Debates of Sept. 16th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-45, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 4, and lines 1 to 5, on page 5, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 31, on page 9, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. We are dealing with Bill C-45. While I understand the House leaders of the parties may have had an opportunity to meet, to discuss and to agree on the way of proceeding with Bill C-45, I can tell you that I was not consulted as to the procedure that would be followed today.

You are seeking unanimous consent. Perhaps for the time being I will refrain from giving unanimous consent until someone from the traditional parties provides me with an explanation as to what is happening with respect to these amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member is fully entitled, as colleagues will know, to deny unanimous consent on reading these motions. It will get awfully boring for members to have to listen to me read six pages but I recognize the member is fully entitled to do that.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not denying unanimous consent to dispensing with the reading, and yes it would get rather boring for the Speaker to have to read all the amendments. But there appears to be some form of agreement between the House leaders as to which motions are agreed to. The government whip is shaking his head. Perhaps he could provide me with an explanation. In the meantime I have no difficulty with not reading each motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is much obliged to the hon. member for York South-Weston. I take it then that there is unanimous consent to dispense with reading Motion No. 4.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 31, on page 9, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 13, and lines 1 to 5, on page 14, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than three quarters of the members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-45, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 13, and lines 1 to 5, on page 14, with the following:

"(3) The jury hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the number of years must be by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury.

"(4) The applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is not reduced if a ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) determines that the number of years ought not to be reduced; b ) the jury hearing an application under subsection (1) concludes that it cannot determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced; or c ) the presiding judge, after the jury has deliberated for a reasonable period, concludes that the jury is unable to determine by a vote of not less than ten of twelve members of the jury that the number of years ought to be reduced.''

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motions are all deemed to have been read.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us first get things straight. Over the summer, it was rumoured on the Liberal side that Bill C-45 had been killed by the official opposition, by the Bloc Quebecois, that we were against this bill, that we were on the side of those who rely a little too much on rehabilitation. There were all sorts of rumours going round.

The position we took in second reading was very clear. We supported the bill while pointing out that, after 20 years of operation, the time had come to review section 745 of the Criminal Code, under which a person sentenced to life imprisonment for murder can request that a jury be summoned and his or her case reviewed after serving only 15 years.

This section that came into force 20 years ago last July deserved to be reviewed but not in all of one day and a half, as it were, with time allocation being imposed on Bill C-45, the committee working almost round the clock to report to the House in a rush and the bill finally never being considered because time ran out.

One of the main concerns we had in the official opposition, in the Bloc Quebecois, was to determine where the interest of the victims lay in this whole issue. The hon. member for Crowfoot raised this point time and time again in committee. We too trust the jury, of course, as an institution, to make a decision under section 745 in relation to the exceptional release of lifers. We trust the jury, provided it has all the facts. One factor that was missing in our opinion was the notion that the victims, their families, other individuals and even the community at large may have sustained a loss because of the murder.

Whether it is made by psychologists or sociologists, there is always a delineation made. That is the main reason why we gave our support to this bill in second reading. We can either use the steamroller or have a logical and enlightening discussion right across Canada on the implementation of section 745 of the Criminal Code. The value of this section in certain circumstances has been demonstrated, and it has been shown that, when a person is sentenced to life in prison but is released after 15 years or more, the rate of relapse is practically non existent. Indeed, the value of this section has long been demonstrated.

Today, the government wants to change it, quickly and without any study. Three major amendments are being proposed: first, the jury which currently makes its decision or recommendation based on a two-third majority would, with this bill, have to make unanimous decisions.

The idea is to give these jurors the same role as the members of a jury rendering a verdict at a trial. In a trial, the jury's decision must

be made beyond any reasonable doubt. It makes perfect sense that the 12 citizens forming a jury have to render a unanimous guilty or not guilty verdict. However, the jury referred to in section 745 is not at all the type of jury that we have known for centuries in the British criminal law system. One has the right to be judged by one's peers and to see them render a verdict.

The jury that exists since 1976, twenty years is a short period in history, is a special jury which does not have to render a verdict but to give its opinion. Should an inmate sentenced to life in prison for murder-the act also mentions high treason, but since Louis Riel I do not think we have had the audacity to condemn anyone on that ground-be eligible for release after 15 years, in exceptional cases? This jury does not even make the decision. It authorizes or not the inmate to submit a request to the National Parole Board, which will hold hearings. And here we say that, of course, the victims should have a right to be heard.

The evidence on which this jury bases its decision is not judged on the same criteria as the evidence presented during a trial. It is an opinion issued by a jury. It is normal that there may be dissension and disagreement. The two thirds rule established in 1976 appeared to us to be a wise rule allowing uniform application of the law throughout Canada in criminal matters.

