Debates of Sept. 24th, 1996

Criminal Code

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

We are talking about first degree murderers here. We are talking about mass murderers. For goodness sake let us have some common sense in the remarks coming from that side.

I must comment on what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said yesterday because according to him the crime rate is going down. I guess it depends on what poll we read or what political group we listen to.

I have in my hand the poll from the Readers Digest which I think is pretty non-partisan. It says that between the 1960s and the 1990s the total Criminal Code violations reported to police nearly quadrupled from over 2,000 to over 10,000 for every 100,000 people. Property crime soared from almost 2,000 to over 6,000 during the same period. Violent crime exploded. Whereas there were 221 violent crimes per 100,000 people back in the 1960s, the figures in the 1990s are now astounding at over 1,000.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand in support of the motion to hoist the bill. Fortunately from my point of view I will speak from a different perspective of why the bill should be hoisted than the member who introduced it.

It is a piece of legislation that I have to oppose for two main reasons. The first is that it totally ignores the wishes of the majority of the Canadian people. The second is that it tramples on the will of this Parliament whose members voted in favour of a private member's bill which would have repealed section 745 of the Criminal Code, and not just tinker with it as the justice minister is doing with Bill C-45.

Regarding my first point, I wish to emphasize the terrible impact on the families of murder victims when their loved one's killer is eligible for parole after only a 15-year sentence. When this legislation was introduced in June, Debbie Mahaffy whose daughter Leslie was one of Paul Bernardo's victims, made a passionate plea to the justice committee to simply repeal section 745. She said how disappointed she was with the half measure proposed by the justice minister.

Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of a Clifford Olson victim spoke on behalf of the national group Victims of Violence saying: "I have fought for 15 years for the rights of victims and I think we are all in this together". Unfortunately, not the case according to this government.

Another mother, Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was raped and murdered south of Calgary, spearheaded a 35,000-name Calgary Sun petition to repeal section 745.

These people are not speaking just for themselves. It has been proven with the names on the petitions and the groups that they represent. They speak for many of the families that have suffered the murders. They suffer for life, not for 15 years.

From personal experience, this bothers me a great deal. Outside the House we have a plaque. That plaque is in memory and honour of officers who gave their lives in service to their communities.

My cousin was married to one of the officers whose name is on the plaque. His name was Lenard Shakespeare. He was an officer in Toronto who in the line of duty happened to stumble upon an attempted bank robbery.

Lenard was the kind of officer who did not believe someone had to use firearms in order to rectify a situation. When this was taking place, he happened to spot a taxicab in front of the bank that was in

the process of being robbed. He thought it was his duty to warn the people in the cab that they were in danger.

When Lenard walked up to the cab and put his head in the cab to warn the people that they had to move, the man in the back seat shot him. He not only shot him then, but he stepped out of the cab and pumped five more bullets into Lenard as he laid there without his gun drawn.

Lenard's wife happened to be at our place. I was there when the officers knocked on the door. Members have not been through hell until they have to sit with the wife or the children of the victim of a premeditated murder.

We try to honour these people through different organizations, through plaques on the Hill. However, we have a government that says we must look after the predator in these cases. The man who shot Lenard is now out in Vancouver as a businessman. Is this fair?

For any member on the other side of the House who would like to know the name of my cousin, I am quite willing to give it. She lives in Atikokan, Ontario. They can phone her family members and see what they think about this joke on society that members call 745.

Premeditated murder was an automatic hanging or execution at one time. The government of the day decided it had some hope for these murderers and would only make it 25 years. It was sold to the public as 25 years without parole. That sounded not too bad. It gave everybody a chance to get over the healing, if they could, and get on with their lives.

Now we look at 15 years. I hear that 15 years is hard on these people. From death to 15 years. We heard the outcry that this might be too much, so we passed section 745. Five years down the road, mark my words, if we have a Liberal or a Conservative government we will be looking at 10 years for premeditated murder.

The government likes to throw out fancy numbers. It forgets to tell the people what the population is in the country, what the unemployment rate is and what the actual crime statistics are. It does not bother to bring forward those statistics. According to Statistics Canada violent crime increased 782 per cent from 1971 to 1994. Argue that one. From 1986 to 1994 violent crime by youth increased 124 per cent. Many of those crimes were murders.

We have a system which I hope people understand. Our courts are so overworked that we have a bargaining system. We have a bargaining system in which the charge will be reduced for a guilty plea. If we want to know why the statistics are starting to show on the other end, it is because we have lawyers and judges who are agreeing to bargain. They are not representing the people; they are representing themselves and their own self-interests, the same as the government.

I wish everyone involved in this debate would go back to their constituents to get their opinions.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to express our opposition to the Liberal plan to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code. We are talking about Bill C-45 which is the Liberal government's thinly veiled support of the so-called faint hope clause which nullifies the Criminal Code's penalty of life imprisonment for first degree murder.

Millions of Canadians, including my constituents, believe that section 745 of the Criminal Code should be abolished because it serves no purpose. It is no deterrent for people who go out and ruthlessly take the life of another or others.

At best, Bill C-45 introduces a few cosmetic changes to the law, but it does not repeal the faint hope clause. The Liberal justice minister is adamant in refusing to do what Canadians are asking the government to do.

Canadians want to take away the right of a convicted murderer to have their sentence reduced. Canadians do not want convicted murderers to serve anything less than the sentence they have been given. Victims of Violence, the Canadian Police Association and millions of Canadians want section 745 to be repealed. However, the Minister of Justice, just like the separatist Bloc members, has ignored their pleas and are pushing Bill C-45 through the House.

