Mr. Speaker, I want to get to something more important than wasting money down in Chicago and that is Bill C-45.
The Liberals do not get it and it is our job to tell them what they are doing is not right. Let me continue to show the weakness of this bill.
The screening review mechanism that the government has developed is a joke. I wonder, as do many Canadians, if this review process will be as effective as the National Parole Board has been under this new system.
The crown and the criminal are able to submit evidence in the form of an affidavit. There is no examination of the inmate until a jury hears the case. While an affidavit is a legally binding document, why should anyone who has committed the most heinous crime there is, the cold and premeditated taking of another human life, be trusted? One time is enough. They are put away one time, not two, three, four times.
Does the government's rehabilitation program suddenly instil honesty in these criminals? For the protection of Canadians we should have the right to question inmates before they are granted jury hearings.
One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is why the government puts more value in the loss of 2, 3, 20 or even 200 lives while the loss of one innocent life is grounds for a sentence review. Why try to make a distinction?
As reporter Licia Corbell wrote: "Take, for instance the fact that Rock is distinguishing between multiple murderers and those who kill once as though a murder victim's death is only legitimized by someone else's murder". That is ridiculous. That is sad. It is enough to make one sick.
This is what the justice minister does not get. He believes a first time murderer, a premeditated killer, found guilty by a jury of his peers deserves a second chance. A second chance for what? To do it again? The punishment should match the crime. Some of us favour capital punishment, some do not. It is life imprisonment, but a murderer serves 25 years, and automatically gets paroled after 25 years. Now the government wants to reduce that even more. That is totally wrong.
Corrections Canada's mission is to contribute to the protection of society by exercising lawful control. It seems ironic that the government willingly sends peacekeepers around the world to protect the lives of people in countries such as Bosnia, yet it is willing to release rehabilitated murderers on to Canadian streets.
Why do two or more people have to be killed by one murderer before the government steps in to lock these criminals up? Where are the government's priorities? Has it forgotten that its first responsibility is to Canadians? We must do everything to protect their safety. Is is any wonder that people do not trust our justice system?
It is time to place the rights of victims at the forefront. It is time to put law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.
Has the justice minister ever offered the Boyd or the Rosenfeldt families compensation for the horrific murders of their children? No, he has not. However, the government is willing to offer inmates compensation for slipping on a stairwell. The government is willing to offer Clifford Olson compensation to the tune of $100,000. It is even allowing him to publish books and make videos while in jail. What a slap in the face to these families. Where is justice? What a disservice and what an insult. There is no justice for the victims.
Why is the government so soft on criminals? Make no mistake, the people who we are talking about are criminals. They have broken the law. They are first degree, premeditated killers. We are not talking about second degree, by chance, look at the review and the situation and maybe give them a second chance. Society wants these first degree, premeditated, plan to kill killers punished for those crimes.
However, instead of punishing them, they are given compensation. They are made to feel comfortable. They are provided with the opportunity to be released early but, as the justice minister says, "only in appropriate cases".
When was first degree, pre-planned murder ever an appropriate case for early release? Why use language like this? This is what the justice minister said: "This is the right thing to do because it preserves the opportunity, but only in the appropriate cases". Do we not want a deterrent? Do we not want to have a deterrent for killers that plan to kill, that plan to take another life? Do we not want to tell these people that if they plan and commit a murder they are going to pay the price which is 25 years in jail? And if they are not good after 25 years then maybe they will serve even more. I do not think this Liberal government wants a deterrent. It wants to appeal to some soft bleeding hearts, but I will save that for another part of my speech.
The justice minister also said: "I think it is impossible to say that of all the hundreds and hundreds of people serving time for murder that there is a purpose to be served either for the victim or society to have them serve all 25 years without the prospect of a review". We are not talking about the hundreds and hundreds of second degree murderers. We are talking about first degree, pre-planned, premeditated murderers here. He is trying to whitewash the two situations. He is trying to mingle the two together. He believes they deserve a second chance. I disagree and I think the majority of Canadians do as well.
If these measures are going to strengthen the justice system and make Canadians feel safer, why do we not release these one-time murderers, if they get released after 15 years, and put them into the neighbourhood of the justice minister and the solicitor general? I wonder if either one of these ministers would feel safe if we released these rehabilitated criminals into their neighbourhoods. Would they think twice about walking around in their neighbourhood at night? Would they worry about the safety of their children, grandchildren, friends and neighbours? I am sure they would.
If they had a reason to be concerned then they need to listen to Canadians and give this bill some real clout. They should close all the loopholes like section 745. They should give Canadians some peace of mind and quit coddling the criminals.
The public is scared. Our streets are no longer safe. Crime is on the rise. The minister tells us: "Oh well, they are using statistics like `if I punch this guy in the face that is violent crime so therefore that is increasing crime"'. That is not a violent crime and not worth talking about. Violent crimes are increasing and young offenders crime is increasing.