It is obvious that, if the bill were to be passed as it reads today, section 745 of the Criminal Code would be applied differently according to the province in which inmates resided. It is obvious that juries empanelled in Quebec under section 745 of the Criminal Code are generally more liberal, more socially open to such an application, while in other provinces it will take just one person to block parole.

One of the basic principles for our having one criminal code for the entire country is that there must be uniform application of the rules of law. In practice, we will not have uniform application of the rules of law throughout Canada.

The government is presenting us with a bill, Bill C-45, that is nothing but double talk. On the one hand, in those parts of Canada where it suits its purposes to do so, it will be able to say that it has, to all intents and purposes, made it impossible for someone serving a life sentence to be released on parole. And in other more liberal parts of Canada, the government will say that it has not abolished section 745, even though the House of Commons passed Bill-226 presented by our colleague, the hon. member for York South-Weston, which repealed section 745.

The background discussion has taken place. Should the section remain or not? It is a good question, a clear question with a clear answer. I am in complete disagreement with the points of view expressed by my colleague, but at least he asked the right question: Should it, or should it not, remain in the Criminal Code?

For us in the official opposition, a life sentence is a life sentence. This means that a person released while serving his prison sentence is nevertheless released conditionally and may be returned to custody if he violates the conditions of his release.

However, we should not make the false hopes raised by section 745 disappear altogether, and I say this because other aspects of Bill C-45 will make the application of section 745 of the Criminal Code even more haphazard. From now on, it will be necessary to obtain the judicial approval of a provincial superior or supreme court for the inmate to be eligible to file his application. Why was this done? Why was this done so quickly during the last few hours of the session? Because a serial killer in Canada became eligible to apply for parole this summer.

Some people made it appear as though this criminal would automatically be released. The only right he obtained this summer was the right to file his application with the provincial chief justice. A jury will be called and asked to decide, probably with a two-thirds majority, whether he should be released or not. That is a good way to test the system. Will the jury, in this case, allow a serial killer to be released? Will a jury cognizant of the facts allow this to be done, and if it did, second question, will the National Parole Board which appears before our committees be comfortable with justifying that release? Personally, I am confident this will not happen, even if Bill C-45 is not passed.

I am far more concerned about a government that acts in haste when dealing with the Criminal Code and unthinkingly alters the rights and freedoms of each citizen, although the judicial area is the very area where prudence is of the essence, because often the secondary or side effects may be more serious than expected.

That is why we suggest that the unanimity rule proposed by the government in Bill C-45 should be changed to three quarters, in other words, nine jury members out of 12 must be in favour of the inmate's release as opposed to the present two thirds rule, and this for the purely technical reason that maintaining the status quo was already voted down in committee and it was therefore impossible to reintroduce it at this stage, at the report stage.

For these reasons we intend to vote for the motion to establish the three quarters rule for jury decisions when section 745 is being applied.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my speech, I would like to say that I support the

motion moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse. I prefer his amendment to my own and will support it when it comes to a vote. I hope he will vote for mine if his amendment is not passed by the House.

I want to make it very clear that my opposition to this whole bill, which I indicated by my vote at second reading, is because I oppose changes to section 745. My own preference would be to get rid of section 745, not in accordance with the proposals from hon. members opposite, but to get rid of minimum sentences for murder and substitute a sentence of life imprisonment and allow the National Parole Board to allow for release in the normal course of events, as used to be the case in this country before the adoption of section 745.

I recognize that would be a perfect world, which is unlikely to come. Therefore I am having to satisfy myself with proposing some pretty modest amendments to this bill which I hope my hon. friends opposite will consider voting for. I know that may be asking a little much, but it is still worth a try.

Bill C-45 has three main points. It takes away the right of multiple murders to apply for early release. I can live with that change in the law. It provides for a screening process for all applications before a judge alone. With reluctance I can accommodate that change in the law. It also removes from the current law the provision that a jury must recommend early release by having eight of the 12 members agree. It now requires that all 12 members agree. That is a change in the law which in my view will in most parts of Canada, as the hon. member for Bellechasse has said, result in no releases under this section. In my view this is unduly punitive and unnecessary for the proper administration of justice in this country.

I would like to look at what our system should be aiming for when it seeks to punish offenders or when it applies a sentence following a trial on a serious charge such as a murder charge, the most serious of all charges.

It seems the goals of sentencing should be first and foremost the protection of the public. Second, there should be rehabilitation for the offender. Third, there should be punishment for the offender. One thing there is not in our law, nor should there be in our law, is revenge. That is what I suggest is the basis for this amendment.