The bill makes a few amendments to section 745. First, the right of multiple murderers to apply for a judicial review for early parole will be removed. However, instead of making this provision retroactive so that it would apply to serial killers such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, who are already incarcerated, it will apply only to those convicted of multiple murders after the bill comes into effect. If a person kills people before the bill comes into effect they still have a chance, a faint hope, to avoid serving the full sentence which our Criminal Code sets out as the penalty for their crime. These convicted murderers can still apply for parole. They are exempt from the bill.

Canadians do not support giving Paul Bernardo hope. The people I represent want to have a binding national referendum on the return of capital punishment. The case of Paul Bernardo gives Canadians a very real reason to want a national vote on returning to our statute books the penalty of death. The Liberals want to give people like Paul Bernardo hope.

The Liberals are giving serial killers who are already incarcerated a better chance to get out of their sentence than those who will commit multiple murders in the future. Canadians are finding it very difficult to believe that the Liberals think they can sell this as some kind of deterrent.

This Liberal government should be giving Canadians hope. The Liberals should have the courage to give Canadians what we want and that is a binding national referendum on capital punishment. The Liberals would rather do nothing. That is what the Liberals do, nothing.

The Liberal's campaigned on a platform featuring political change and promises, promises, promises, just like their promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. Then they say they will scrap the GST, but once they are elected the Liberals do nothing.

The defence minister tackles what the Prime Minister says will be a difficult job of cleaning up the top echelons at national defence in the wake of the Somalia crisis. The Liberal defence minister does nothing. He hides behind the Somalia inquiry and says he can do nothing.

The justice minister has done nothing to prevent serial killers who are already in jail from getting a chance of a reduced parole. The Liberal justice minister has done nothing about this.

This bill is a sham. It is not what Canadians are asking for. The bill would ensure that a murderer will have to convince a superior court judge that their application has a reasonable chance of success before they would be allowed to proceed before a jury. This sounds like a good measure. However, considering that applicants have a 72 per cent success rate since May 1994 in having their parole ineligibility reduced, it is unlikely that a judge will find fault with the majority of applications and dismiss them.

In short, the new hurdle the Minister of Justice so proudly stands up to defend, which the Bloc so quickly supports, is really no hurdle at all. We will continue to see far too many section 745 hearings.

Finally, Bill C-45 stipulates that a section 745 jury will have to reach a unanimous decision before the applicant's parole ineligibility is reduced. At present only two-thirds of the jury need to find in the applicants favour. What kind of change is this? This is typical Liberal do nothing tinkering with our criminal justice system. I am sure the Liberals will be shaking each other's hands and patting each other on the back in an orgy of self-congratulation, but Canadians will not be congratulating the Liberals.

Canadians feel that section 745 should not exist at all. What the Liberals are doing is absolute nonsense. This bill is nonsense. The Liberals are most concerned about the rights and privileges of criminals and they have ignored the rights of victims of crime. If the Liberals had any basic simple understanding of victims' rights, and they do not, they would have abolished section 745.

Canadians can see clearly that the Liberals are actually creating categories of good and bad murderers. If a person kills another person the killer will be entitled to a section 745 hearing. These are good murderers, according to the Minister of Justice's understanding. However, serial killers are not entitled to a section 745 review because according to the justice minister's understanding, these are bad murderers.

It is truly unbelievable that the minister has actually quantified human life in this legislation. He actually sets himself up as the one who can quantify whether one killing is worse than two killings. It is unbelievable.

According to this bill, a murderer should be given a glimmer of hope if they kill only one person, but killing more than one person prevents a murderer from getting a review and serving something less than the 25 year imprisonment.

The minister has set the quota at one life. It is reprehensible that this Liberal minister would sit down and draft his very own category of murderers, some deserving of leniency and some not. I submit that one life is as important as two, three or four. If the minister wanted to differentiate between murderers he should have introduced consecutive sentencing. That is the way to deal with this problem. It would ensure that serial killers like Clifford Olson would never have a chance for parole.

Canadians want to have the criminal justice overhauled. Canadians want the government to stand up for victims instead of standing up for criminals. It is time for the abolition of section 745. The Liberals should be ashamed that they have not repealed this section. They should be ashamed that they have ignored the views of millions of Canadians, in particular the views of victims' rights groups.

I cannot support this bill. My constituents cannot support this bill. My party cannot support this bill. We stand here today speaking for Canadians and standing up for the rights of victims and their families.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-45. This bill deals with section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 is not a bad law that needs changing. It is a bad law that needs to be turfed.

Several experts have spoken about section 745 and have spoken about Bill C-45. I do not propose to this House that I am expert of justice matters. I have many colleagues who have far more knowledge in this area than I do and they have spoken very eloquently after extensive research on the issue. We know that officials from police forces have spoken about section 745. They

have far more knowledge than I do on this. They have talked about the fact that section 745 needs to be repealed. I respect the views of my colleagues, I respect the views of the police.

Interestingly enough, provincial officials have spoken about section 745 of the Criminal Code. They also are very knowledgeable and expert in the area with which they are dealing. They are the attorneys general of some of the provinces.

On May 11, 1996 the Ottawa Sun reported that during a meeting, the attorneys general of Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario pushed for the total repeal of section 745, while Saskatchewan and Quebec argued that it should be amended.

