Debates of Sept. 19th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act, be read the third time and passed.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the third reading of Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code and another act.

This bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code which provides for judicial review of the parole ineligibility period for life sentences for murder and high treason.

I note for the information of the hon. members that section 745 is now called section 745.6 as a result of the coming into force of Bill C-41, the sentencing bill, on September 3, 1996. Under section 745.6, as it currently reads, an offender is not eligible to apply for review of his or her parole ineligibility period until he or she has served at least 15 years of the sentence.

During such a review the decision on whether or not to reduce the ineligibility period is made by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens drawn from the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. At present this decision can be made by a majority of eight out of twelve members or two-thirds of the jury. This is one of the aspects of the provision that would be affected by Bill C-45. The decision is made by a jury after it hears evidence presented by the applicants and by the crown.

It must be noted that under section 745.6 the jury has no authority to release the offender from prison. All it may do is allow the applicant, in appropriate cases, to apply to the National Parole Board for a parole hearing prior to the expiration of the 25 years of ineligibility. A decision on whether or not to grant parole is made by the parole board after considering whether the offender's release would present an undue risk to society.

Where the parole board decides to release an offender who has had his or her parole ineligibility period reduced, the board imposes conditions on that release. These conditions and indeed the life sentence itself continue to apply for the remainder of the life of the individual or the life of the sentence and the offender may at any time be sent back to prison should he or she breach the conditions of that release.

This means that the offender continues to be subject, literally for the rest of the offender's life, to the risk of being reincarcerated at any time for a breach of the conditions of release.

I would also note that for the consideration of all hon. members that a system of review of the parole ineligibility period after 15 years is consistent with systems in place in many of the western democracies we like to compare ourselves with, in that, in many of these countries parole eligibility for murder is set at 15 years and in some cases less than 15 years. In the United States the average time served by murderers who are not executed is 18 years at the federal level, and 15 years at the state level.

As hon. members know, section 745.6 was enacted in 1976 in a public fashion when the death penalty was abolished in Canada. It was felt at the time that section 745.6 was necessary as a source of hope for the rehabilitation of convicted murders and as a source of protection for prison guards as well. We can all imagine situations where convicted murderers have a faint hope of being released on condition that their behaviour will be better. If they knew in advance they would be imprisoned for the rest of their lives, what incentive would there be not to put the safety and life of prison guards in jeopardy?

The enactment of section 745.6 also recognized, in some cases, keeping offenders in prison beyond 15 years does not serve the public interest. We all know there is a great deal of public concern about section 745.6. Many have asked for the repeal of this section out of concern for public safety. Others have cited the revictimization of the victim's family by the review hearing 15 years down the road at a time when the terrible wounds inflicted by the crime may have started to heal. Others focus on the appropriate minimum period of incarceration for the worst offence in the Criminal Code.

I share the concerns of Canadians about the need to ensure public safety. I am moved by the pain and experience of the families of the victims of these often brutal, senseless crimes. The prospect of victims' families being revictimized through a public review conducted before a jury in cases where the offender has no reasonable prospect of success is one of the considerations that has prompted the government to act by bringing this bill to the House. However, I do not support the repeal of section 745.6. I believe the reasons that justified its addition to the Criminal Code in 1976 are still valid today. Bill C-45 amends section 745.6 in order to ensure the provision is available only in appropriate cases.

Before moving on to the three main elements of the bill where changes are being sought I want to speak briefly about a number of principles on which our criminal law is based. These principles which have evolved over hundreds of years of jurisprudence through the British courts, the Commonwealth and the courts of Canada. We must keep these principles in mind when we are considering some of the arguments made, particularly those arguments that this section should be abolished.

If we cast our minds to what we have heard about the criminal justice system a number of these sacrosanct principles come to mind. Probably the most obvious is during a criminal trial that in order to have a finding of guilt we must prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I suppose in some instances the person that committed the offence is found not guilty because of that very high standard. We could have a standard where perhaps the person is guilty, so let us convict him. Or, they are likely guilty, or on the balance of probability they are guilty and maybe we should convict them. The law has evolved in this civilized society, such that we want to keep the number of innocent people in prison to a minimum. That is why we have a very high standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If we question that principle, let us remember why it was enacted in the first place.

Another principle that has evolved over the years is the rule against the retrospective application of the criminal law. What does that rule say? It says that someone cannot change the criminal law in a substantive way to affect the life of an individual after the fact. We cannot make a new law to apply to past actions.

This law probably evolved many hundreds of years ago through the jurisprudence. It was a way for the judiciary to protect citizens many centuries ago from the capricious actions of a state less concerned about the rights of an accused. For example, a person does an act that is not illegal. Subsequently, whatever government it is changes the law and makes that act illegal. Surely there is something wrong with charging the person after the fact. When the person did the act, it was not illegal. However some government enacted a law making that act illegal and are going to charge the person. That does not make any sense.

What if a person commits a criminal act and the sentence is a maximum of any number of years in prison. Subsequent to the person committing that offence, the government changes the law and puts in place a penalty that is much harsher. What about the death penalty? Surely it would be unfair to impose a more significant penalty after the fact. This principle is no doubt protected in the charter. Do not blame the charter as often Reformers are prone to do. This rule has evolved over hundreds of years to protect citizens from the capricious actions of government.

Governments many years ago may not have held the individual in such regard. Let us never forget to look back in history to see how these rules evolved, to see what abuses they were designed to alleviate, before we disregard them.

We believe that individuals must be notionally aware of what is legal and what the consequences are before the act is committed. By promulgation of these prohibitions, and the statutes of the land are in the code, action is to be taken against them. Society must be aware of these restrictions and activities before they can contravene these prohibitions. This makes common sense.

What is the implication of this rule against retrospectivity in relation to the repeal of section 745 when it means that even if this section were repealed, the people already in the system, that is, those already convicted of murder and serving time in prison for up to 25 years? In the future if they were recently convicted and sentenced, they could still apply. The repeal will not bring to an end the ability of people who are already sentenced to make application under section 745.

Reformers tell people to go out and campaign for the repeal of section 745 and the person who committed this horrible crime against their loved one will not get a section 745 application. That happens. That is a fact. That is what the Reform Party is telling these victims of crime to do. I want to read the words. We have the words of the hon. member for Macleod who indicated quite clearly in a speech on Monday. that he advocated that an individual go out and campaign for the repeal of section 745, reliving past horrors, spending their own money, spending their own time in order that the individual who committed this terrible crime would be prevented from making a section 745 application.

Surely the Reformers cannot have missed one of the fundamental principles upon which our criminal law is based. Surely even if the members happened to miss it perhaps their researchers might have caught this very fundamental principle. They could have told the victims of these horrible crimes exactly what the fact of the matter was instead of urging them to campaign against this legislation, suggesting to them that the individual that committed this horrible crime against their family would be prevented from applying. That is an absolute exploitation of the pain of the victims and their families. It is an exploitation for political purposes of people who have been hurt in the most fundamental way.

Reformers are always interested in talking about the effects on the victims. I ask the question: What about the effects on the victims of this kind of nonsense? The Reform Party would do well to advise people who come to them to counsel as to exactly what is entailed by repeal of section 745 of the act before sending them out to conduct their campaign for them.

It is very disturbing that these people who have committed these horrible crimes and have been convicted, and those who seek nothing more than to gain publicity because they know they will never ever ever get out of prison, utilize people from the Reform Party to get their publicity for them.

I remember a day at the justice committee when the hon. member for Calgary Northeast sat there with eyes aglow reading a letter from a notorious criminal. The hon. member was hoping beyond hope that maybe he would get some attention by bringing forward this letter. The Reform Party needs to think about the witting assistance of individuals who have no hope of getting out; all they are seeking is publicity. They need to think about whether they should in fact be giving them publicity. Serious thought should be given to this tactic and changes in behaviour should result.

Our legislation deals realistically with section 745 and the changes that are required. We acknowledge that even a repeal would not change the system. The changes we are proposing, while one of the changes cannot be implemented after the fact because it is a substantive change, the other changes to the act are procedural and thereby we can make them.

I will now go over the changes that have been brought in by this government. The three elements of the bill that are changing accomplish the goal of ensuring that only in appropriate cases will individuals have the benefit of success of this application.

The first change eliminates judicial review for all multiple murders committed in the future, whether or not the murders are committed at the same time. This would include serial murderers. The proposed amendment is consistent with a notion found in the Criminal Code that repetition of the offence should be treated more harshly by the law than a single offence. Therefore anybody who commits multiple murders will not be allowed the benefit of section 745.

The second proposed amendment is procedural in nature. It creates a screening mechanism whereby a judge of a superior court would conduct a paper review of the application to determine if there is a reasonable chance of success before the application is allowed to proceed to a full hearing. This would help to ensure that only deserving cases get before a section 745 jury, that only in appropriate cases would there be a full blown hearing. This would ensure for frivolous cases with no likelihood of success that the victims would not have to relive the horrors of the situation.

