Debates of Sept. 24th, 1996

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Petitions

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

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous residents of my constituency of Kingston and the Islands calling on Parliament to enact Bill C-205 introduced by my distinguished and learned colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West. This bill is an attempt to ensure that in Canadian law no criminal may profit from the commission of a crime by the publication of memoirs or other details of criminal activities.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present another set of petitions with well over 100 signatures from concerned parents and constituents across the country who support the effort to create a national pedophile registry.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our children and they are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles in the community.

The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition .

The petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation along the lines of Bill C-267 which would require major oil companies to disclose and to provide a period of notification of no less than 30 days for any increase over and above the current price of oil at the retail pumps.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first comes from Orillia, Ontario.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The second petition, Madam Speaker, comes from Kingston, Ontario.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions signed by the residents of York North.

The first petition concerns job creation. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that in the past year alone short term interest rates have declined three percentage points, that for the last two and half years inflation has averaged less than 2 per cent, and that by 1997-98 the federal deficit will have been reduced by $25 billion.

The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that since the Liberal government took office over 600,000 jobs have been created.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to continue to work diligently to create a healthy environment for jobs and economic growth.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

The second petition, Madam Speaker, draws to the attention of the House the government's red book commitment to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP and the fact that we have surpassed that goal.

The petitioners call on Parliament to continue to keep its commitment to Canadians and pursue its deficit action so that the government will reach its deficit target of 2 per cent of GDP by 1997-98.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first petition is signed by constituents and people from around the province of Saskatchewan, Davidson, Macrorie, Dinsmore, Outlook and from people in Ontario.

The petition calls on the federal government to not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, the second petition has been signed by many of my constituents in Regina-Lumsden, other parts of the city and the province of Saskatchewan.

The petition calls on Parliament not to amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland but to refer the problem of educational reform in that province back to the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by some other non-constitutional procedures.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

The third and final petition, Madam Speaker, has been signed by hundreds of people from Saskatchewan, Elliott Lake, Fort Frances and in other parts of Canada.

The petition calls on Parliament to urge the government to set up an energy price review commission to keep gasoline prices and other energy products in check due to the fact that oil companies are gouging consumers, business people and farmers throughout this land without justification.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the motion 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; and on the amendment.

Criminal Code

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, just before closing time in debate on Bill C-45, a point of order was raised. In fact, after the point of order was stated by my colleague from Wild Rose, the Speaker, which was you, Madam Speaker, did not rule on that point of order. In fact, you went back to the government whip who was asking a question at that time and asked the government whip to resume questioning.

Madam Speaker, the point of order that my colleague from Wild Rose was talking about related to a statement by the government whip who said: "Instilling that kind of hatred in Canadians is not going to work".

My colleague from Wild Rose was referring to the rules of debate in section 481(c), imputing bad motives, different from those acknowledged by a member.

All we asked yesterday, Madam Speaker, was that you rule on that point of order which you did not. Therefore, I ask today whether or not you would be prepared to rule on the point of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I did rule yesterday on that point of order and I ruled it out of order. We are now resuming debate on Bill C-45.

Does the hon. member have another point of order?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw attention to Hansard for yesterday when the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell stated: ``Instilling that

kind of hatred in Canadians is not going to work" as a response to the previous member's statements.

The member for Wild Rose rose on a point of order. It is quite clear at page 4589 of Hansard the member for Wild Rose said: ``Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is improper and unparliamentary to start referring to us as hate pushers of any nature. I would ask this member to retract it''.

My hon. colleague made the Beauchesne's reference to substantiate the request by the hon. member for Wild Rose. There is absolutely no record in Hansard of your acknowledging the point of order, addressing the point of order, dealing with the point of order or asking the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to withdraw the remark.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I remember fairly well the words that were spoken yesterday. They were not unparliamentary. I must admit that they were a little borderline, but not unparliamentary. So I say it again, this is not a point of order. I have ruled on this issue. We are now resuming debate on Bill C-45.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. After you refused to rule on the point of order brought up by the member for Wild Rose, several of us called very loudly for another point of order and were ignored and not recognized.

I want to find out whether this will be a standard practice in this House, where our points of order are not recognized.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Hon. member, points of order are always recognized in this House, but you must admit that points of order are not to be abused. We are now resuming debate on Bill C-45.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be back here in the House. I was off doing some business with international trade last week but I am sure that all of my colleagues conducted the affairs of the House in a manner which would add to the respect of this place.

The bill we are discussing today certainly adds to the respect this place has garnered from the Canadian public. It is a bill that has been very carefully crafted in response to the concerns not just of government members but of members from both sides of this House and clearly of many Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They want to ensure that the Canadian justice system is responsive to the Canadian public at this time in our history.