Harnick from Ontario and Evans from Alberta said they would like to see the screening of first degree murderers for early release be done by the justice minister's office rather than the parole board or a provincial judge. The provinces were concerned about Bill C-45. They thought it would be a financial burden and an imposition on their judicial system as it will be the provincial judges who review and determine which first degree murderers' 745 applications will be referred to a jury.

This underlines the fact that there was not proper consultation between the federal government and the provinces when the government introduced Bill C-45. This is not uncommon. We have seen several examples of the federal government failing to work co-operatively with the provinces within confederation. Here we have another example.

It is interesting that the financial agreements with the provinces and the territories expired on March 31 and to date the justice minister has only signed agreements with a couple of the Atlantic provinces. There is a total lack of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and Bill C-45 to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code is a prime example.

I do not have extensive and deep knowledge of the justice system but I certainly have heard very capable critics and very knowledgeable experts suggest this bill is bad, it should not be passed and that section 745 of the Criminal Code should be repealed.

I appreciate what others have said but I want to tell the House what I am hearing from constituents and from ordinary Canadians like myself who are not experts in the area but who may have very strong feelings about the justice system and what is wrong with it.

Reform MPs have learned to be excellent listeners. I would encourage members opposite who are pushing this type of legislation to take a few moments and actually listen to what their constituents are saying, what the people on the street, the people on the farms, are saying about section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I want them to listen to the victims' rights groups that have stated categorically that they are opposed to any tinkering with section 745, and are calling for the repeal of that section. They do not support Bill C-45.

I ask them to listen to the taunting of convicted killers such as Clifford Olson who are making a mockery of the justice system, that we would even consider a faint hope clause. They are becoming notorious because of the lack of action by the Liberal government. It is really ridiculous when we see the publicity they are getting simply because the Liberal government wants to put criminals' rights ahead of victims' rights and not correct the justice system.

I hear from the local RCMP officers. They certainly do not support section 745 of the Criminal Code. They do not support changing the act to have two degrees of killers, those who are serious killers and should not be given a faint hope clause and those who are not quite so serious because they have just killed one person and they deserve a faint hope clause. They have been very outspoken in their opposition to the Liberal government's initiative.

My constituents have no use whatsoever for a faint hope clause which would allow premeditated killers to get out early on any type of parole. I even hear from people who live in Liberal members' ridings. They are not very happy with their MPs.

I am happy that the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River is sitting in the House. The other day I met one of his constituents on the plane when I was flying here. His constituent recognized me and began to talk to me. He was concerned about justice and crime. He talked about the high rate of crime in the Prince Albert area and the fact that his member did not seem to be very concerned about it. He told me quite frankly that his member would not be re-elected.

I thought this person is probably not a Liberal, so we have to take his words with a grain of salt. He may have been playing politics. However, he told me the feeling in the Prince Albert area was pretty widespread that the member did not take criminal issues seriously. Of course, he has a federal penitentiary in his riding so the issue of crime and convicted killers being released on early parole is an important issue in his constituency.

I read in the paper the other day that it looked as if the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was going to be challenged for the nomination by someone in his own party. Even his own people are not very happy with his performance.

I suggest there could be broad support for the member beyond partisanship. There are Liberal members who actually do try to stick up for their constituents and represent them. But this member

does not seem to be one because his own party, for reasons I do not know-maybe justice issues, maybe some other issues-feels their member is not doing a good job.

All I know is that everything I have heard from his riding, and I have heard these complaints for a couple of years, indicates the member is in real trouble in his riding and may very well not be re-elected. Liberal Party people are concerned about the performance of this government for a number of reasons. The trouble with Liberals is that they cannot admit they are wrong.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

You're third in the polls in Saskatchewan.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

They can heckle in the House-I am being heckled right now-but they cannot admit they are wrong. They do not know how to apologize when they are wrong and do not correct themselves when they get off course.

Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister said he had the people and he had the plan. One of his people is the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and is supposed to be a heavyweight on justice matters. However, he does not seem to have the support of his own constituency, of his own party in his own riding. One has to wonder where they have gone wrong.

As I pointed out, it seems fairly obvious that the Liberals cannot admit they have made mistakes, have not addressed the seriousness of criminal and justice matters, have been totally off course on the issue of section 745 of the Criminal Code and are totally off base on this bill, Bill C-45.

We have debated these justice issues in the House for a long time. We talked about repealing section 745 even before one of the colleagues of the Liberal members brought forward a private member's bill, which had broad support in the House, for repeal of the section.

However, the Liberal hierarchy on the front benches-I suppose the parliamentary secretary would be a supporter of this-decided to sidetrack its own member's private member's bill. Of course he was kicked out of caucus because he did not see eye to eye with the Liberals and they derailed his private member's bill which actually had the support of the entire House. It was approved by the elected body.

That private member's bill would have brought in a more strict justice system, which was actually what the people wanted. The people of Kindersley-Lloydminster want that. The people of Prince Albert-Churchill River want that. But that would never do. That would mean that people like Clifford Olson and other first degree murderers would not have a faint hope. That would probably alleviate some of the opportunities for people in the legal profession to generate more income for their law firms. Who knows all the reasoning behind the Liberals who determined that their colleague's bill should not be passed.

I would like to hear some of the explanations from the other side why they dumped that private member's bill and brought in this bill which does not do the job. It does not repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code but provides special status for some murderers and less status for others. It is the same old repetitive story: special status for some and let us deal more harshly with others. In this case it is special status for murderers of one person but does not provide that same special status for murderers of more than one person. It is really silly when one stops to think about it.