The third amendment would provide that a parole ineligibility period may only be reduced by a unanimous vote of the jury. As a result of this provision, an application for a reduction in a parole ineligibility period would be denied when a jury decides it should be denied or when a jury simply cannot reach a unanimous conclusion to reduce the period. Also in denying an application, a jury can decide if and when the offender may make another application, but in any event, not before two years.

In June, before the summer recess, the standing committee heard from a number of witnesses with strong views on section 745.6. Some of them asked for a complete repeal of the section. I cannot support this because I believe that doing away with section 745.6 is not good policy and not the right thing to do in addition to the other problems I have mentioned.

Other witnesses have argued forcefully for maintaining the section in its present form. In light of the committee hearings which accurately reflected the deep division in opinion evident during the consultations that preceded the introduction of this bill, I believe Bill C-45 strikes the right balance between those who want to maintain the section and those who want it repealed.

When the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-45 on June 11, it was my hope this House would be able to move quickly to pass these amendments before the House rose for the summer. Regrettably this was not possible. I ask hon. members of this House to support the bill at this time and give it quick passage so we can bring these amendments into force as soon as possible.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I speak to Bill C-45, not counting what I said to the Standing Committee on Justice.

Right from the beginning, we have been hearing double speak from the hon. member for Prince-Albert-Churchill. On the one hand, he says: "We are not striking down section 745 of the Criminal Code. It should not be struck down, there must be some hope left", and on the other, for all intents and purposes, the provisions of Bill C-45 will make release under section 745 impossible in several areas in Canada.

Let us start at the beginning. When did article 745 appear in our criminal law? Twenty years ago this year, in July 1976, as a result of a compromise negotiated by the then Solicitor General, the present member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, amendments to the bill abolishing the death penalty in Canada were tabled. These amendments were referred to as the Prud'homme-Fleming amendments, after the names of their movers.

Why? What happened? Nobody had to toe the party line, it was to be a free vote in the House of Commons, and those in favour of abolishing the death penalty simply could not count on enough votes; the numbers were not there. If the vote had been on the initial bill introduced by the Trudeau government, it would have been defeated by 4, 5 or 6 votes. Negotiations conducted by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and the Prud'homme-Fleming amendments made it possible to secure another 6 votes, and I

believe that the death penalty was abolished on the strength of these 6 votes. But when you negotiate, you make compromises.

Some kind of compromise had to be reached at that point with the people who were inclined to favour the death penalty but still had some doubts, and the members who took part in the negotiations at the time were able to tell them: "Look, the basic decision to make here is not to choose between 25, 10 or 15 years, but to determine if we want to abolish the death penalty". This is how they were able to convince some individuals who were against a firm sentence of 25 years in prison to support the 25-year sentence; otherwise, the death penalty would have been maintained. The government back then made it very clear. I remember hearing Mr. Trudeau say in this House: "If the bill is not passed, do not rely on cabinet to systematically use the royal prerogative to commute sentences. People will be executed in Canada, and scaffolds will be built". The message was quite clear. Members who wanted to take it into account did just that.

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River would have us believe that section 745, as amended today, is a measure of clemency, but that is not so. In 1976, the law was made tougher. Until July of 1976, anyone under sentence of death, whose sentence was commuted to life in prison or anyone found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison was eligible for parole after 10 years. They did not have to appear before a jury; they only had to go to the National Parole Board and, based on the circumstances, apply for parole. In fact, convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment spent an average of 13.2 years in prison. That is far from the minimum of 25 years stipulated in section 745.

All these negotiations made the law tougher; it was not improved for the inmates. Section 745 provides that anyone convicted of first or second degree murder and sentenced to more than 15 years in prison may, after 15 years, apply to the chief justice of the province's superior court or supreme court, who would then empanel a jury. The chief justice has no discretion in this; he must empanel a jury and it is up to the jury to make the determination.

After the evidence is introduced, after the sociologists, psychologists, social workers and correctional officers have presented their arguments and reports, sometimes after the victims' families have provided relevant information, the jury will determine whether or not it should recommend that the inmate be paroled, since the inmate will always have his life sentence hanging over him. The procedure outlined in section 745 is not a lottery.

Under the current provisions in section 745, the jury must make a decision based on a two-third majority, or 8 out of 12 members, which, I think, is quite reasonable since, according to criteria that were set centuries ago, their cedision does not have to be based on something beyond a reasonable doubt. All they have to do is make a determination based on a preponderance of evidence.

In the circumstances, does the inmate deserve to be paroled earlier? Do you need unanimity for this? I think not.

I think that, back in 1976, the legislator had the good sense to determine that a two-third majority was sufficient. Maintaining the two-third rule will result in the standard application of the law throughout Canada. Regardless of the province where we live, we will all be subject to the same laws and regulations not only in theory but also in practice.

The comments made by the Reform Party reflect a Canadian reality that cannot be ignored. These members represent a significant number of Canadians, who want tougher sentences and are asking that section 745 be repealed or Bill C-45, with its tougher sentences, be passed. In certain regions of Canada, western Canada in particular, juries will certainly be less lenient.

If the hon. members representing western Canadian ridings have been calling for the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code with such vigour, I assume that judges and juries in western Canada will reflect the same social reality.

These members must not be out of touch with the reality in their region. This means there will be one reality for western Canada, one for Ontario, another one for Quebec and yet another one for Atlantic Canada. I submit that, since criminal law comes under federal jurisdiction, there must be a single standard applicable from coast to coast to coast. This standard should allow for a bit of leeway-a margin of error, so to speak, i.e. four members in the jury. That sounds like an excellent idea to me.

As I said earlier, under the current legislation, after 15 years, inmates are fully entitled to ask the chief justice to empanel a jury. The point was made during the debate that only a minority of individuals actually make an application. They realize, in many cases, that it may be rejected.

The chief justice then empanels the jury and the jury makes a recommendation. If it is recommended that the individual be allowed to apply for parole, the individual can go before the National Parole Board. This means that, at the end of the 15 years, several more months may elapse before a decision is made.

We have heard of individuals who applied for parole but were not released until much later. If the jury is not convinced by the

arguments presented, it sets a date when the person may reapply for parole or release before serving the full 25 years of their sentence.

The hon. member for Crowfoot asked an excellent question of most of the witnesses at the hearings, both on Bill C-226 and on Bill C-45. The question he asked was the following, and he may correct me if I do not get it right. He asked the witnesses what was the appropriate sentence for a person found guilty of murder. It is a fundamental question, the crux of the whole debate.

Once the answer is that a person found guilty of murder should not be sentenced to death, once the possibility of the death penalty has been eliminated, what is the appropriate sentence? Nothing can replace a life, we have been taught this from an early age. This is a value-I was going to say an almost universal one-that would benefit from more universal exposure. In the world in which we live, it is one of the supreme values we have.

There is no way to replace the life of a person lost in such circumstances. And then the Canadian Parliament decided that taking someone's life because he had killed another person was not a good way of showing that it was wrong to kill.

We are in a difficult position. We cannot just let people go free. There has to be a penalty.

Twenty years? Twenty-five years? Life? Something along those lines, without being more specific. Twenty-five years seems like a sensible proposal. Life imprisonment with the possibility of review later on, yes. People must have something to hope for. We must not remove hope. That is what helps a person to survive. To sentence a person without holding out the hope that some day he may be released is at least as bad as a death sentence.

On the other hand, the sentence must be exemplary, since murder is, in my opinion, the most serious crime that exists in the Criminal Code. We cannot give a suspended sentence for first degree or second degree murder. So we need something that is severe enough to set an example, to protect society, so that the person who is found guilty is punished and the family, the community feels safe. People have the right to be protected.

We said at the second reading stage that we wanted a review of the legislation, which is now 20 years old. We had a day and a half, two days at the most to do this review, practically sitting around the clock. We expected a review process from coast to coast. Like the unemployment insurance scenario, it seems everything was agreed upon beforehand. We heard witnesses, with very little time to spare. It was impossible to do parliamentary committee work worthy of the name, but the vast majority of witnesses who appeared, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and even people representing victims told us: "Do not tamper with section 745."

What was the rush? Where were the public demonstrations demanding amendments that affect about 75 or 76 people who have filed requests in the past 20 years? There are other problems that are far more acute and require immediate attention. We would have had time for a thorough review.

Now that 20 years have passed, would it not be better to go back to the situation that existed before 1976 and judge each case on its merits before the Parole Board? That was an option.

Is there a case for keeping the section as it is now or should we consider all other avenues? That is what we wanted to do and what we were not allowed to do, and now we are faced with legislation that is fundamentally reactionary, since it will now require the jury to be unanimous, with the consequences I mentioned earlier. It will also force prisoners who want to apply for parole to first go through a judge to whom they will give evidence, not in person in an adversarial hearing where each party can argue its case, but in writing. In common law, while the judge could decide to hear the parties, the prisoners have no statutory right to be heard, they cannot demand a hearing. Depending on what school of sentencing he belongs to, the judge may decide: "There is no probability of a jury granting you parole; your application is denied."

