Mr. Speaker, I would like the public and members of the House to put themselves in somebody else's shoes.
Imagine you are the husband, the father, the wife, the son or daughter of somebody. You come home one day and a police officer is at your door. The police officer asks you to sit down and he tells you that unfortunately and sadly your loved one has been murdered, murdered in cold blood, murdered in a premeditated fashion. An innocent person has been murdered. They have been ripped out of your life with absolutely no explanation.
These individuals, these loved ones are left to pick up the pieces after this unspeakable tragedy, a tragedy we would not wish on anybody. It destroys their families and their lives forever. The impact and pain these people feel are immeasurable and last their entire lives.
It is for this reason and in this context that we discuss Bill C-45, an effort to make amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
As we have discussed before in the House, this bill deals with a very narrow issue. It deals with individuals who have committed cold blooded, premeditated, first degree murder. These individuals wantonly, irresponsibly and without any regard for anybody else have taken lives, something they have absolutely no right to do.
We disagree with the changes the justice minister is making on a number of levels. First, what kind of message does it send to murderers? It sends the message that if they kill one person, it could be okay; if they kill more than one, it is definitely not. Murder is murder and has to be deplored, period.
Second is the concept of deterrence. Some people would say that having a first degree murder penalty of 25 years with no hope of parole is not a deterrent to committing the crime. Having worked in jails I can say that deterrence plays a very big role in people's actions. Deterrence does play a role.
The prospect of a penalty of 25 years is not looked upon favourably by anybody. The penalty of 25 years without any exception has to be there for first degree murder. It is not there for second degree murder for a reason, but it must be there for first degree murder because first degree murder applies only to premeditated cold blooded murder, an act that is so reprehensible that the majority of Canadians have said that people who commit this type
of murder must be treated in the harshest way. This would send a message of deterrence and would also provide protection for society.
We have seen a significant departure in our justice system since the early 1980s. At that time the Liberal solicitor general said to Canadians: "From now on the focus of the justice system is not going to be on the protection of society. The focus of the justice system will be on dealing with the criminal. We are going to concentrate on the criminal, not the protection of the innocent in society".
That is the mindset which has pervaded our justice system over the past 14 years. It is something Canadians have been utterly revolted by. They feel that their rights as innocent civilians to be protected by the justice system are being abrogated from on high by the federal government in Ottawa.
That is why my colleagues from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and Fraser Valley West, and my colleague from Crowfoot who was our lead speaker on this bill, have put forth constructive measures to ensure that the protection of innocent civilians is the primary goal of our justice system.
It is not to say that we are not concerned about rehabilitation. It is not to say that we are not concerned about prevention. However, certainly the number one goal of our justice system has to be the protection of innocent civilians. That is why we feel the changes to section 745, which Bill C-45 brings in, do not properly reflect our desire to protect Canadian citizens.
There are a number of measures the justice minister can take. I would suggest that he look at the following. Some interesting experiments have been done in the United States. They looked at inner city schools that had very high teen pregnancy rates, high crime rates, high drop out rates and high illiteracy rates.
The school children were referred to the university which started to deal with the children early on, from kindergarten on. Not only did they teach these children their ABCs and the three Rs but they also taught them concepts such as self-respect, respect for others and appropriate conflict resolution. They informed them about drug and alcohol abuse and smoking.
The parents were also brought in. They were usually single parents. That was the environment these children lived in. They brought the parents into the school system, and the parents took an active role in the classroom with their children and with the teacher. The parents often did not know how to be good parents. They did not themselves have the basic pillars of a normal psyche because they had grown up in an abusive environment.
The outcome was very interesting. The parents learned how to be good parents. The parents learned what self-respect was. The
parents learned that slamming somebody's head into a wall was not appropriate conflict resolution. The parents learned about drug and alcohol abuse and the value of education. In the end, there were much lower rates of drop outs, criminal activity, drug abuse, assaults, et cetera.
The hon. justice minister should bring together his colleagues, the ministers of education from across the country, to change the focus in our education system. The greatest impact we can have on the justice system later on, and the prevention of conduct disorders and criminal behaviour is through changes by focusing on early childhood education in the way I mentioned.
I would bring attention once again to the bills my colleagues in the Reform Party have put together. There is the one on the victims bill of rights. I hope the justice minister does not let this very good bill die in committee. He should give it the same expeditious treatment that he gave to Bill C-33. There is also the bill of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on dangerous offenders. The justice minister should take a very close look at that because it will certainly make our streets safer.
Revamping the Young Offenders Act is essential. It is an absolute sham right now. Changes need to be made. I implore the justice minister to deal with that. I know members across the party lines would be very happy to work with him to make our streets safer for Canadians.
