House of Commons Hansard #68 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was life.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Sharon Hayes Reform Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

My colleague says that only Reformers are connected. We care about representing our constituents. Why do the Liberals not care what their constituents are thinking?

The private members' bill put forward by the member for York South-Weston has been ignored, has been swept under the carpet. It demanded repeal of section 745 and that is where we should be going, not tinkering, not doing what we did with the YOA, but making real change.

Seventy-four members supported that bill. Where are they today? Where are the government members who should be saying that we do need change. We need repeal of section 745. For goodness sake, why does the justice department reign without consideration of where Canadians are coming from. These members march in lock step with government priorities, whether it be automatic parole, or treatment of illegal immigrants or the small minority of immigrants who break the law. These are all things which are a total disgrace to Canadians. The government is not treating the criminal justice system with its due priority nor is it reflecting the views of Canadians.

The member for Skeena asked some excellent questions. What do we say to a woman whose husband was murdered and we know she has to live with the pain for the rest of her life while the criminal has a chance to go free in 15 years? What do we say to children whose mother was raped and killed by a repeat offender who was released early by a justice system that does not take the crime seriously? What do we say to the families of Clifford Olson's victims when he applies for early release? What do I say to the

moms and teens who will live on the same street as that young offender who will be released in three years?

Liberal members who have spoken have no appreciation of the anger that is out there or the overwhelming public support for a capital punishment referendum. Reform listens and we speak to and support that. How can these MPs say they are representatives? They have managed to miss the message. Who are they listening to? They are not hearing the people I am hearing.

I say today that we should repeal, not tinker with section 745. Along with my colleagues I will vote against Bill C-45.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB

Madam Speaker, I think we really need to look at some of the details of this bill. As my colleague said, maybe we are just tinkering with it.

One frustrating thing that the Canadian public feels is that there needs to be some large changes made, not just tinkering with any piece of legislation, whether it is financial, economic or criminal justice.

I want to respond to a Liberal member who just called across asking: "Why did you not support the gun control bill"? If I though that the gun bill would eliminate or reduce crime and violent offences in great measure, I would be willing to support the gun bill. I think Canadians across the country probably would.

What they see is a situation where the government is perhaps out of touch. The same member also is calling out right now. I do not know whether I could call this an assault, but I certainly do hear a lot of noise coming from that direction. The member says: "Don't you think we listen to the people?" Of course I do. I would not be arrogant enough to say that nobody in this House but Reformers listens to the people because that simply is not true.

I know there are members in this House, and you probably yourself, Madam Speaker, spent the summer at home and listened to what people had to say. The concerns are the same across the country. Let us face it, nobody on either side of the House wants Clifford Olson to be free and wandering around in the Canadian public any more.

What has happened is that the executive branch of the government says that it knows best. I know there are Liberal backbenchers here who are equally frustrated as we are. They have been home, and we have been home, for the summer and listened to what has gone on. People are hearing in their own constituencies that they want people to be accountable. They want government to be accountable. It is their cash that we are spending here. They want to make sure that murderers are accountable for their crimes as well. They feel a sense of frustration that Bill C-45 which is not completely repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code is going to do that job.

The private member's bill brought in by our colleague from York South-Weston was going to do exactly that. It was repealing section 745 so that we would not have this automatic kickback in place so that after 15 years a murderer could automatically apply for early parole.

We talk about justice and say that justice must be done. We could all debate in this House about how important it is for justice to be done and to be served. Let us remember that justice means justice. In a lot of our academic discussions we have probably forgotten what the word justice actually means.

Those people who think that they know the meaning of it, the academics, the lawyers, the judges, the media and so on, perhaps have lost the true meaning of what justice is. Ordinary Canadians have not and whether they live in Reform ridings or Liberals ridings is immaterial. Ordinary Canadians regardless of whom they are represented by in the House of Commons realize that the meaning of justice has been lost or certainly watered down.

I could give a definition of justice to mean acting in accordance with what is morally right or fair. We are afraid to walk the line to even talk about morals. Somewhere there is ultimate justice coming and those people who have taken a life, first degree murderers, who are applying for early parole now must realize that their victims are dead forever. When we hear on the news or see on television that someone has been brutally murdered by one of these violent offenders we feel that pain. We try to understand the grief that family is going through.