Individuals will not be judged twice, but the facts will be heard twice. In criminal cases in general and, by way of comparison, in trials by jury, the jury is master of the facts, while the judge is master of the law. But in this case, the judge will be master of the facts. He will first examine the facts of the matter. If he does not find the evidence probative enough, he will not allow the prisoner to go before a jury. Should the prisoner be allowed to proceed, he will then have to make his case again.

The burden of proof is on the prisoner. Do not mislead us into thinking that this measure is designed to protect the system and to extend the traditional jury process to the system under section 745. The prisoner who goes before 12 jurors to be allowed to apply for parole after 15 years has to convince those 12 jurors. The Crown is not there to say: "In objecting, I must convince the 12 of them to vote unanimously against his release."

The burden of proof is on the prisoner. It seems to us that it is too heavy a burden, with the consequences we enumerated earlier.

Reference was made to Bill C-226, which I opposed, in which the issue was set in much clearer terms by simply calling for the repeal of section 745.

There was at least a clear question and no double talk. Now people in the West can be told: "See, criminals will no longer be paroled under section 745 because the law was tightened up", while people in Ontario and Quebec will hear: "See, social workers, psychologists, we believe in rehabilitation because we have amended the provisions in section 745 to make them even more attractive". That is what they will say. As one of my professors used to say in law school: "The best thing to do when one wants to win a case but does not have one is to confuse the judge".

During elections, it is the people who are the judge. When one wants to win a case but does not have one, the thing to do is to confuse the people so there is a chance that, on election day, they will be confused and put their Xs in the wrong spot. The chance to vote in an election comes only every four or five years so one must be careful not to make a mistake. That is what the government is doing.

At least, those who argue in favour of simply abolishing section 745 are being honest. I do not share their views, but their arguments were clear. By contrast, the government's convoluted reasoning is anything but. I wish to commend the courage shown by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who held his ground throughout the debate and who, at report stage yesterday, put forward an amendment and voted against the bill, as did the former Solicitor General, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, along with a few other colleagues on the Liberal side.

One can live with double talk for a while. According to the old saying, you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. This is what the Liberal government has tried to do since the beginning of its term, believing that it would improve the plight of the unemployed, the Canadian prison system, the transportation system by privatizing it, in spite of all the comments and interventions of the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. As you know, his comments were right on throughout this whole issue.

Some day, the dust will settle and voters, who are not stupid, will render their judgment. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River also said that section 745 would be improved, since a serial killer, a person who has committed more than one crime, at the same time or consecutively, will no longer be allowed to invoke this section. This is a step backward. One can easily think of cases where a person may commit more than one crime in a given situation but still deserve to be released.

Take the case of someone who decides to rob a bank with a gun. Criminal intent may not be present at the beginning, but the person ends up killing two people during the hold-up, according to the rules of interpretation of murder. This is a regrettable and reprehensible act, and the person will be sentenced. However, if this person has not committed any other offence, should he be prohibited from invoking section 745, in the same manner as a murderer such as the one to whom the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead referred, who savagely killed and raped Isabelle Bolduc in such a sordid manner that it cannot be described in this House? There are people who seem beyond redemption for society. Committing one sordid murder is often worse than killing more than one person.

The bill also attempts to establish levels of murders. Is it less serious to kill two people, than one? Is it less serious to kill one person, than three or four? The particular circumstances of each case must be taken into account. We cannot rely on a general rule, as the government wants to do.

The government wants to pave everything over. This used to be a popular thing to do. The City of Quebec did it about 20 years ago. It put concrete everywhere in the city. Today, all that concrete has to come down in order to restore the beautiful architecture of this city. Today, the government is putting another layer of asphalt on parking lot 745, hoping that the spring thaw will not do too much damage. But we will begin to see the perverse effects of this legislation in a year or two. We will see these results in the prisons, because, as I said earlier, if we remove any hope for these people, we will force them to do desperate things.

Will prison guards and law enforcement officers be safer? Will an inmate who knows that he will never get out of prison have no qualms about killing a guard or two, because he has no hope left? I think that the way we are going about addressing this issue is all wrong and that the status quo would have been much better.

Not one of the opposition amendments has been accepted. Even the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands were not approved by the government. Was the bill so good? It was introduced on June 11, then there was a time allocation motion at second reading when the bill was rammed through and sent to committee for a day and a half or two days, forcing its members to sit night and day almost. Do we have all the information we need to say: Yes, we are sure that, beyond a reasonable doubt, this bill will improve the situation in Canada? I do not think so. This is a bad piece of legislation that will only undermine the judicial process in Canada.

In conclusion, after indicating that the official opposition will be voting against this bill, I want to move an amendment, which reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code

(judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleague, the motion seems in order.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I support the hoist. In fact I would like to see this bill hoisted forever without a glimmer of hope of ever being returned.

As I rise to address Bill C-45, I will first comment on two points in the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

He suggested today in his speech that the removal of a parole application is barred by the principle of retroactivity. That is really what section 745 is. It is a section that allows for a parole application for the reduction of the parole ineligibility of a life sentence. The legal advice we have received is that the removal of section 745 would affect all people who are imprisoned at the present time and who would wish to apply. This would deny them the right to apply and it would be sound and constitutional.

I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's statements and he suggested that members of Parliament, including Reform members of Parliament, would use the pain and agony and suffering of families who have had their children murdered for the purpose of partisan political gain. If I understood him correctly, in my humble opinion that statement is beneath contempt.

I oppose this piece of legislation which in my mind and that of many Canadians demeans the value of a human life. Bill C-45 clearly demonstrates that the Liberal justice minister and a majority of his Liberal colleagues place very little worth on the lives of Canadians.

I would like each of the members of this House who voted in favour of Bill C-45, who voted to allow first degree murderers the opportunity for early release, to ask themselves: What value do they place on the lives of their brothers and sisters or the lives of their children? Do they feel their lives are only worth 15 years? Would the joy and excitement which rings in the voices of their young children and grandchildren be forgotten after 15 years?

I would like the justice minister to ask the Rosenfeldts when they attend the justice committee hearings today if they have forgotten how their son once smiled and laughed, or if they have forgotten how it felt to cradle and comfort their young child.

I would like the justice minister to ask the Rosenfeldts how they felt the day they learned Daryn was tortured, sexually assaulted and killed by the deranged Clifford Olson.

I would like the justice minister to ask Mrs. Rosenfeldt how she feels every time she is forced to think about Daryn's last hours of life, or how she felt on August 12 when Olson exercised his right for early release courtesy of the Liberal government.

I would like the justice minister to look into the eyes of Mrs. Rosenfeldt and explain why he supports the bid for early release of her son's killer. I would like the justice minister and all members to pause and think about our own children and grandchildren and then justify to Mrs. Rosenfeldt why her son's life is worth a meagre 15 years.

The minister is directly responsible for Clifford Olson's August 12 bid for early release. He is directly accountable to the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were ripped from their lives at the hand of this man.

The justice minister is responsible for Clifford Olson's news making attempts for early release. The justice minister claimed Bill C-45 was not about Clifford Olson; he claimed the bill was not a result of Olson's August 12, 1996 date to make application for early release. Why then was the minister and his government so insistent that the bill be passed before the summer recess? Why did the Liberal government ask us and the Bloc not to unduly delay the bill?

We provided our co-operation despite the fact we do not support Bill C-45. We gave our word that we would not block the passage of the bill because we did not want to be responsible in any way for Olson's bid at early release. We did not want the Rosenfeldts and the other families to have to relive the nightmare they have endured for the past 15 years.

And although Bill C-45 would still give the likes of Olson an appeal to a judge, which I find beneath contempt, there is the possibility he could be denied a full judge and jury hearing he now has under section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The justice minister has had almost three years to introduce Bill C-45 but he chose to drag his feet. He chose to introduce Bill C-45 at the eleventh hour. The justice minister chose to gamble with the emotions of the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were killed by Olson and he lost that gamble. Bill C-45 did not pass and Olson once again grabbed the spotlight he so predictably seeks.

For the benefit of the members of this House that do not sit on the justice committee, I would like to read the testimony given by Sharon Rosenfeldt on June 18:

Emotional upheaval, that was what I felt on February 8, 1996 when I found out that Clifford Olson, the killer of my son, had applied for his 15-year judicial review. I do realize that the full application cannot be made until August 12, but I know that all the paperwork is ready. I have known for the past number of years that it was his right to apply and that in all likelihood he would. Yet for some reason, although my mind knew it could be a reality, my heart, emotions and soul denied it. I was afraid to think about it, so I put my feelings on hold, something I have grown accustomed to. I know how to make certain feelings go numb. I learned how to survive like that.

You see, I have to stay strong because I made a promise to my son as his coffin was being lowered into the ground that I would do everything I could as his mom to ensure that the person responsible for killing him would be brought to justice. I promised I would never leave him until that happened. I know I have to put him to rest and that he deserves to be put to rest, but the laws in our country prevent both of us from experiencing any peace.