It is very important when we talk about issues of law and justice that we do not take extreme positions at either end of the spectrum. It is important as we try to gauge what is right for the Canadian judicial system to understand that the vast majority of Canadians, no matter which aspect of criminal justice we are looking at, are reasonable individuals who wish to see the laws we pass in this place not only be laws that are enforceable but laws that are supportable by them. That is very very clear.

One might argue that a law that is not supported by the public is not truly a law. As law makers we are elected by the people to make laws for the people which must be supported by the people.

This bill has come to the floor of the House with a considerable degree of controversy. A private member's bill was presented by one of our members in the last session and it was debated. It caused a lot of very important public debate. We saw a polarization in some cases of those who thought the bill that was debated in the last session which sought to repeal section 745 should have been passed and that the entire section should have been repealed. Very good arguments were made and they were worth listening to.

The bill now before the House seeks to change the application of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Again it has caused considerable debate in this place as well as in the Canadian public.

It is a difficult piece of legislation. As I said earlier, most Canadians are somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We are dealing with parole eligibility for people who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in our society.

Indeed, after a particularly horrific crime has been committed the Canadian public seems to swing very much to the right. They say that the perpetrators of these crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that there should be no consideration given to the ability of the system to rehabilitate those individuals.

We have all done it; I have done it myself. When we read about a child being murdered or some of the other horrific crimes which human beings can perpetrate on other human beings, the initial reaction is to put the criminal in jail and throw away the key. However, on sober second thought we have to sit back and ask: Is each case exactly the same? Is each case so unindividual in its circumstances that laws should be passed which effectively indicate that anybody who is convicted of any of the crimes covered by section 745 should be automatically treated the same way? Should the key be thrown away? Should there be no possibility even for an application for a reduction in the length of time which has to be served before parole eligibility is attained?

It is a difficult bill. If we had to deal with each case, nearly every member would see that all cases are not the same. There are different circumstances. We are dealing with individuals who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes: first degree murder;

multiple murders; serial murders; second degree murder; treason. These are the most serious crimes one can commit in our society.

This bill probably sets the balance where it should be. The bill as proposed and as presented after report stage seeks to rebalance the system from where it had been under section 745 eligibility to where the Canadian public wants to see it and where our government thinks it should be in the interests of the successful application of justice in our society.

This bill responds to the absolute gut wrenching aversion which each and every Canadian must feel when they see those in our society who have been murdered in cold blood and when they see the horrible crimes which have been committed against our children. It says that those who commit the most serious crimes against Canadians and against humanity will no longer be able to make an application under section 745.

The bill also sets important new parameters. It tries to resolve the undue hardship which the families of victims suffer as a result of some criminals making frivolous applications under section 745. The bill adds a new layer to the application.

Those who are applying under section 745, if they have been convicted of first degree murder, must wait 15 years before the application can be filed. Before the application receives a full hearing, it must go to a superior court justice in the province in which the sentencing occurred. Based on the written evidence only, that justice will now make a decision as to whether or not there is a reasonable likelihood that an application for reduced parole eligibility has a chance of success before a jury.

The current way the system operates is that anybody who reaches that 15-year threshold has a right to make an application which must be heard by a judge and a jury. In many cases, we understand that individuals who have no chance under the rules to have a shortened period before parole eligibility take it to the court to add more public attention to themselves. At the same time they drag the victims' families through the court system who relive the memories of the atrocious crimes that were committed.

This bill addresses that. This bill makes sure that those frivolous cases as they are put forward will be vetted by a superior court judge. If that judge believes there is at least the possibility that the application for parole eligibility reduction might succeed, then it will be referred to a jury.

The other significant change is that in the past, when it was a judge and a jury, and the way it is done under the current system is that only eight out of twelve or two-thirds of the jurors could agree that there should be a reduction in the parole eligibility period. Under the new system it must be unanimous. Twelve out of twelve jurors must agree that the period before parole eligibility comes up should be shortened. Again, this seeks to rebalance the rights of the convicted as well as the rights of the community and the victims' families. It is a very progressive step in the right direction.

There are other important things in this bill. We have to understand that the Canadian public seeks to put law and order on the front burner again. This is one of a series of bills that have come forward in the term of this government to try to address and to rebalance the justice system in Canada.

This bill understands that perhaps some who are on the right wing would say to completely repeal section 745 and treat everybody the same no matter who they are, that somehow that will right the wrongs of those who have been the victims of these crimes.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

First degree murderers.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Murderers, I agree. Maybe the members opposite would contain themselves a bit. We have had plenty of time to hear them in debate. Perhaps I could address some of their concerns.

The Reform Party members opposite say to repeal it and they go to the victims of crime. They go to the very victims, the people who have suffered the most and say that if this is repealed, according to the Reform Party's representations during the processing of this bill through Parliament, suddenly everybody who is behind bars will have to come under the new regulations. My understanding of the law is that simply is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of justice that when dealing with substantive issues, they cannot be retrospective in their application.

