degree murder. When that judge handed down the sentence of no eligibility for parole for 25 years, that decision had already been made. Who are we to say they were wrong when they made that decision after they heard all the evidence?
I suggest to the justice minister that he take the tactic Reform Party members of Parliament are taking and prevent these things from even occurring. I introduced a private member's bill which deals with dangerous offenders and which tries to keep people who are likely to kill off the street so we are not faced with making decisions about how we are to handle them after they have killed.
We are trying to bring in legislation to keep those kinds of individuals who are likely to reoffend, likely to commit serious harm to other people or likely to kill other people off the streets of Canada. I suggest that is a much more efficient way and a much better way to deal with this issue.
Let us not talk about how we are to deal with these people who have been convicted and sentenced for first degree murder. Let us try to keep them from committing murder. Let us try to prevent more victims.
We are doing that. My hon. colleague talked about his private member's bill. I have my private member's bill that deals with dangerous offenders and I have a private member's motion that talks about people who show the propensity of doing these horrendous crimes. It says they be assessed by psychiatrists and if it is felt they are likely to kill somebody, it proposes the system deal with them before the event happens.
This is the way it should be handled, not by tinkering with a part of the Criminal Code that should not be there in the first place.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. She said initially-
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
That is a surprise. You have not been here that long.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I know it constitutes perhaps cruel and unusual punishment to have to, but I did.
The hon. member said this government had changed the rules on capital punishment. I ask her to reflect and to set the record straight. She is an honest person who is interested in the truth. She will recall that the last time capital punishment was imposed in Canada was under Mr. Diefenbaker. He abolished it at that time, commuting every sentence. No government after that ever imposed it.
A free vote of Parliament under a previous government abolished capital punishment. In the last Parliament there was another free vote initiated by the then Conservative government that resulted in the reiterating of the end of capital punishment.
Would the hon. member not recognize that what I said now is true and that what she said prior was not?
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that it was previous governments that dealt with this issue. It was a previous Liberal government under which section 745 was introduced into the Criminal Code.
I will acknowledge there were what were considered to be free votes in the House of Commons. That is as far as I would go. Free votes in the House of Commons by government members are not really free votes.
When dealing with the capital punishment issue, I suggest it was made very clear to government members before that vote was taken by the Conservative government what the expectation was.
It is not Parliament that should be making this decision, it is the Canadian people who should be making the decision. It is the Canadian people who should have the opportunity through a referendum to decide whether punishment is something they want as the most severe penalty in their justice system. The justice system is the system there for the Canadian people, not just the members of Parliament.
John Harvard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member as well. It seems the position she and her party take really shows contempt for jurors.
It is jurors who make these decisions. It is not done by lawyers, bureaucrats, psychologists, professional people. Decisions relating to reducing the ineligible period of parole are made by so-called ordinary Canadians. They are people from the community, down the street, neighbours and so on.
Why does she show so little faith in fellow Canadians?