When I learned that Olson had indeed made the application, I was stunned. Suddenly many images flashed through my mind. I felt shock but I should not feel shock. I felt angry but I should not feel angry. I felt hurt but I should not be hurting. I felt betrayed and I felt panic. I could not breathe and I could not stay still. I kept pacing from room to room. I wanted to cry. I wanted to scream and I wanted to run again-Why do we have to go through this again? I felt weak and vulnerable. I cannot lose my dignity again-I went into the family room and took my son's picture off the cabinet. I sat down and stared lovingly at him, outlining his face with my hands. He looked so perfect. You see, I always have to reconstruct his face in my mind because a hammer was used on him. He was beaten beyond recognition. I cradled his picture next to my heart and once again made the same promises I had 15 years earlier.

I got on my knees and I asked God to give me the strength to keep my dignity. This is very important to me because after Clifford Olson took my child's life, he also took my dignity for a while. I will not let Olson and the system do that again.

The justice minister failed to stop Olson and he failed to protect Sharon Rosenfeldt, her family, and the 10 other families whose children were murdered by Olson from feeling shock, angry, hurt, betrayed, weak, or vulnerable. Instead the justice minister and the Liberal government are protecting the rights of Clifford Olson by refusing to eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code. To emphasize my statement I would like to quote Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy who said:

You, this justice committee, and I wager every MP and MPP in Canada, have not heard the screams of terror and the cries of their child as she plead with her killers to let her live, to let her come home, but everyone has heard the synthetic cries of murderers wanting protection in prison for his or her safety, or wanting better food or a bigger cell, or no cell mate, or a different cell mate, or release from prison. The wants and the wishes of the murderers are even given fiscal priority over the needs of victims' families whose members need professional counselling: the mothers, fathers, siblings of all ages, grandparents, cousins and friends whose lives are forever changed.

I cannot begin to imagine the pain these parents experienced when they were told their children had been taken from them. I attempt to empathize with the families of murder victims, however, I cannot fully understand the depth of horror they have gone through. To have this agony awakened by a section 745 application provided by the Government of Canada is beneath contempt. Like them, I believe the lives of their children are worth much, much more than 15 years.

Bill C-45 and the justice minister's last ditch attempt to pass a bill of this nature clearly shows that the minister does not empathize with the families of murder victims and the nightmares they endure as a result of the reliving of the heinous crimes committed against their children and grandchildren. Instead the sympathy is with the murderers of our children, the Olsons and the Bernardos.

Bill C-45 clearly shows that the letter written to him by Sylvain Leduc's grandmother, Teresa McQuaig, had absolutely no impact on him. This grandmother's pain and her plea did not change the justice minister's support for the early release of first degree murderers or his attitude toward justice.

Here is what Sylvain's grandmother said in her letter to the justice minister:

The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked and cold in a morgue. My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death. I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I could not stand it until I knew he had clothes on him.

My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this intestinal fortitude, but I call it my soul. It is there that love, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell. The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb and on other days it is like jello. It has lost its desire for living. It does not care much about everyday things any more. It has lost its desire for food, sex, enjoyment, travel and books. There is a emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it. Horror and fear live there also.

Sylvain's murderers have done this to me. When all is quiet I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull those horrible pictures. I receive psychiatric care but I find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense and it takes so much energy to get there. I find it also hopeless. I feel like a dead flower who has been trampled down. I feel like I have been robbed.

That forms part of the letter to the justice minister. For the justice minister to allow that anguish to keep festering to allow this grandmother's wounds to be opened and reopened is wrong. Yet that is precisely what Bill C-45 allows. 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 day these killers will be released early from prison.

I would like to share with the House the feelings and memories of two other mothers whose children were murdered and who presented testimony to the justice committee. The justice minister

should have been present during Mrs. Boyd's and Mrs. Mahaffy's testimony. He should have faced these two grieving mothers and publicly explained to them why he places only a value of 15 years on the lives of their children and why he is not protecting these grieving mothers instead of those who have murdered their children.

I begin with Darlene Boyd:

In 1982 our 16-year old daughter Laurie was abducted, sexually assaulted repeatedly and stabbed 18 times. They did not leave her any dignity. They then proceeded to douse her body with gasoline and set her on fire. She was the second victim. There was a High River girl. It was the same scenario, but they beat her head with a tire iron.

This is what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who commit heinous crimes like this. I truly believe that the man who took our daughter's life and that of the young girl from High River is not and never will be rehabilitation material, especially after serving only 15 years in his confined environment. To rehabilitate there has to be some spark of remorse, and James Peters did not demonstrate any of this. The chance of filtering men like James Peters back into society after 15 years through the system we now have is too great a risk. We will be digging more graves for innocent people.

Truth in sentencing must be addressed here. Our maximum penalty for murder in this country is life with no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years. This, however, is a lie and the lie is still going on. They are still telling this lie at the time of sentencing. Nobody told us about section 745. We found out about it from a newspaperman, not from the parole board or the legal system, but from a newspaperman. That demeans Laurie's life right there, I would say.

Section 745, Bill C-45 and the members sitting on that side of the House heave demeaned Laurie Boyd's life as they have demeaned the life of all Canadians through their continued support of a murderer's right to early release. Section 745 provides killers with an avenue of early release. This makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.

In the absence of the death penalty the only just and fair penalty for premeditated first degree murder is life imprisonment. To those who say that we do not have a glimmer of hope without section 745, I would suggest to them that there is a glimmer of hope after 25 years because that is what the law states. No parole for 25 years. They do have an opportunity of parole after serving 25 years.

Although Debbie Mahaffy does not support the return of capital punishment, she does support the complete repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy believes section 745 should be repealed because she believes her daughter Leslie's life is worth at the very least life imprisonment without the eligibility of parole for 25 years. I quote Mrs. Mahaffy's testimony of June 18 this year:

To do anything less than that is to say the best is irresponsible, unconscionable and does not represent our Canadian values of zero tolerance of violence, but continues to erode the sanctity and the preciousness of life and fairness. My family and all victims' family members have to recover from a death that is not normal. The bereavement is not normal, the grief is not normal, the recovery is not normal, and to build, to redefine, to live a new and normal life will take a lifetime, not just 25 years, but the rest of my life.

I am talking in absolutes. Twenty five years is absolutely 25 years before considering a release back into society, because that is the closest balance our government could ever come to my absolute pain and other victims' families' absolute pain and slow rehabilitation to a much lesser degree of happiness for the rest of my life. This absolute pain is felt by a growing and hourly increase in the number of Canadians who feel this absolute loss of joy. Our loved ones are absolutely dead. Killers receive nothing more absolute than the guarantee of their life in custody for 25 years.

Bill C-45 does not provide the absolute guarantee of life in custody for at least 25 years. It is precisely for that reason that Bill C-45 is being opposed by Debbie Mahaffy, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Darlene Boyd, the Canadian Police Association and I would suggest a majority of Canadians.

On Tuesday of this week the justice minister stood in the company of the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police when he introduced his legislative initiatives in Bill C-55 with regard to dangerous offenders. In reference to Bill C-55, Darlene Boyd said: "The minister is trying to deflect attention from the contentious Bill C-45 by introducing dangerous offender legislation. He is trying to take the heat off himself when nothing short of a total repeal will do".

The Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police endorsed the justice minister's dangers offender legislation this week. And the justice minister capitalized on their support during his press conference. I would like to share with the House and with Canadians the view of the vice-president of the Canadian Police Association on Section 745. In doing so, I would like to point out that the Minister of Justice did not broadcast the Canadian Police Association or the chiefs of police opposition to Bill C-45.

On June 18, 1996 before the justice committee Mr. Grant Obst, the vice-president of the Canadian Police Association said:

My world entails dealing with victims who have had loved ones yanked from them through the most reprehensible crime that can be committed against mankind: murder. It's a lifetime of loss to them. It is not a 25-year loss and it is not a 15-year loss. There are no judicial reviews or section 745 hearings for victims of murderers or for their families. There are no second chances for them. There is nothing to make their life whole again. There's no section of the Criminal Code that relieves their pain.

I sat through section 745 hearings in my jurisdiction and I have become very close with the family of a murder victim. I have seen what these hearings have done to them. I have spoken with police officers, my colleagues across this country, and it is nearly unanimous that section 745 has to go. That comes from those of us who have experience with murder, murderers and victims.

Section 745 creates disgust and distrust in the criminal justice system. To a large extent, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me and my colleagues to defend the criminal justice system we work for, believe in and want to believe in. Our position has been, is and will be that section 745 has to be repealed in its entirety.

Mr. Neil Jessop of the Canadian Chiefs of Police echoed those very sentiments, as did Scott Newark, executive director of the Canadian Police Association, who on June 18 also said:

Section 745 contradicts fundamentally not only public confidence but the entire philosophy of how our criminal justice legal system has grown.

It is a bleeding heart mentality of the glimmer of hope advocates who contradict the philosophy of our justice system. It is they who have made a farce of our penal system by extending rights to murderers, rights they deliberately and viciously denied their victims.

Convicted murderers, rapists and others who take it upon themselves to assault or take the life of another human being throw all their rights away the minute they launch their deadly attack, all their rights except to a fair hearing and humane treatment if incarcerated.

