Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.
At times I have been kind of hard on the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but I want to congratulate him for giving us, earlier today, the background of section 745 of the Criminal Code.
I also listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, for whom I have only had praise so far, but I must say that I was a bit disappointed to hear him continue to defend the indefensible, to support the untenable, to attempt the impossible, and let me explain what I mean, with all due respect for my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, whom I remember as a law professor at the school I attended.
Section 745 does not come out of nowhere and I want the members of the Reform Party who are bringing back the threat of capital punishment, because that is what we are in fact talking about here, in a roundabout way. I want them to be able to sleep as if nothing happened. However, history has taught us that the people who claim to speak on behalf of the majority, even those who talk until they get flushed with emotion, as we saw earlier, do not always have a monopoly of truth.
We do not have to look at foreign governments. Just look at what the Canadian government has done. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, must surely remember the act that was passed during the last world war to intern Japanese Canadians. Not one of the members sitting in this House at the time-and I know the Reform Party did not exist back then, but there were other similar parties-not one of them said: "Wait a minute. We are making a horrible mistake here and passing very
harmful legislation that may have some totally unforeseen impact on the lives of our fellow citizens".
Nobody asked this question. Some 35 years later, we have had to correct the situation, if money can be used for such a purpose, by passing redress legislation to make up for the mistake made by the members of Parliament 35 years earlier.
I think we may be making a similar mistake by hardening our views on section 745. When capital punishment was abolished, section 745 was seen as-mind what I say-a kind of release for people who had committed odious crimes and were under sentence of death. That person's safety inside could be ensured for a certain period of time. That person would generally accept his or her fate and be convinced that it would not be for long.
Since capital punishment was abolished and replaced by a 25-year term imprisonment or more, people who had been sentenced to death and were locked up for 25 years would lose all hope.
They would say to themselves: "This is unbelievable. I cannot take it. I expected to die, not to spend 25 years behind bars. This is unacceptable". Basically, what the law makers wanted to do was to reassure them by giving them some hope and telling them that 25 years is a very long time but it is possible to survive it.
We must give them some hope to control them and be able to keep them in prison without constantly having to face catastrophes, riots, rebellions, all kinds of crises inside our prisons.
That was the purpose of section 745 of the Criminal Code. There was a 25-year parole ineligibility period which, under section 745, could be now reduced. That was clearly explained to us by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
The present government-and this is one criticism I have to express to my learned colleague from Vancouver Quadra-is "reforming" itself. In western Canada, it is important not to lose too many votes to the Reform Party, so the government has to have a "western" platform in the west and a more social platform in the east. How can it be done? The government comes up with solutions that are totally preposterous, things that we know will never happen.
The danger in that is that we can have two different kinds of justice in one country. I will elaborate on that because my colleague from Vancouver Quadra does not seem to understand what I am saying. Let us take the 12-person jury for example, where in Quebec, since people are generally a bit different, as we have heard and seen many times, it would not be impossible to find a jury that would be 9 to 3 in favour of a reduction of the ineligibility period whereas in western Canada, particularly in areas where the Reform Party is very strong, we might find a jury that would be unanimously against such a reduction.
Even with similar or identical crimes, we would see that the tendency would not be the same in one part of Canada as in another. My friend from Vancouver Quadra is smiling, but he knows that I am right, and so do you, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose this is why you are not interrupting me.