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.