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 victim's family and an offence to Canadians. That is the Reform Party's fundamental justice philosophy, a philosophy which is shared by thousands if not millions of Canadians.

Bill C-45 contradicts that philosophy but, more important, Bill C-45 demeans the value of a human life. That is why I stand opposed to this bill. It is unworthy of support.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm has the floor.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

For Mercier, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Mercier. Pardon me. The hon. member for Mercier.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents will be annoyed with you for failing to appreciate this riding in the east end of Montreal known for its proximity to the St. Lawrence River and its oil companies.

I wanted to speak to this bill in support of my colleague's amendment, because I want to say that the discourse I have heard repeatedly in this House from the colleagues seated geographically to my left strains belief, and despite their claims, does not serve Canadians.

I would also like to speak in support of my colleague's amendment because I think that Bill C-45, by its very wording, even as presented by the minister, is a bill that contradicts the very essence of the minister's arguments and that also contradicts the old reform, which undoubtedly needed to be reviewed, but not along these lines.

It is important to point out once again, as my colleagues have done, that the parole provisions set out in section 745 are not frivolous.

Before someone who has committed first or second degree murder can be eligible for parole, he must first of all, depending on the degree, have served a large part of his sentence, but, above all, he must get through three crucial steps. First, a judge must be convinced that he can convince a jury; a sort of trial must be held before a jury of 12 citizens with witnesses who do not make a decision, but who decide whether or not the parole board should hear the case and review the sentence.

In other words, at the end of a process in which citizens are involved as jury members, a process that is certainly not full of loopholes, a person who was punished for a first degree or second degree crime may be granted parole.

The government took advantage of the fact that people in western Canada were upset, and understandably so, when a serial killer became eligible for parole, and introduced legislation to strengthen, in fact to completely transform the conditional release process. I would say, and perhaps I am exaggerating, to anyone who is not an expert but is able to use his judgment, there is not the remotest possibility that Olson, the convicted murderer, would have successfully gone through the process leading to parole. It is absolutely unthinkable.

I intend to prove that by quoting statistics we have heard repeatedly, but they bear repeating: as of December 31, 1995, 175 inmates who were eligible to request a judicial review did not do so. Only 76 had filed such a request and 13 of those requests were still pending. Of 63 requests processed, 39 led to a reduction in the period of ineligibility for parole, and as of December 31, 1995, only one offender who benefited from this reduction committed a repeat offence when he committed armed robbery.

So we must realize that the government has used a situation that upset part of the public to act like Zorro coming to the rescue. No doubt influenced by Reform Party speeches feeding on intolerance and especially on anxiety, the government decided to give in, and it did so not unwillingly, because since in Alberta the jury would consist of Albertan jurors and in Quebec, Quebec jurors, in that distinct society, it is very likely that the same legislation will be implemented in widely differing ways.

Why? Because, among other things, this amendment of section 745 will require the jurors be unanimously in favour of granting parole, while a two thirds agreement was enough in the past. To all intents and purposes this clause become unenforceable.

We must ask ourselves a question. According to available statistics, out of 175 prisoners, 39 have obtained a reduced ineligibility period and, as of December 31, one reoffended. This goes to show that rehabilitation is possible in prison.

The fact of the matter is that a number of tools including training go into the rehabilitation effort. If individuals who have paid dearly for their crimes and cost a great deal of money to keep in prison can become valuable members of society, I think they should be given a chance. Need I remind this House that first-degree murderers cost us $76,000 per year?

How can we deprive society of citizens who, having paid their debt to society and proven that they were no longer a threat, having been screened through a judge, a jury and the parole board, are prepared to pull their weight and pay their way?

There are, of course, two completely opposite views to this. One is centred on punishment, on the pretext of protecting society. How can society be protected? How can distressing and murderous crimes be prevented from happening again when intolerance is promoted left and right?

I am no expert, but I see three main categories of crimes. There are foul crimes. Then there are what I call sordid crimes, outrageous sexual offenses, the kind you can forgive but not forget. There are also all sorts of crimes of passion. Under emotional strain, people kill for love or because they are overly possessive, having thought it through of course. It is a highly reprehensible way to solve problems. Prevention in this case does not consist in ensuring that these people remain in prison when they have paid their dues to society and no longer pose a threat to society. Why? In the name of what?

Whenever we address the issue of prevention, we must also talk about values, because keeping inmates in prison for life does not guarantee the safety of citizens when the people who are free do not share the same values of tolerance and generosity or the belief that disputes should not be settled through violence, including violence against women, which often leads to crime.

We should address this problem and give those who work in areas of risk the tools they need. But depriving people who have often paid a heavy price of the chance of having their sentences reduced is cruel and unnecessary. Instead of protecting society, this would create a climate and foster values more likely to generate and justify intolerance and violence than the other way around.

We must deal with realities. We must also deal with what I called the crimes associated with the mafia. This is something else. We need suitable tools to deal with this.

The Liberal government did not grow in our esteem by introducing this amendment, which will make section 745 almost impossible to enforce. It may be a little easier to enforce in Quebec, but it will still be extremely difficult. That is why, led by our colleague from Bellechasse, we in the Bloc Quebecois are asking the government to defer passage of this bill, to look at the situation a little more closely, to identify the real reason why people do not feel safe. Resorting to fearmongering is not the right way to reduce violence and reassure people.

Furthermore, being able to sentence someone to life without parole after going through the usual steps is important, of course. As a woman and a mother, I would be the first one to demand that a dangerous offender not be paroled, including for his own protection. But I know people who are rehabilitated, who are now good citizens and who have much more self-control than others who have never experienced what they have gone through, which will remain present in their minds. It is very important to give those who can make a useful contribution to society an opportunity to do so.

A punitive approach whereby the largest possible number of people would be imprisoned for life is in total contradiction with the creed of the members sitting to my left, the reformers, because prisoners cost a lot of money, even though, in some cases, there is no solution other than incarceration. As we know, and this is particularly true in the case of federal prisons, a person who is incarcerated and is not a hardened criminal-and I am not referring to dangerous criminals-can be released after two years, and can come out a hardened criminal. We have to call a spade a spade.

I personally think that when imprisonment for life is advocated, in spite of the high costs involved and instead of trying to promote preventive measures, we end up with absurd situations. We end up with situations such as in Ontario, where the minister responsible for security is proposing to build huge prisons in which electronic surveillance would be used to reduce costs. This solution was tried elsewhere. What happens is that we create enormous jungles where prisoners set their own rules. One would rather not think of the implications. This is a nightmare that goes beyond one's imagination.

So, we have to be consistent in our overall approach and be careful to avoid giving way to demagogy. We must protect our citizens. The little old ladies-and I am one of them-, who go out at night, must not be afraid. To be sure, we must try to create a society where we can live without fear. But we have to find the proper means. And if this means imprisonment only, we will not reassure our citizens, because the causes of crime are rooted in society itself; they are related to poverty, to criminal networks and to the problems experienced by people in their youth, when they do

not get adequate support. Violence also includes conjugal violence, which can result in tragedies and which can also destroy children's lives.

Therefore, I support my colleague. I deeply regret that the Minister of Justice has once again yielded to the demagoguery, whose goal is not to protect Canadians.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from the Bloc. I would like to ask her a question that I asked witnesses who appeared before the justice committee not only on this bill but on other bills that are related in topic.

It is a question that society wrestles with. What is a fair and just penalty for the premeditated taking of an innocent life? What should that penalty be? Should it be only three years if after three years the individual is completely rehabilitated in the eyes of the officials and will never kill again? Should it be 15 years or should it be 25 years? That is the question.

We must remind ourselves that when we as a society determine what that penalty should be, we are placing a value on the life of a human being.

I ask my hon. colleague what she thinks is a fair and just penalty for the planned and premeditated murder of an innocent life.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I should begin by telling you that I am old enough to have followed the debates on the death penalty. I was already an adult.

What struck me the most was that one of the main reasons the Liberal government decided to abolish the death penalty was the belief, backed up by studies, that in many cases the death penalty itself was not a deterrent to murder. For example, if it was a crime of passion, premeditated, but driven by passion, whatever the nature of the passion, passion being an integral part of what we are.

Your question is a good one, but what do the bill and our interventions say? We are not questioning the existing statute, which says 25 years, especially since, in certain cases, three successive hurdles must be crossed: the judge, the jury-peers-and finally, if the jury agrees, the parole board, followed by conditions that are rigorous and must be observed, failing which the paroled inmate is reincarcerated.

It seems to me that for years now people have been creating a system that answers I think, or attempted to answer, the question you are asking. I would never say three years. In any event, I am not qualified to say.

What I observe is that this society has for years found ways, various ways it is true. Yes, there were some cases, but, in the end, should people who are ready to reintegrate society be forced to stay in prison because of a few cases? That is why I say that our approach must be either punitive or consider that at a certain point, the sentence served is sufficient for the offender to be allowed to resume his life in society and become part of the community.