It is time for some common sense to emanate from this House. We have to start seeing some of it from the other side. We have been speaking on behalf of Canadians on these issues but it has been falling on deaf ears in the justice department and on deaf ears in almost every ministry on the other side. It has to stop. Our country is too important to play games with Canadians and not abide by their wishes any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster. I just hope that for a change colleagues opposite will listen to what has been said, will recognize the error of their ways and correct them very quickly.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have the opportunity to talk about a criminal justice bill. It is not something I do very often, but certainly the constituents of my riding have indicated very clearly that this is a major concern of theirs. It does not matter at what level you talk or to whom you speak, very clearly they state that they are concerned about this issue.

Therefore I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into this in a little bit of detail at least, again not as an expert but certainly as a concerned citizen, representing my constituents.

The public are disgusted with the criminal justice system. They feel that too many Liberal governments, whether they are called Liberal or not does not seem to matter, but it seems that once Ottawa fever sets into people when they come down here that all of a sudden they start thinking about the criminal. They very quickly lose sight of who we should really be concerned about and that is the victims of these crimes. Certainly the opinion is that our justice minister is very soft on crime. He is so liberal that he is more liberal than all the other Liberals who have been responsible for our criminal justice system.

It does not matter what area we talk about, the concerns are over the whole range. Let us start off with the Young Offenders Act. Everybody is upset about that. I have had the opportunity to speak to people across the country. Not once did I go into a presentation and question period when someone did not ask about the Young Offenders Act. It might be senior citizen who is now afraid to go

out because of the young hoodlums they perceive to be out there and who may be a threat to them.

It could be a handicapped person in my riding, which I think is pretty peaceful. It is certainly a riding I am proud of. I have lived there a number of years. In a period of one week two handicapped people were attacked by young offenders and sent to hospital. One severely handicapped lady received a broken arm by these young offenders.

The police will say that when there are break and enters they do not bother going anymore because they just cannot handle them all. This is a major issue. It is part of the whole problem with the criminal justice system.

We can talk about the parole system and sex offenders who are put back out on the streets. Some sex offenders do not even have to take treatment. We are told they cannot be cured and yet they are put out on the streets. Again the Liberal policy is "well, let us hope they do not reoffend".

I have a letter from a constituent: "It has come to my attention that prisoners are being released on parole based on their behaviour inside an institution, not on the crime they committed. This is a grave miscarriage of justice when the crimes committed are of a sexual nature. How many inmates have daily access to sexually assault children? I hope none. If released on to our streets, the pedophile has unlimited access to our children. We should not be required to lock our children away to keep them safe from sex offenders". This is just another cry for help to change the system.

Our parole boards are made up of political hacks with high salaries. They are not professional people. They are not there to try to provide treatment, to provide protection for citizens. They certainly are not interested in the victims.

In Bill C-45 we have even created categories. If a person kills once, premeditated murder, it is one thing. He or she would be eligible for parole. If a person kills more than once, then he or she is a little more serious criminal. The victims did not have that choice. The victims were not given a choice of how serious a murder was. Murder is murder is murder. First degree murder is planned, premeditated murder.

There is no standard for sentencing. Often the punishment does not fit the crime. I read an interesting article from the Innisfail paper two weeks ago when I was at home. There had been a break-in at an auction mart. The person was caught and the owner of the auction mart wrote a letter to the paper and said: "I have no confidence in the criminal justice system that the fine or the minimum sentence this person will receive will in any way stop him from additional crime". His suggestion in the article was that the true way to deal with this person would to be to have him come to work at the auction mart for three months. His job would be to clean out cattle liners that arrive day after day. He said that after three months of cleaning cattle liners he doubted very much that this person would break in to an auction mart again.

We have to look at things like this. We have to look at punishment that fits the crime. For first degree murder what should the punishment be? Is 15 years the price we put on a life? Is that what we say is enough? It is premeditated. I have heard so many speeches in the House about this subject. They talk about murders. They say that someone who was in a traffic accident should get parole. We are talking about premeditated first degree murder.

The fact that they should not have a faint hope is by far and away the majority point of view in the country. This law does not go far enough. It is middle of the road liberalism. It is liberalism at its very worst. We are talking about first degree premeditated murder. Bill C-45 is soft.

We have to get back to the punishment fitting the crime. We have to get back to thinking about the victims. We have to think about the victims who are going to have to relive the crime in just 15 years. We must think about the victims.

I am sure I am not unique in the amount of mail I receive on the criminal justice system. This is a letter that I received, not from a constituent, but from someone in B.C.:

You as our government have seen fit to enact a faint hope clause which gives convicted murderers the opportunity to be released and kill again. It is my opinion that you as our government should remove this faint hope clause for all serial killers and all murderers that torture, mutilate or sexually assault their victims, as parole boards are releasing all murderers that apply for early release under this clause.

We have been told that up to 80 per cent of the applications are successful.

The letter continues:

It is also my opinion that Clifford Olson should never have the faint hope of being released on to our streets. That individual, in my opinion, should be given a lethal injection. I would not have any objection to doing that job myself.

That is a pretty strong statement, but that is what Canadians are saying out there about first degree premeditated murder. That is what we are talking about.

We should look at the Liberal record. What we will find is a great deal of underachievement. There is a great deal of deceit and deception being practised, of saying one thing and meaning something quite different, of not really doing what they say they will do.

In the criminal justice system we might talk to the justice ministers of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Yukon and all of them will say they were not consulted by the justice minister.

