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 It is between Liberal system defenders and the out of date attitudes of the Liberals, and Reformers who side with average Canadians in their impatience for change to reform our laws, to represent the situation that has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.