I think this particular situation, and mind you, I am not an expert, I am really your average citizen in this debate, but when we consider all the obstacles a person who committed this heinous crime must overcome before being granted parole-it seems to me that answers your question. Not three years, not six years, but 15 years minimum. That is a long time.

That is the best thing I can suggest but, I repeat, my main conclusion is that the death sentence is not a deterrent to crime. So yes, society must decide to what extent it makes the offender pay. What is it worth to society? Is it worth it to have someone who could be a useful citizen after 15 years stay another 10 years in prison at a cost of $76,000 annually? Is that what Canadian society needs? That is the real question.

We think that when someone has gone through three successive screenings and has to meet certain conditions, society should give him a chance to do his share. That is all we are saying. It would be useless and, in fact, counterproductive from the social point of view. That is what I wanted to say.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would all members please direct their comments to the Chair, otherwise I get very lonely.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

What we are trying to find out here is the price of a human life. The member has said that in her mind it is 15 years. If somebody plans to murder another person, first degree murder, that person would get only 15 years. In my humble opinion that is far too low.

When this whole debate took place 25 or 30 years ago in the 1970s when they changed from capital punishment to a new sentence for life, it was life subject to parole after 25 years. That was the sentence. That was the trade-off. That is what the politicians of the day thought they had agreed to. Life with parole after 25 years was the price for taking a life.

Where is the truth in sentencing, the deterrent to or the punishment for taking a life, instead of capital punishment, which obviously the member abhors and says would not be a deterrent? There are lot of people who share that point of view, which is fine. The replacement was a life for a life. We will not take another life but we will put a person away for life, away from society. "We do not want you to do that. You cannot do that. Your punishment is life. However, if there is a chance that you can be rehabilitated, we will take 25 years to find out if you have learned your lesson and if you can make a contribution to society again".

Now the person gets another lowered tier opportunity to enter society after 15 years. The judge heard the evidence and pronounced a sentence. Where is the truth in sentencing when after the judge and the jury have declared the punishment for the crime, life subject to parole after 25 years, when the criminal after serving time in jail can apply to a parole board which had nothing to do with the case or the trial, was not there when the evidence was given, was not caught up in the emotion of the situation but which can then after 15 years decide to lower the sentence or let them out earlier?

That is an injustice. It is cruel and it is placing the lowest possible value on a human life. We need truth in sentencing. If we do not favour capital punishment, then a life sentence should mean a life sentence and 25 years should mean 25 years. This 15 year stuff has to go.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make in reply. First, I know that for 10 years the death sentence was not carried out. The average sentence was, at that time, from 12 to 13 years. I have heard criminal experts say on various programs that the average sentence-I say this to the hon. member who is not listening, I am not supposed to say that but I will say it just the same-the average sentence when the death sentence still existed but was not enforced was not 25 years but around 12 or 13 years. Those are the facts.

I have every reason to believe the people I heard on these programs. They are authorities on the subject and they are reliable. I also read some reputable texts. If at the time the actual sentence served was 12 or 13 years, the introduction of a sentence of 25 years with possibility of parole after 15 years did not mean a lighter sentence. Considering the system that had existed for 10 years, it was more severe, according to my understanding.

We must call things by their proper names. It seems to me that is elementary. My second point is that as soon as we have the requisite certainty, and I think that with these three instruments we have ways to arrive at that moral certainty, as soon as we have that certainty, why leave someone in prison? To keep him from committing another crime? We know that is not true. The death sentence was no deterrent.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member has ever experienced the prison environment, from the outside, of course. I suggest he do so and find out what it is like. In many cases, the prison environment is a lot like hell. I did not say purgatory, I said hell.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion to hoist this bill. In fact, I agree with my colleague from Crowfoot that I would like to hoist that bill right out of sight, never to appear back in this House. With any luck maybe in the next election we can hoist this social engineer called the justice minister. This bill is absolutely aggravating.

Colleagues on the other side of the House do not seem to understand that we have thousands of Canadians joining Victims of Violence because they are not happy. Members opposite do not get the message. Mr. Speaker, do you think Canadians enjoy going to meetings year after year, gathering together at rallies trying to get the message out, if they are happy with this government? No, they would like to go home. They would like to have some peace and to see things settled.

When you enter the House of Commons, you hear day after day petition after petition being tabled to abolish section 745. There are probably millions of signatures by now not to mention all the newspaper articles that have come in, the newspaper ads that have been answered. What do we do with section 745? Canadians want it abolished.

The government does not get the message of the police chiefs saying abolish this bill, abolish this section of the Criminal Code. I find it hard to understand why a member of the Bloc would sit there. They only ones they know how to attack is the Reform because we would like to see the people have their way. We would like to support the people in seeing to it that some of the things that need to happen do indeed happen.

We would like to see a referendum on capital punishment but then again that might prove that these guys over here are wrong. They say they do not want capital punishment. People do not want that. The government would not dare have a referendum on it because they might be proven wrong. They do not dare have one because the polls indicate it is not a good time for that kind of referendum. In fact if they were about 15 per cent in the polls, which I am sure they will be one of these days, they would not want to call an election at that time either.

The only thing I can support is a bill that will repeal section 745 and nothing less. The justice system took a wrong turn back in the early 1970s and it has been going in circles ever since. It will continue to circle into the future with legislation such as Bill C-45.

Suddenly another bill has come out with regard to dangerous offenders. Wait a minute, that is going to attract some attention. That is what we have been looking for, something to deal with

dangerous offenders. It appears to be a ploy to get our minds off section 745 because they really do not want to get rid of that.

I do not know how to play the political games that some of the experts do, the social engineers such as the justice minister. I have to admit they play them well. I would like to see them once present something that everybody in the whole House could unanimously support, mainly because it supports the will of the people. We are really lacking in that area.

Back in the early 1970s Jean-Pierre Goyer summed up the Liberal government's justice agenda by stating:

We have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society.

This philosophy was continued into 1976 when Pierre Trudeau and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-who is presently with us today and at that time was involved with the justice department-created section 745. This happened regardless of the fact that most Canadians did not want to see the death penalty abolished. As for the politicians of today, as with the old line parties, it really does not matter what Canadians want. The fact that they wanted capital punishment in those days did not make any difference, it was "we know best, we are the politicians". That is called tyranny, just in case anybody forgot the word. It happened regardless of what the people wanted.

Even with this replacement I feel at that time the sentences were clearly defined. In my opinion, they were fair and reasonable but they made these changes. The problem is that many of the bleeding hearts of our society felt that 25 years was cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, before giving support to abolishing capital punishment, they argued that we needed to provide inmates with an incentive. If they behaved properly while in prison they could apply for a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. This is how it became known as the "faint hope" clause.

The problem is that with all the wheeling and dealing in abolishing the death penalty, section 745 allowed the system to change for the worse. We see the product of that mistake today. It was only back in 1987 that section 745 and its true meaning became known.

Most Canadians at this point still believed that the penalty for first degree murder was life in prison without eligibility for 25 years. The first judicial review was in Alberta in 1992 when William Nichols was in jail for robbery, kidnapping and killing a police officer. After the review his sentence was reduced from 25 to 20 years.

Since that first review, and up until April of this year a staggering 79 per cent of first degree murderers who had received a section 745 hearing have been recommended for some form of early release, according to Corrections Canada statistics. By December 1995, 63 murderers had asked for a review. In 50 cases juries gave the applicant a chance at early parole. In 33 of those, full parole or day parole had been granted. It is obvious from these numbers that section 745 has fundamentally changed the sentence for first degree murder in Canada. By virtue of its success, section 745 has made a 15-year sentence for murder a reality for a significant number of killers.

I had to laugh when I heard the speech from the Bloc asking my colleague if he had ever been to a prison. I often wonder if any of the people here have been to a prison and visited. How many of you have? If you have not I encourage you to do so. You will find out these guys are not the type of guys that will come out of a prison and then help a little old lady across the street. They are certainly not going to sing in the community choir or do anything like that.

I do not think they really know the kind of individuals they are dealing with. The crime of murder and the pain for the victim have been completely forgotten. Punishment is the last thing on the legislator's mind today and it is clear that all concessions are being made to rehabilitate those that are convicted.

Traditionally the laws allowed provinces to establish their own rules of procedure for judicial hearings. This has resulted in huge disparities across Canada in the number of those winning an early hearing. For example, as reported in April of this year in Alberta, juries heard seven applications and denied five; Ontario juries heard eleven but denied only four; B.C. juries faced five killers and granted parole eligibility to every one; while in Quebec one has the best chance of early parole with twenty-seven of twenty-eight cases resulting in a reduction in parole ineligibility.

This regional disparity is something that must be recognized. The only legislation that would restore everyone to a level playing field would be the repeal of section 745. Then everyone would serve a full 25-year sentence.

It is interesting to listen to those pro-745 groups trying to defend the usefulness of section 745. They say that few killers are granted early release and only 10 per cent of those who are reoffend.

Among the most pathetic reasons given for maintaining section 745 reviews is that it is giving inmates some hope. By doing that it influences them to try to change their lives; or that convicts with little hope of release, having nothing to lose, would become far more dangerous elements in prison.