We have many lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I am just a poor soul from Cape Breton who is representing the good people of Dartmouth in the Parliament of Canada and lucky enough to do it. I talk to lawyers. They tell me that even if we wanted to, if we repealed this bill so that some of those criminals, the bottom dwellers who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes in society, never get out, we could not do it. A fundamental tenet of justice not only here but in any country that has responsive systems of justice would be violated. As much as some in this place, maybe on our side as well, would like to see that done, it does not have the same impact as some of the amendments would propose.

Nobody on this side of the House is saying that individuals who are convicted of murder should be treated with kid gloves; it is exactly the opposite. What we have to say, as legislators, and what we have to understand is that not every case is the same.

Yes, what we have to do when we craft our laws is to ensure that we do not craft our laws based on a gut reaction as to where it

should be. We must do it on a careful examination as legislators regarding what is workable and what is fair for Canadians.

I have come a long way since I was first elected to Parliament in 1988. When I was elected in 1988, I was one of the people who perhaps was more on the left side of the administration of justice.

I have been here for eight years and have listened a lot to the people of our communities and I have seen the impact of some violent crimes. Members opposite may laugh, but I have seen some victims of crime, young girls of 13, 14 and 15 years of age who had been viciously raped by pimps. They were taken from their communities and became addicted to drugs and prostituted on the streets of Toronto, New York and Niagara Falls. I was one of the people who stood up in my caucus in government and in this place and said that the laws we had dealing with those types of criminals had to be revised and reformed because the sentences simply did not fit the crime or the aversion of the Canadian public to the perpetrators of those crimes.

I will continue to speak up in Parliament for what I believe are necessary reforms to the criminal justice system. But I will not fall off the edge of the world into the right wing abyss which says that everybody who commits any type of crime should be dealt with in a very harsh and uncaring manner by the court system in Canada.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It stops short of lumping all individuals into the same category. It ensures that those people in future who are convicted of multiple or mass murders will not have access to section 745 of the Criminal Code. It makes sure that does not happen. It puts firm rules in place which will stop the frivolous application by criminals of section 745 to gain earlier parole. In many cases it is not to get the earlier parole, because there is no chance for it, but simply to draw more attention to the crimes they have committed.

In conclusion, I support the direction this bill is taking. I fully understand that maybe in one, two or even four years the bill and the entire issue of the application of section 745 must be reviewed. Indeed, when the bill passes this place the Minister of Justice and the officials of the Department of Justice, I would counsel, should keep close watch on its application and implication in the criminal justice system. They should also take into account how this has impacted and what are the responses from the victims of these heinous crimes.

To have a criminal justice system in Canada supported by the Canadian public it must be responsive to the Canadian public as a whole, not just people on one side or the other side of an issue, but for the Canadian public in general.

I applaud the Minister of Justice for this bill. I know he has very strong personal views on this which may or may not be reflected in the legislation. However, I think the Minister of Justice understands how the criminal justice system in Canada must be responsive to the needs, aspirations and the demands of Canadians for a safe and secure society and that those people who break the rules are treated effectively under the law, that people can be rehabilitated, that the resources will be there to do it; but that those people who commit the most heinous of crimes do not have access to provisions for application under the law for early parole.

I think this bill does it and I applaud the minister for it. I look forward to its speedy passage in the House.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the member for Dartmouth and I take exception to some of the things he said. He suggested the Canadian public is fickle, that it reacts and then thinks. I take exception to the minister's put down of Canadians and their ability to assess the happenings of the time.

Canadians get on with their lives. That is not to say they do not carry the seriousness of what they read in the paper the previous day or what they heard. They do care very much and they feel very strongly when they hear of these vicious crimes.

I point out to the member for Dartmouth that in my riding I took a survey, not at the time when there was a vicious crime. The survey did not reflect any particular event that took place in society at the time. It was a survey asking my constituents what they thought about capital punishment if they could be assured that capital punishment would affect only heinous crimes, mass murders, after all appeals had been exhausted.

I had 45,000 households in my riding at that time and had a return of 2,680 replies, 4.6 per cent. That proves what the member has said is not true, or is not always the case, because these Canadians feel so strongly even though they did not have a paper reaction right in front of them. Under those terms 87 per cent said we should look at capital punishment. The hon. member for Dartmouth can be assured that if we are talking about getting rid of parole, life is life for those kinds of crimes, they would certainly definitely say repeal section 745.

The member speaks in contradictions. He said he has been in this House a long time. That when young girls were raped he immediately came to their defence and tried to change the laws. That is exactly what Reformers are doing. Why put down Reformers and Canadians who are responding to the needs of this society, and yet say he has done the same thing himself? I am interested in his response.