The law is there to protect the public. I put this question rhetorically to the House. How is the public protected by the long sentences that are imposed for these offences, the 25-year minimum will become the standard sentence if this bill is adopted, in my opinion?

From 1968 to 1974 the average time served by a person whose sentence had been commuted to a life sentence for murder from the death penalty, which was then in force, was 13.2 years. Every sentence was commuted during those years. How is it that if 13.2 years was satisfactory then we now have to look at doubling that to 25 years in order to mete out a suitable sentence? I suggest it is quite inappropriate.

During the years that there were commutations taking place, and I am sorry I do not have the exact figures today, I understand that approximately 200 persons were released under the auspices of the National Parole Board, in most cases with the consent of the governor in council. Of those approximately 200, my recollection is that there were only one or two who reoffended and who were subsequently arrested for various offences and brought into prison.

In other words, in terms of the safety of the public, the risk of releasing persons serving long sentences, murderers in particular, is minimal. I know members of the public tend to be fearful thinking that if a person has murdered once he is likely to murder again. However, the statistics and facts all indicate the opposite is true. Usually murderers do not re-offend.

These very onerous sentences, the minimum 15-year sentence with the provision for application to a jury for early release, was put in place when the death penalty was abolished. In my view it was put in solely to appease the persons who were in favour of hanging. It was to convince them that a long sentence would make up for the abolition of the death penalty.

This law has been in operation for some 20 years, as the hon. member for Bellechasse has pointed out. Of course no applications could take place for an extended period but then they started. As of December 31 last year 63 cases have been heard for consent to reduce the term of the sentence. Fifty of the 63 were successful in one way or another. Some of them were minimal reductions while others were significant reductions. However, of those 50, two are in difficulty with the law. One is unlawfully at large and one has re-offended. I note that it is not a murder.

There is absolutely not a tittle of evidence to indicate that the current law is not working as it was planned to work and as it should work. The risks to the public in the operation of the current law are minimal and the hon. member for Wild Rose knows that. He just buries his head in the sand and ignores the facts.

This bill before the House today, C-45, does not enhance the safety of the public. It simply proposes more draconian prison sentences on those who already have received a life sentence. It will ensure that they stay in for a longer period of time.

Let us turn to the second part, the rehabilitation of offenders. Do we rehabilitate these offenders by keeping them in prison for longer sentences? The answer from experts in penology is "no we do not". Longer sentences do not assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. Rehabilitation can usually, not always, be accomplished in a shorter time and usually the person can be released safely.

There will always be cases where a release is not safe, it is not in the interests of the public and rehabilitation has not occurred.

However, we have a National Parole Board which has had some extremely capable people appointed to it by this most capable minister, the Solicitor General of Canada, with the assistance of our most capable Minister of Justice. These two ministers have set an example of quality appointments to our National Parole Board, I am pleased to say. The National Parole Board is doing an excellent job in reviewing parole possibilities for inmates.

I suggest the punishment of 25 years without any hope of release is excessive. Even murderers in the United States are not sentenced to such long sentences. They are given a life sentence but the normal release period is less than 25 years. It is excessive and high by any standard. In fact I would suggest it is one of the highest in the world for murderers.

I am appalled that the government would propose such an amendment when I consider the cost of keeping inmates in prison and more appalled when members of the Reform Party, who profess to be budget conscious, are supporting this kind of measure. We know from the figures released by Corrections Canada that it costs between $60,000 and $70,000 a year to keep an inmate in maximum security. These lifers are being kept far longer than they used to be kept, and quite needlessly in many cases because the law states they must be kept for 15 years plus. Everyone knows they are spending more than 15 years in prison. The average has gone from 13.2 up to-

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Everybody does not know that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The hon. member says that everybody does not know it. They should know it because the application cannot be made until after 15 years have expired on a sentence. Then there is a waiting period while the jury trial takes place. After the jury trial is over and the jury has permitted a reduction, the inmate must then apply to the National Parole Board and have a hearing. All of that takes months. Therefore the minimum sentence is in fact more than 15 years in every case. It extends into the 10-year period before release can be achieved even in the most favoured case.

To keep people locked up in prison at great public expense when they do not pose a risk to the public-at least in the opinion of the National Parole Board-when they are genuinely sorry for their misdeeds, have indicated that they are sorry and are trying to improve their lot, and when they are most unlikely to reoffend as is the case with most of the persons in this particular class, then I suggest that the Canadian taxpayer is being taken for a ride. Hon. members opposite who are so opposed to misspending of public funds ought to be on their hind legs objecting to this kind of over expenditure. However, I do not need to argue solely on that basis. We need to approach this case with compassion. We must regret profoundly the loss of a victim and of course we do.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for him to continue?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. These amendments clearly demonstrate that the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands have absolutely no understanding of the horror inflicted on murder victims.