Yet a couple of years later, for instance in the Mahaffy and French cases, although I feel that pain, it is certainly not the way the family feels it. That is with them forever. The person who committed murders may feel somewhat repentant. I do not know how they feel in their hearts. I know that they are alive and they are doing whatever they can do. Clifford Olson is working on his appeal right now. He is not feeling the grief that the families are feeling. Many people who have had loved ones murdered are feeling that pain. Dead is dead forever.

When we think that justice means acting in accordance with what is morally right or fair, there are wrongs, there are rights, there are absolutes that it is wrong to take another life. We could just discuss it away in these hallowed halls all the time and say we think that this person needs special treatment or we think that this person deserves to get out of jail. There are people who genuinely do get rehabilitated but the frustrating part is that we just use all of them in a blanket statement.

The words bleeding heart were used here earlier by various people. We need to be sensitive, to make sure that people who are forever going through the pain of losing loved ones are not going

to be hoodwinked or going to be held to ransom by a body of legislators who think that they know best for everybody and that is by giving the criminals more attention than the victims.

Something we have to get to in our society, when we are talking about morals or what is absolutely right or wrong, is that when the rights of a victim and the rights of a criminal conflict we must always come down on the side of the victim. Yes, criminals need attention, rehabilitation, love and caring, but the victim was someone who was totally innocent and paid the price. As I mentioned earlier, those who have lost somebody have lost them forever.

I would just like to mention Clifford Olson for a couple of minutes because his name has come up over and over again. He has been the flashpoint of this section 745. Clifford Olson wreaked havoc on many people's lives and those lives are suffering just as much now, 15 or 16 years later, as they were when the act was committed.

I think Clifford Olson was arrested in August 1981. I was on a camping trip on the coast. I was camping in a tent on the sand at Long Beach on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I got up the next day and packed up my tent to drive across Vancouver Island to go over to Vancouver. I heard on the news that Clifford Olson had just been arrested around Ecluelet on the west coast of Vancouver Island which was about two miles from where I was camped. A young woman, sleeping in a tent on the beach, I thought I was perfectly safe. I had no thought in the world that anything wrong or dangerous would happen to me.

Ironically, I found out he had just been arrested a couple of miles up the road. He had picked up a couple of girls and had not done anything to them yet. Fortunately they did not have to pay the price with their lives. However, he was out and about and free. Who knows, many other people could have been his victims.

He was arrested then and is now applying, 15 years later, for early parole. The sad and ironic twist about this thing, which was brought in by a Liberal government in 1978 by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I understand is that the time goes from the time of arrest which is 15 years ago. As one of my colleagues said, the moment one is arrested the time is added and therefore the 15 years are up.

I would like to ask how anyone of us would feel if we were one of the victims' families and heard that Clifford Olson was going to get his day in court. Can anyone imagine having to open that wound again and watch him get that opportunity in court? I cannot think of anything worse, more damaging, more dangerous, more frightening and more harmful than to give this guy another day in court so that he can go and bring up all this stuff again. I do not think the families of those victims need to see that again. I do not think he needs his day in court.

I do not know if you were one of the ones, Madam Speaker, whom he wrote a letter to recently in this Parliament, but the fact is Clifford Olson sent mail to many of the people in this Chamber and there was a condom stuck in that letter. I would like people to reflect on that for just a minute by asking if this is what we are allowing to happen. Do we want to give this guy his day in court? I think not. I do not think that anyone of us needs to be subjected to getting a condom from this character, I really do not.

However, we see a government which says: "Yes, we are going to bring this in because we need to be compassionate".

Let me finish by saying yes, we do need to be compassionate. By repealing section 745 all together does not mean that we are not being compassionate. What it means is that we will still allow a trigger to be in place because some murderers and violent offenders are curable. They are not all incorrigible. Some of them will be rehabilitated. Some will care and will have a genuine conversion experience in prison. They will want to make their lives better and pay back to society some of the terrible things they did by doing good work. Some of them will be allowed to be released. By eliminating section 745 all together does not mean we are just going to lock these guys up and throw away the key. However, there is such a thing as a pardon. I think that trigger could still be in place.