Mr. Scott Newark, director of the Canadian Police Association, openly said he has not been consulted and neither has his membership. There is a total lack of consultation.

I could go on to talk about the broken promises of the GST and no tax increases. There have been $26 billion in increased taxes. We can talk about the threats to health care and the threats to pensions. Those are all coming from the deceit and lies of the Liberal government. That is exactly where they are coming from.

We can look at committees. Just this morning I sat in a committee and watched the member for Edmonton North vote for a Bloc member to be the vice-chair of the committee because he had to.

This is a government made up of underachievers who do not listen to the people.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-45. Unfortunately, I am going to have to speak in opposition to this piece of legislation. Once again, as my hon. friend from Red Deer pointed out, the government has fallen well short of the mark. It has fallen well short of where Canadians want it to go.

It is the primary purpose of the justice system to ensure that justice is first applied and, second, that it is applied evenly. I want to talk about that aspect of this piece of legislation.

One of the strange anomalies of the bill is that it will grant those people already in prison, who were convicted of heinous crimes, the right to apply for early release. This is a continuation of the so-called faint hope clause.

People like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Daniel Gingras will have the option under this piece of legislation to continue to come before the public to make their case to be allowed out.

Have we, in this country, not learned that people like Clifford Olson crave that type of attention? What right do we as legislators have to allow these people to come forward and continue to wreak havoc in the lives of the victims?

When I talk about victims in the case of Clifford Olson, I am talking about the parents of the 11 children he murdered. Why do we as legislators have a right to allow him to come forward and say the sorts of things that he says in the media to really continue to perpetuate a crime in the lives of those parents? That is ridiculous.

What is the government thinking about when it allows that to happen? Obviously it has forgotten the purpose of the justice system. The justice system is not to serve the criminal, it is to serve the law-abiding citizens. It is to serve the rights of victims.

I have a friend here, the member for Fraser Valley East, who brought down a piece of private member's legislation that received wide support in the House. It called for a victims bill of rights.

That is the appropriate type of legislation to be bringing in. Why in the world are we bringing in what amounts to a criminals bill of rights? Why are we granting criminals more rights? It is absolutely contrary to everything Canadians are telling us. It is contrary to everything we know in our own hearts, yet the government continues to bring down flawed pieces of legislation like Bill C-45. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is counter-intuitive. I do not understand it at all.

To personalize this a little more, I must tell the story of how Daniel Gingras wreaked havoc in my riding several years ago. People may remember the case where he was out on a pass after having murdered a person. He murdered a fellow because he did not like the look of his face, according to his own testimony.

He murdered someone and was subsequently released on a day pass, because it was his birthday, in Edmonton. He overpowered the guard and eventually made his way to Medicine Hat, my riding. He took the shoe laces from a woman and strangled her with them because, according to his own testimony, she was crying like a cow.

These people are scarcely human. They are hubris as far as I am concerned. I do not understand how we can allow these people any rights at all. Yet the government has brought down a piece of legislation that will allow people like Daniel Gingras and others of his ilk to come before not only the courts, which is bad enough, but before the public and to again have their say. They will stir up many bad memories.

That is contrary to what just people in this country believe. It really makes me wonder what possibly goes on in the Department of Justice when they think up pieces of legislation like this.

People across the way will say we have to be compassionate. Compassionate should mean compassionate to everybody, not just to criminals. When people talk about letting loose one virtue like compassion without a counter-virtue like justice, then they will simply allow some of the worst things possible to go on. That is exactly what is happening with this piece of legislation.

What could have happened? I mentioned a minute ago my friend from Fraser Valley East bringing down victims rights legislation.

That is the sort of thing we should have in this country. A lot of people ask why life does not mean life in this country. Even a life sentence in this country usually only amounts to 25 years where there is eligibility for parole after that.

Many people in this country want to go further. They want life meaning life, but in the wake of the Bernardo trial there were many people, as there are still today, believing we need to have a plebiscite, a referendum on capital punishment.

Why is it that people such as Paul Bernardo, Daniel Gingras and Clifford Olson can murder perfectly innocent people, children in some cases, and be allowed to live out their lives when they know that their victims will never ever see another day? That is so wrong yet people across the way allow it to happen. People across the way, who I know in their own hearts do not believe in this legislation, will stand up and vote for it simply because it is the condition, the price that they pay if they want to stay in that party.

At some point principle should mean more than just sticking around in a party so that you can possibly get re-elected. If you believe in principle you should be willing to jettison all that party stuff and stand up for your constituents. That is what members across the way have to do.

I urge all people who are watching today, and I know there are many people watching out there, to let their local MPs know that Bill C-45 simply is not adequate. In fact, not only is it not adequate, it is actually dangerous. It allows all those people who have committed murder in the past to come back and wreak havoc in the future and I think that is wrong.

This legislation tells me the government has not yet gotten the message from the constituents and even from some of its own MPs. People out there want the problem of crime dealt with in a serious way and they want people to get their just deserts when they commit a crime. In some cases that means a life penalty and in other cases I would suggest it means the death penalty.

During the last election campaign I remember going door to door and probably every member in the House ran into this. If you were out after dark very often it was difficult to get women to come to the door.

I know members across the way will say: "Have you not heard the statistics that crime is going down?" I can tell you that people feel very threatened in their homes. I remember how difficult it was to get people to come to the door, especially women, and there is a good reason for that. Let us not cast aside their concerns and say that they just do not know what they are talking about. Let us start introducing some laws that have an effect not only in dealing with crime but in restoring the confidence of people who are afraid to go out on their own.