Another reason is cost related. I have heard a lot of cost figures used like $76,000 and other figures. But the figure most used is that it costs $45,000 per year to incarcerate a killer, while it only costs $10,000 to supervise him as a parolee. If it costs that much, if that

is too high, we will fix costs. I do not see any problem with that. It should not be hard to do at all.

Another reason is that it is fair because the creation of the review was a political trade-off in Parliament when it abolished the death penalty in 1976.

The last reason cited is that not all first degree murderers are alike and some may very clearly have paid their debt to society after 15 years. I hardly think that is the point.

It is difficult to fathom that there are those who support section 745. For example, the vice-president of the Canadian council of criminal defence lawyers stated that he did not think section 745 should be scrapped. He feels that there are some poor offenders after a long period of time who are ready to be returned to society.

As my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast pointed out, these defence lawyers are activists to maintain a revolving door in the penal system because it brings more money to them. We cannot overlook the fact that some people count on making a living from these kinds of procedures.

I have listened to the reasons of the defenders and in my books the bottom line is we do not owe these killers any favours by allowing them to apply for early release. Even thinking of letting them out early is just another way of saying: "We don't really hold you responsible for your actions".

There is already too much leniency in our justice system. To those who argue that these criminals can be rehabilitated, let them prove this after they have served their full term of 25 years and not a moment sooner.

I frankly do not care if killers hopes are dimmed by the prospect of no early release. We must remember that the victims' families have no hope at all of ever seeing their loved ones again. There will not be any rehabilitation of the victim who is in the grave. It should once and for all be their suffering that is on our minds. That should be the thing we think about.

The government does not seem to see that all acts of murder in the eyes of Canadians are reprehensible. There are no good killers or bad killers. A killer should not get special treatment because he or she committed merely one murder. This categorization of murder by the justice system is an insult to the families of victims of one-time killers.

By categorizing murderers by the number of victims we are adding yet another level of bureaucracy to our over-bureaucratized system. We will have one level handling multiple murderers while another handles the so-called less harmful one time killers. Ultimately this glimmer of hope clause for killers is more bureaucratic and more expensive. A first degree murderer will not apply directly to a jury but has another hurdle to jump. Application has to be made to a superior court judge, but at what cost?

Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which means additional money will be expended. The cost for the hearings before Bill C-45 was introduced was approximated to be $10 million by the Canadian police chiefs association. That is based on 40 murderers applying per year.

This cost is sure to rise with the expanded appeal rights now available to section 745 applicants in Bill C-45. The applicant can appeal to a court of appeal on any determination or decision made by the superior court judge and the applicants have the right to apply for judicial review more than once.

In other words, any judicial decision to reject an application may be appealed. The applicants absolute right to a hearing has been replaced by an absolute right to apply for a hearing and to launch appeals on an unfavourable decision.

It is clear to me that this hearing process is still weighed heavily in the inmate's favour. The emphasis is still on the offender and his behaviour in prison and his rehabilitation possibilities. The information about the original crime, the full details and the impact of the crime are not presented for consideration.

In addition, the murderer will have to be tried by a jury in the jurisdiction in which they were convicted. This will mean that they will be travelling and there will be extra cost. That will also contribute to the risk factor that some killers will have to be transported a great distance.

In my opinion instead of differentiating between multiple killers and single murderers the justice minister, the social engineer of our government, could have simplified the system with consecutive sentencing. Consecutive sentencing would have at least put a value on the taking of a life. For example, Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences.

In our system he killed once and then the second one was free and the third one was free and the fourth one was free and so on. I think that is pretty sad.

The problem is our justice minister does not appear to truly understand the significance of murder. For example, during question period on June 11 the minister implied that a murderer who takes just one life deserves special preference under the law.

He told the hon. member for Beaver River that "if the hon. member is not able to distinguish the difference between those who take more than one life and those who take one life, I say that she is overlooking a fundamental feature". I cannot fathom how the justice minister of this civilized country considers the taking of one life not to be as serious as the taking of two. It is just one of his many explanations for this bill.

I still cannot get over the fact that he had so many years to introduce something of this nature and yet he waited until there were eight sitting days last June, knowing full well that the bill could not properly be debated in that short period of time.

Darlene Boyd was quoted as saying the timing of the legislation in order to ram it through the House was nothing more than cowardly. I certainly agree with her.

Once again I see it as another example of this government's democracy in action. We have talked about that already today and I do not want to get back into that one, mainly because democracy in action only exists with this government once about every four years, and that is on election day.

All and all no one could possibly be satisfied with this feeble attempt to remedy this serious loophole in the justice system. Section 745, although modified, still exists and the justice minister is simply trying to sugar coat it for Canadians. Sprinkle a little sugar on it and make the medicine go down.

Approximately 600 convicts are soon going to become eligible to apply for judicial review. This is a problem that is not going to go away. By the end of the century the judicial system could face a possibility of one judicial hearing per week.

A Calgary Sun editorial said: ``This loophole in the Criminal Code that allows killers to apply for early parole was one of the most heinous frauds ever perpetrated on voters by the politicians''.

I am proud to say that this politician and those who represent the Reform Party want to set the record straight. A life sentence for premeditated first degree murder is not about rehabilitation. It is about providing a fair and just penalty for the taking of another human's life.

We do not want to have any part of Bill C-45 and want it unequivocally known that all persons convicted of first degree murder should be imprisoned for life with no chance of parole or conditional release in any form for 25 years, and consequently that section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed. Nothing short of its elimination will be acceptable.

This ongoing travesty that this section creates must be corrected immediately in order to stop future killers from acquiring this same right courtesy of section 745. This has the support of 98 per cent of the Reform delegates who attended our assembly in June.

It has the full support of the Victims of Violence, the Canadian Police Association and a high majority of Canadians from coast to coast. It has the support of millions of signatures. Abolish section 745. Quit tinkering with it. We cannot approach the 21st century by ignoring the law that has effectively changed the sentence for murder in Canada.

The old Liberal reasons of economics or prison overcrowding will no longer cut it, nor will the bleeding heart philosophy of remorse, rehabilitation, deterrence, restitution or any of their sentencing excuses, nor will underhanded instructions to offenders like those given by Liberal Senator Earl Hastings.

He advised criminals, upon approaching a section 745 review, to express remorse, apply for legal aid before the 15th year and develop good interpersonal relations and communications. Develop some leadership skills. Do all the right things when that 15th year comes and you will be out of here. These are nothing more than back door, underhanded, sugar coated baloney. They are bleeding hearts and have reasons that just do not cut it.

Life means life, nothing more, nothing less. I find it really difficult to understand how anybody on that side of the House can suggest for a moment that the signatures that are on these petitions and that the messages they get from the thousands and thousands of people who belong to victims' groups across this country go completely unheard. It is all right because we know best. We are the government.

The sad part about it is that there were 78 individuals who voted once upon a time about two years ago from those back benches to abolish this section because they knew it was the right thing to do.

Now they will turn around a little and support a half measure. I heard it called a step in the right direction. I do not think it is a step in the right direction. It is a stall. I do not think it has anything to do with that. It is simply a matter of where these people in these back benches are who voted against section 745.

They stood up in this House and said they wanted out. What happened to them? Let me guess. Maybe the Prime Minister and the champion social engineer said: "We will change things a little and guess what? You are going to support it. If you do not, you will be out or punished".

The message is there. Sure enough there was unanimous support from that side. The 78 just disappeared. That is too bad.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I am sorely tempted to deal with certain of the Reform concerns about this bill, I shall restrain myself because I feel we are straying rather far from the clause.

There could be a debate on everything that has been done, everything that is being done, about parole, the pros, the cons and so on. Right from the start, I think, it has been said that this bill before us may contain things we would have liked to have seen changed but that, overall, it is a bill that merits careful examination.

For those listening to us, who are hearing all of the philosophical debates but are not too clear about what the hon. members are to vote on, Bill C-45, an act to modify the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility), it might perhaps be worthwhile to understand the context, how it operates, and particularly why we in the Bloc Quebecois have some reservations about it.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code already covered parole, and this is the part the Minister of Justice wants to change with his bill. Looking at the summary of this bill, one can see there are three major points. It is not a revolutionary change to the entire Criminal Code, only to section 745. Three key points are affected by the changes.

The first removes the right of multiple murderers to apply for judicial review. The second introduces judicial screening of applications, and the third requires that decisions of juries to reduce parole ineligibility periods be unanimous. These are the three key points affected by the bill.

People need to understand how the system works. First of all, the individual "behind bars", as they say, who has fulfilled the conditions of section 745, applies in writing, according to the proposed changes. In the past, this could be a verbal request, but now, under subclause 745(1), the person applying for parole under section 745 must do so in writing to the appropriate chief justice of the province or a judge designated for the purposes of this section. That is the first step.

The second step is new, and the Bloc Quebecois has reservations about it as well, because it is an initial evaluation. The judge, on the basis of the written material in his possession, including the application, the report provided by the Correctional Service of Canada, or any other document submitted by the attorney general or the applicant to the judge, will decide whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed.