I wish the Minister of Justice and his colleagues would say: "We want to make sure that even though we do repeal section 745 there is still room for a pardon so that somebody can be released on that but it would be the exception rather than the rule". I think that is a far healthier way of going about it than the way the government is moving with not repealing section 745 and going ahead with Bill C-45 right now. I think it is wrong and I do not think it will solve the problems that we face in the country.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, Bill C-45 is before Parliament this September for specific reasons. There is a national consensus. The national consensus is that the operation of section 745 is flawed. The public does not like it. As with so many issues, the government tries to respond but it will not abandon its old ways and become a responsive agent for change.

This bill demonstrates that it is a rather poor manager of the country's business. It is not a matter of left or right on the political spectrum. It is between Liberal system defenders and the out of date attitudes of the Liberals, and Reformers who side with average Canadians in their impatience for change to reform our laws, to represent the situation that has become evident to the public as it

has observed the results and the operations of section 745 of the Criminal Code in its community.

The Liberals continue to stick to the old. Reformers are the system changers. It is a matter of ideals and social philosophy. It reveals the bankruptcy of Liberalism and the dissonance between the old view of the Prime Minister and the tremendous desire for reform that is in the land.

Today we have an example of the distasteful Liberal attitude of the divine right to govern from the Reformers who wish to represent mainstream Canadian values and the desire to give this country a fresh start.

The statistics of reoffending are not relevant to the central argument. However, the amount of crime we have in society is central. It is a matter of doing what is right, of doing what mainstream Canada wants. It is a matter of how average Canadians view themselves, of how citizens in my riding interpret what it means to be Canadian and of what should happen in society when murder occurs.

It is my view that section 745 of the Criminal Code has no appropriate place in Canadian criminal law. It is not appropriate as an instructive and social aspect of defining the limits of social order. It is a classic case of old style government prescribing and telling Canadians what is good for them, while it closes its ears to the national outcry against the section 745 rule.

There was a deal in this nation, the fair exchange was the abolition of capital punishment. Measures were introduced for those who have received life in jail. The faint hope of parole at the 25 year point was the fair exchange when capital punishment was eliminated.

Then that fair exchange was broken by the Liberals and slippery rules were introduced that the parole eligibility date could be reduced to even 15 years.

The bill before Parliament today tinkers again with these rules. The problem is this whole game should never have been entertained in the first place. This section should be repealed, not adjusted.

If the Liberals had their ideology deeply rooted in the Canadian soil and if they could comprehend the victims in this country, they would have abolished section 745. They would not have come back with this weak-kneed pointless piece of legislation known as Bill C-45 that we are debating today.

I also take issue with the fact that Bill C-45 appears to create categories of good and bad murderers. Those who kill one person will be entitled to a section 745 review. These are the good murderers according to the justice minister's legislation. However, serial killers will not be entitled to a section 745 review. These are the minister's bad murderers in the bill. It is truly unbelievable that the minister has actually quantified human life in this piece of legislation.

I ask the Prime Minister is one life any less valuable than two, three, five, ten? According to this bill an offender should be given a glimmer of hope if they kill only one person, but any more than that and they will not get a section 745 review.

The Liberals have set the quota at one life. It is disgraceful and reprehensible that the justice minister would draft his very own categories of murderers, some deserving leniency and others not.

What is parole anyway? Parole means that an offender can spend jail time in the community under some kind of supervision. Unfortunately, often that supervision is rather loose. I have deep concerns about the public expectation of what parole supervision means and actually what is delivered.

A life sentence with the opportunity of parole at 25 years was the fair exchange, but section 745 breaks that reasonable social convention.

My community is upset because section 745 should not exist, and yet the government is tinkering with it. The government can create an image, an appearance that it is doing something, because the public is upset.

This bill does not reflect mainstream Canadian values. The protection of society and the consideration of victims must be paramount before considering any legitimate concern for the offender. Therefore, on behalf of my community I cannot support the bill.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Resuming debate?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Was the hon. member in the House when I said resuming debate?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Yes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In your place?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

I was in the House when someone called for the question. I was standing and you did not-

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

I am sorry, but the question is what I am reading right now. We will go on with the question.

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The division stands deferred. The recorded vote will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 and 5.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The division stands deferred until 10 p.m.

Prisons And Reformatories ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Scarborough East Ontario

Liberal

Doug Peters Liberalfor the Solicitor General of Canada

moved that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prisons And Reformatories ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.

Prisons And Reformatories ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

An hon. member

He is not here.