Nowadays there are bars on the windows of houses and businesses. But in some cases, like the women's prison in Edmonton, we do not even have bars on the jails any more. They are trying to rectify that now after there were some real problems which actually led to the death of an inmate. Certainly people should not feel they have to be prisoners in their own homes simply because we have a government that refuses to get tough with criminals.

Let us face it. There is not an MP in this House who has not heard over and over again from their constituents that people cannot understand why the government has not been tougher on crime. It is not just this government, it was the Tory government before. The Tories were the ones who brought in that ridiculous Young Offenders Act. That is another issue which we will save for another day. It is not just this government, it is several governments in succession.

I hope members across the way will find it in their hearts to stand up for the innocent victims and citizens out there instead of criminals in the next go round.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a beautiful fall day like today members, those Canadians in the gallery here and those Canadians who are viewing this on television will know that the fall colours all across our country are just starting to change.

If you were in my home of Edmonton, Alberta today and you were at the north end of High Level Bridge, the bridge that goes across the North Saskatchewan River, you would see a park at the northwest corner of High Level Bridge. In that park is a statue of a police officer. The police officer has his arm around a young lad of about seven or eight years of age. The statue of that police officer is pointing across the river at the University of Alberta.

Every time I drive by that location I am reminded of Constable Ezio Faraone. That park and statue are dedicated to Constable Ezio Faraone. Constable Faraone was a young policeman who was cut down in the prime of his life by someone who had very little to contribute to our society and over the course of his life had contributed nothing. He cut down a young man with much promise, a young man who had dedicated part of his life to guiding other young people. That is why that statue and that park are so poignant: because of the contrast of the two lives; one full of richness, promise and hope and the other life for whatever reason generally speaking of incarceration and despair.

We do not know what led to the incarceration of the perpetrator of the horrendous murder of Ezio Faraone and we are not suggesting that life is fair and that everybody starts with an equal chance. However the fact of the matter remains that there are very few of us in our country who do not appreciate the difference between right and wrong.

The problem in our country is not so much that people do not appreciate the difference between right and wrong, but we are not as a nation prepared to accept the consequences for having done wrong. That is really the nibs of it. We see this every day in our country. People elected or people appointed to positions of responsibility, authority and leadership abdicate that leadership role or that role of responsibility by sloughing off accountability for their actions to someone else or by blaming it on some incident in life that caused them to do whatever they did.

The fact is that the death of Constable Ezio Faraone, the snuffing out of that life of promise, of that young leader of men who was working on behalf of all of the citizens of Edmonton and of the larger community of our nation, was in part because of the actions of this House of Commons. It is the actions of this House of Commons and the laws that are promulgated herein which set the stage for what is likely to happen in our country.

In my opinion there is a direct link between the death of Constable Ezio Faraone at the hands of a convict on parole on the streets of Edmonton and the Solicitor General of Canada on October 6, 1972 who stood in the House and stated, using these words which can be checked in Hansard : ``From this day forward rehabilitation will be the driving raison d'être of our criminal justice system. It will not be the protection of society. It will be the rehabilitation of prisoners''. From that day forward, 24 years ago almost to the day just a couple of weeks from now, the criminal justice system and Correctional Services Canada have had to focus on the rehabilitation of prisoners.

That is not all bad. The vast majority of people who commit a crime or break the social contract that we as citizens have one with another are worthy of rehabilitation and should be given a second chance. Yesterday the member for Kingston and the Islands, who has a major prison in his constituency, spoke long and eloquently about the need and the reason for compassion, about how it is honourable and correct to turn the other cheek. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility that goes beyond ourselves.

When a perpetrator kills somebody or commits any major crime-we are now talking about capital offences in particular, murder-the charge is not written as victim v. defendant, it is the Queen, Regina v. defendant. This is because when someone kills another citizen, the crime is not only against the victim but also against the community. It is against the nation. That is why when a crime is committed it is the crown in opposition to the perpetrator.

When we gathered under the oak tree, or whatever tree we gathered under, as human beings to suggest and to agree one with another that we were going to give up some of our individual freedoms in order to ensure the greater good would be served, we then one with another created a social contract. That social contract meant that we would not have the personal liberty that animals do to kill whatever they choose for whatever reasons. We were going to conduct ourselves in a fitting manner. We willingly gave up some of our freedoms in order to enjoy the greater good.

The populations of various countries, including our country, vested with parliamentarians the authority and the responsibility to frame that social contract, to give it meaning, to give it foundation, to make it work. Therefore when we are called upon to generate the laws by which we will govern ourselves, we must use not only compassion but reason.

Our laws must have strength. They must state that certain crimes will be dealt with in the harshest possible manner. We are not talking about manslaughter; we are not talking about crimes of passion; we are not talking about a momentary fit of madness. We are talking about cold blooded murder. We are talking about an occasion where someone will take a hostage and kill a prison guard or policemen who are on the frontlines to defend us day after day after day.

We are not talking, as members opposite have said from time to time, of everybody who is in jail or of everyone who commits murder. We are talking specifically about those criminals who have been charged and convicted of first degree murder. This gives the courts many avenues of leniency. Not everyone who commits murder is charged with first degree murder. As a matter of fact, the vast majority is not.

When someone commits an offence that is judged by the legal community to be first degree murder, that person should be prepared to accept the consequences, which brings us right back to my first words. The problem is not that our society does not have the means and the wherewithal to maintain order and discipline. The problem is that we as a society do not have the discipline to accept the consequences of our actions.