There has already been an evaluation by an appropriate judge, a judge familiar with the field, to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed. Our first reservation about this is that the judge is not given specific guidelines. As far as his evaluation goes, there is no problem. I understand that judges have experience in the field, that they will evaluate the case, that they will weigh the facts and make an informed decision, but I would have liked to have seen something clearer, or this part dropped altogether.

That is the second stage of the process. After written application is made, a judge evaluates it and decides whether or not to designate another judge to empanel a jury. Naturally, if the judge who examines the application concludes that, on the face of it, there is not a reasonable prospect that a properly instructed jury would approve the application, he will obviously reject it.

There are two possibilities, according to the amendment: either that the inmate will come before a judge in two years, or that the inmate will not be entitled to present himself for a specified number of years, because his record is not appropriate for parole, or no information is given. Then the law calls for the inmate to be allowed to make another application in two years.

Under 745 (5), if the judge says yes, deciding that the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed, the chief justice instructs a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction to empanel a jury to hear the application.

The third step is another evaluation, this time before a twelve member jury. The jury has a whole series of criteria to apply. I have absolutely nothing to say on the criteria set by the minister; they are in keeping with jurisprudence and with what is being done at present. I have absolutely no comments to make on this.

Where I do have something to add, where we in the Bloc see an obstacle, is where it is stated in 745.3, subsection 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 unanimous vote". This is what bothers the Bloc Quebecois, the unanimity of 12 persons. Twelve people will have the file that has already been examined by a judge. The judge has said "Yes, there is a reasonable possibility of the applicant's being able to convince a jury, so we will move it to a jury". The jury of 12 examines all this and has to reach a unanimous conclusion. That will be very hard.

Finally, if the government had decided that section 745 ought to be abolished, that ought to have been done, but without imposing excessive criteria, because it is excessive to require unanimity on a case of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I have only two minutes left, but I thought I was entitled to 20 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

At 5.30 p.m., we will proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

In that case, I will give a very quick summary, Mr. Speaker.

The main aspect of this bill, an aspect to which we object, is unanimity, and we also object to the government's rushing to get this bill through the House. That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse, tabled an amendment seeking an additional six months so that we can examine and study this bill and perhaps improve it. The government has shown undue haste, although this is a bill that deserves particular consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on February 29 this year I seconded Bill C-201, introduced by my hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, and I would like to thank him at this time for the opportunity to speak to and support the bill.

This is the second reading of the bill. It has been deemed votable by a committee of the House. The bill essentially would amend section 255(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada to impose a minimum seven year sentence for a person convicted of the crime of impaired driving causing death.

This is a piece of legislation known as a private member's bill and it really deserves the support of every person in the House. I really and sincerely hope the Prime Minister will allow a free vote on this and that every member of the House will look at this piece of legislation and throw their political affiliation aside and listen to the debate and hopefully support it.

Before I go into many of the reasons here, I would like members to imagine for a moment what we must do in order to seriously consider drunk driving as a very serious type of behaviour, something we should not tolerate in our society.

We have done a lot of educating of members of the public to make them aware that they should not drive while impaired and much of that education has been taken to heart, but education in and of itself does not do it all. Other signals must be sent to society to illustrate how serious this is, something that no one should ever do, something akin to manslaughter. To take the life of someone while impaired is unacceptable.

This bill has the potential to save lives, much more potential than some of the other legislation that the justice department has brought down. I would like to make the point that good laws and punishment do not necessarily make people good but they do restrain evil, unacceptable behaviour and that is why this bill should be supported.

A drunk driver going down the highway is very much like a hand grenade lying on a playground with a timing device that has an arbitrary time on it. This hand grenade has had the pin pulled but the timing device as to when it will explode is completely unknown. We do not know if there is going to be someone in that playground when it goes off or maybe it will explode in the middle of the night when there is no one there. Maybe it will go off when there are a lot of people around.

That is what it is like when a drunk driver is going down a highway unable to completely control his vehicle and react appropriately to something that may happen very quickly. We would not tolerate someone placing a hand grenade in a playground not knowing when it would go off anymore than we should tolerate a drunk driver going down the highway. That is why this bill is really important.

Here are some of the reasons why I second this important piece of legislation in addition to what I have just said. Three times the number of people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered. That is a lot of people in comparison to the number of murders. Even though the Criminal Code provides a maximum penalty of 14 years for drunk driving for killing someone with his car, the actual sentences are only one to four years. I ask members of this House is that all a person's life is worth?

We have to send a signal through our courts to people in society that this is very serious and they should obey the law. Such low sentences do not provide a meaningful deterrent to those who continue to drive while drunk, while out of their minds. Such low sentences do not reflect the public's concern for this type of crime. Impaired drivers are responsible for 90 per cent of the fatal car crashes in which they are involved. That is an unacceptably high level.

One of the main reasons the carnage on our highways does not stop is the present leniency of our courts. Imposing a minimum sentence of seven years for killing a person while driving drunk will send the strongest of messages that the lethal consequences of driving while impaired will not be tolerated by society.

Here are some other facts which I think need to be repeated. Forty to seventy per cent of impaired drivers have had prior alcohol related offences. They know they have a problem. It takes between 200 to 2,000 incidents of driving while impaired to produce one arrest, not a conviction, just an arrest. And 57 per cent of those charged had at least one similar offence in the previous five years. Impaired driving charges are dismissed or reduced in 40 per cent of cases. Our courts need to deal more seriously with these things.

Bill C-201 has had the support of many organizations. Here are some of them: Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Canadian Youth

Against Against Impaired Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, Nepean Committee Against Impaired Driving, Friends and Family Against Drunk Driving.

I understand there has been material circulating in the government benches disputing the support of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, MADD Canada. Let me quote from two letters sent to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. On March 20, 1996, Mr. Jim Wideman, executive director of MADD Canada wrote:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of MADD Canada, I would like to reaffirm our support of Private Member's Bill C-201. I am aware that other correspondence has been made to Mr. Rock's office. Let me reiterate that the National Board of MADD Canada, our Chapters and Members wholeheartedly support Bill C-201.

On May 16, 1996 Jane Meldrum, president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Canada, wrote:

It is my understanding that during the last hour of debate that [the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River] rose in the House of Commons and referred to the letter from MADD Canada indicating that MADD did not support this bill. This letter was written by a member of the Board of MADD Canada and was the opinion of this person as an individual and not of that of the Board. This letter was not approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors and was not approved to be sent on MADD Canada letterhead. This individual has been advised of this and has been requested to retract his statement.

I would like to now respond to a couple of other criticisms of this bill in the short time I have remaining.

We have heard that some Liberal backbench MPs oppose this amendment because the minimum sentence would be inconsistent with the sentencing provisions of other sections of the Criminal Code, in particular section 220, criminal negligence causing death.

While we thank our hon. colleagues for pointing this out, the solution is not to oppose this bill but to propose an amendment or introduce another bill that would make sentencing provisions consistent.

We heard another concern that the mandatory minimum sentence might discourage accused drunk driver killers from pleading guilty and thereby typing up more time in the courts and causing more pain for the families of the victims. One of the most important principles of our criminal justice system is that the punishment must fit the crime. It is clear that drunk drivers who kill are quite literally getting away with murder.

If the average sentence for those convicted of impaired driving causing death was half the maximum sentence of 14 years, permitted under section 255(3), I would say let us leave well enough alone, but this is not the case. The average sentence for impaired driving causing death ranges between one to four years. I think the majority of Canadians would agree with me that this punishment does not fit the crime.

As for the rights and interests of the victim's family, the most important issue for them is to ensure there is a sense of closure to the case and, above all else, that the sentence equates with real

justice. The victim's family also needs to know that the death of their loved one served some purpose, that the punishment of the crime will in some way prevent someone else's death. This is what a mandatory minimum sentence will do. This is why thousands of Canadians have told us to support this bill.

Finally, our critics tell us that the minimum sentence of seven years for killing someone will be challenged under the charter of rights and freedoms because it is cruel and unusual punishment. If anyone really thinks that this sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, I would ask them to conduct a poll of all the families that have had a loved one killed by a drunk driver and ask them what they think.

While there are lawyers out there who would love to make some money bringing forward a charter challenge, and while the Liberal government is even willing to pay the lawyer to bring the case forward under the reinstituted court challenges program, and while there are judges who might agree with their claim regarding seven years in jail for impaired driving causing death, the government will lose the case in the most important court, the public opinion of this land.

Frankly, I believe we need to support this bill. I think I have put forth some good arguments and hopefully all members will be open to it.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Sarnia-Lambton who also supports this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleague may not realize that the debate ends at 6.11 p.m., so there should be time for both to speak. I am not sure that on a private member's bill unless except by unanimous consent we can split 10 minutes into five and five, but if there is unanimous consent we certainly can. Perhaps the member will indicate his position. This time will not count against him.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I would request that unanimous consent be given then.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Very well. Is there unanimous consent to split the 10 minutes into two parts?