The truck driver who witnessed the horror of 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 who 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 understand the pain and suffering of these victims. They understand the constant anguish the families of these young girls live with every day of their lives, lives that have been destroyed.

These amendments show that the member for Bellechasse and the member for Kingston and the Islands do not empathize with the families of murder victims and the nightmares they endure as a result of the heinous crimes committed against their children and grandchildren. For these members to allow that anguish to keep festering, to allow the wounds of the families of victims to be opened and reopened is wrong. Yet that is precisely what this amendment will allow.

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 possibility that these killers will be released early from prison.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code demeans the value of a human life as does Bill C-45. These amendments are proposed by the member for Bellechasse and the member for Kingston and the Islands. All are examples of a blatant disregard for human life, the families of murder victims, the safety of society and a blatant disregard for the wishes of the Canadian public, many of whom are demanding a return of capital punishment for first degree murder.

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 premeditated and unlawful taking of an innocent life and the devastating effect this has on society.

These amendments and the minister's refusal to eliminate section 745 demonstrates clearly the value the justice minister places on the lives of Canadians. He, as does a majority of his caucus and the Bloc, believe the lives of our children and grandchildren are worth only 15 years.

If the justice minister asked Canadians to place a value on the lives of their children, overwhelmingly their response would be life in prison or capital punishment. The justice minister does not believe in punishment or retribution, only in rehabilitation and that is what we have been getting from the bleeding heart mentality 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 into the justice system.

They accept and promote the worth of a human life at only 15 years. Section 745 of the Criminal Code nullifies the penalty for first degree murder. It provides murderers an opportunity for the judicial review of their parole ineligibility after they have served just 15 years of a life sentence.

These amendments do not repeal section 745. Bill C-45 does not repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code despite strong demand across the country to do so. Victims groups, the Canadian Police Association and I would suggest the majority of Canadians believe that section 745 should be eliminated completely because a life is worth much, much more than 15 years.

Nothing except the full elimination of section 745 is acceptable to the Reform Party. It is for precisely this reason I oppose these amendments. I oppose any half-baked attempt to modify, change or amend this repugnant and unacceptable section of the Criminal Code.

The amendments and Bill C-45 are nothing but a meagre attempt by the justice minister to sugar coat this repulsive provision of the Criminal Code which bestows on killers an unjustifiable right for early release.

Bill C-45 strips multiple or serial killers of the right to apply for early parole. However, this only applies to multiple murders committed after passage of the bill. This creates categories of killers, good killers and bad killers. Good killers are being granted special status, a hallmark of this government. We saw special status in Bill C-41, in Bill C-33 and in Bill C-110. We see special status being created in this bill.

Good killers will have the right to appeal for early release from prison while bad killers will serve out their life sentence. Thanks to the justice minister's ill-conceived strategy of waiting until the 11th hour to introduce Bill C-45 and thanks to Bloc members for reneging on their word to not unduly delay Bill C-45 so that it could pass before the summer recess, Clifford Olson, Canada's most notorious killer has the right in law to apply for a reduction in his parole ineligibility. Section 745 provides killers like Olson the right to appeal any negative decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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.

The provisions of Bill C-45 do 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 so viciously stole, not a meagre 15 years for the torture and killing of 11 innocent children as supported by the Liberal government.

Clifford Olson should be serving 11 consecutive life sentences. This is the only fair and just penalty for the taking of 11 young lives.

This amendment of Bill C-45 is nothing but a bleeding heart attempt to tinker with a penalty for first degree murder. Killers do not deserve that which they denied their victims. Murderers should not be given a glimmer of hope nor any incentive to ease the burden of the severity of their punishment because they did not give their victims any hope.

For the criminal justice system to provide a killer with a so-called glimmer of hope or to restore their rights is a further injustice to the victim, the victims' families and an offence to Canadians.

I am confident all Canadians would agree with this statement. I think most Canadians would agree that these amendments to Bill C-45 demean the value of human life. I therefore oppose them because they are not worthy of support.

It has been suggested by my House leader that we not proceed with Bill C-45 today until the matter of Bill C-234 is resolved. It can be resolved in many ways. For the good of this institution and the spirit of private members' business we should adjourn this debate and allow the House leader to work out a solution.

I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Crowfoot has moved:

That the debate be now adjourned.

This is a non-debatable motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion negatived.