Therefore if someone is prepared to commit first degree murder they should do so in the full knowledge that the sure consequence is that they will spend 25 years behind bars, not 24 years and not 26 years, 25 years. Twenty-five years was the quid pro quo for getting rid of the death penalty. We will not put anyone to death, but the people who commit first degree murder would do so in the full knowledge that by breaking the social contract, one with another, they will pay the full penalty.

That is why I would urge members opposite to support the original bill by the member for York South-Weston which would scrap section 745, which was was wanted by virtually every victim group and every police group, and not accept this watered down version of Bill C-45 presented by the Minister of Justice.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that it was a pleasure for me to rise today and participate in this debate on Bill C-45, but I find it is just the latest example of this minister's and this government's half baked justice policy that they are holding up to the people of Canada as a way of getting tough with crime when it does exactly the opposite.

However, I do appreciate the opportunity to point out to this government, on behalf of my constituents of Prince George-Peace River and on behalf of the majority of Canadians, that section 745 of the Criminal Code should be abolished.

I believe that Bill C-45 simply introduces more cosmetic changes. Over the debate of the last couple of days in this place on this piece of legislation-and I use that term charitably-many of my colleagues in the Reform Party have said that it is high time this government started listening to the people. Of course when that was said what we heard from the other side, amidst howls of heckling, was that the government is indeed listening to the people. I question that.

A poll was recently conducted and completed in my riding, which is virtually the entire northeastern corner of British Columbia. One of the questions the people were asked in this scientific poll was: "We are interested in knowing how you feel the federal government is doing with respect to criminal justice matters".

Interestingly enough, 56 per cent of the people said they felt the federal government was doing a poor job reforming the criminal justice system; 11 per cent more were uncertain as to how it was doing. Clearly two-thirds of the people of my riding feel either that the federal government is doing a poor job of addressing criminal justice issues or are uncertain as to exactly what it is attempting to do.

I view that as a clear indication that the people of my riding and I believe the people of Canada are growing increasingly concerned, despite what we hear from the government that crime rates are falling and the incidence of violent crime is going down. What I hear from the people as I travel throughout my riding and across the country is that they are increasingly concerned about crime.

Victims of Violence, CAVEAT, the Canadian Police Association and the majority of Canadians want section 745 repealed. It is that simple. I find it appalling that this justice minister and this government would not listen to, for example, the Canadian Police Association on this issue or on the issue of a referendum on capital punishment. Yet, during the debate on the gun control issue they said that the major reason why they were bringing in this preposterous gun control legislation was because the police association wanted it.

The justice minister conveniently uses the police association and its resolutions where it suits him but does not listen to them on other issues. He has ignored the pleas of these groups and he is pushing Bill C-45 through the House.

The bill makes a few amendments to section 745, and these have been recounted over the past few days. First, the right of multiple murderers to apply for a judicial review for early parole will be removed. However, instead of making this provision retroactive, the new measure will only apply to those convicted of multiple murders after Bill C-45 comes into effect. Therefore the minister has done nothing to prevent serial killers who are presently incarcerated from getting their day in court and getting a chance at a reduced parole ineligibility period.

Second, the bill will ensure that the murderer will have to convince a superior court judge that their application has a reasonable chance of success before they will be allowed to proceed to appear before a jury. This sounds like a good measure, but considering that applicants have had a 72 per cent success rate since May of 1994 in having their parole ineligibility reduced, it is unlikely that a judge will find fault with a majority of these applications and dismiss them.

Yesterday my hon. colleague from Wild Rose referred to this not as the faint hope clause but as the sure bet clause. He hit the nail right on the head.

In short, the new hurdle is really no hurdle at all. We will continue to see far too many section 745 hearings.

Finally, Bill C-45 stipulates that a section 745 jury will have to reach a unanimous decision before the applicant's parole ineligibility is reduced. At present only two-thirds of the jury need to find in the applicant's favour. However, in my view the bottom line is that section 745 should not exist at all.

Section 745 was introduced as part of Bill C-84 in 1976 by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was serving as solicitor general at that time. Bill C-84 abolished capital punishment and established two categories for murder, first and second degree. However, not many people noticed the inclusion of section 745 in their review of the original bill. As a result, we have had to wrestle with this provision for some 20 years.

Many Canadians believe that 25 years before being eligible for parole is not a suitable sentence for first degree murder. In fact, polls have consistently shown that Canadians favour a return to the death penalty for those who are convicted of first degree murder.

Yesterday the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that Reformers were attempting to instil a hate pattern in Canadians by advocating a return to the death penalty. In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, when I did a poll, 85 per cent of

the people favoured the return of the death penalty for cold blooded, premeditated first degree murder. That is what we are talking about today. We should be very clear about that.

On May 14 of last spring we had one hour of debate on my private member's Bill C-218, which would have brought about the reintroduction of capital punishment. One hour of debate. That was all the government deemed the debate on capital punishment was worthy of.

Last Friday one of my colleagues from Nanaimo-Cowichan introduced private member's Bill C-261 and there was an hour of debate on a referendum on capital punishment. In other words, it would have let the people speak. The government does not want to let the people speak on this and many other issues.

Government members know that people are outraged that murderers are given a glimmer of hope after serving only 15 years. What glimmer of hope did those murderers give to their victims? Speaking of victims, section 745 does them an incredible disservice. The whole judicial review process causes the revictimization of families and at times of entire communities.

Gary Rosenfeldt, whose son was murdered by Clifford Olson, said the whole section is an insult to victims. What is coming from the Liberal government? It is simply window dressing with respect to dealing with section 745. This really comes as no surprise. The Liberals are constantly promoting the rights and privileges of criminals and constantly mollycoddling the very worst people in our society while victims are completely ignored.

I see my time is almost up. I could go on all day talking about the government's lack of commitment to the victims of crime. The real point here is that the entire misguided and sad policy in the area of justice over the past quarter century by this government and governments preceding it has been built on a false premise that everyone in society is basically a good person. Everyone can be rehabilitated in the eyes of the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is always the fault of society that they go astray. It is always the fault of the parents or because they are poor.

There are some in our society who are inherently evil. That is a reality. I believe the majority of Canadians know that and it is why they want to see section 745 repealed. That is why I am voting against this piece of trash, Bill C-45.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on Bill C-45 and to register my opposition to the bill as presented by the Minister of Justice. I certainly would like to concur with the closing comments of my colleague for British Columbia who said the entire misguided policy of the government is built on a false premise. That it absolutely true.

Let us take a look. He talked about the original section in the Criminal Code, section 745, not to be confused with the Bill C-45. Section 745 was called the faint last hope. It was brought in on the premise that perhaps these criminals who had been convicted of one murder, two murders or many murders would in prison change their ways, be sorry for their deeds, rehabilitate themselves and be eligible to be turned loose into society and society would have to fend for itself and protect itself from these killers who are now back in society once more.

The faint last hope became the open door that after 15 years anybody who applied for parole was virtually assured of getting parole. These Liberals and left leaning socialists believed: "The poor guy has been locked up for 15 years. How can we do this? That is terrible. We should let him back out into society". Back into society so that he can do it again. There have been umpteen situations where he has done it again.

Many times we have seen headlines in the papers that another family has been destroyed, another murder has been committed, another innocent Canadian who just unfortunately happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is now dead because of this government's desire to let these people back on to the streets because they are sorry for those folks because they have been locked up for 15 years.

The information I have is that after 15 years when the parole hearing comes up and the families that have suffered the tragedy of having one of their members murdered are devastated by having the whole thing dredged up once more. Surely the families of innocent Canadians are the people who should be protected. People should be able to walk the streets without fear rather than worrying about one, two, three or fifty killers who are locked up and should stay that way, just because the bleeding heart socialists think it is time to let them out after 15 years.

My colleague from Fraser Valley West introduced a victim's bill of rights. He said, and many Canadians agree with him, that it is time to put the rights of individuals who have not committed a crime ahead of those people who have forfeited their rights because they have committed the most heinous of crimes, murder.

It does not take a great deal of mental effort to say that the people who have not committed a crime should have preferential treatment over those who have. I do not think it is a mental leap of logic, but obviously it is beyond the government's capability to understand that it is the Canadian people who have to be protected. Innocent people deserve to be able to walk this land without fear rather than worrying about murderers let loose by the government because of the bleeding heart policies of saying 15 years has been a long time.

When someone is found guilty of first degree murder the sentence is usually 25 years without parole and after that the person is on parole for the rest of his or her life. Therefore a convicted killer is never completely free but after 25 years he or she may return to society.

It seems rather strange to me that a judge who has been in command of all the facts, has listened to all the testimony, has heard the dreadful unfolding of events, has seen the families and the tragedy that has been created and has decided in his wisdom that this person who is convicted of the crime should spend a minimum of 25 years in jail before being eligible for parole, and the government wants to interfere with the courts and say the decision made at that time in full knowledge of all the facts is now found to be too harsh and lets these people out after 15 years.

Why is the government siding with the criminal and not siding with society? That is the issue. If a judge, in full command of the facts decided that this crime warranted 25 years, then surely we should listen to this learned man who was put in the position of making this types of judgment.

The government turns around and second guesses. Government interference in the judicial system makes it a mess. For example, Karla Homolka, in retrospect got a sweetheart deal because an agreement was made between the government and the criminal. When the facts came out Canadians were outraged and rightly so. Government should stay out of the administration of justice and leave it to the courts where the courts have the authority to make the decisions. If the courts say 25 years I go along with them.

We are dealing with Bill C-45 in the fall of 1996 which is three years after the election. The government has had three years to deal with this issue. It seems rather ironic that it waited until the fall of 1996, when people like Clifford Olson of British Columbia is now eligible to apply for parole. It could have brought in this bill in the spring of 1996. It could have brought in this bill in the fall of 1995. It could have brought in the bill in the spring of 1995. It wanted to wait until Clifford Olson had the opportunity to apply for parole before it shut it down. The government could have stopped it but it did not. That is indicative of the bleeding heart type of attitude of the government.

It is an insult to Canadians that this could actually happen. Like my hon. colleague from British Columbia who spoke before I could speak further. This bill is too little, too late. The government should have repealed section 745 many years ago.

Reformers are not dealing with statistics. We are dealing with real people. We are dealing with the tragedy and misery and the hurt of families who have suffered needlessly. I feel a great deal of compassion for them. I have no compassion whatsoever for the criminals who committed these heinous crimes. I have no compassion for the government which will not do something to stop these murderers from being back out on the street.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my comments to the debate on the third and final reading of Bill C-45.

The bill was advertised as the response by the Liberal justice minister to the demands of the Canadian public that section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows convicted, cold-blooded, premeditated murderers to apply to be let back into society after serving only 15 years of a life sentence.

A large number of people have signed petitions, clipped coupons, written letters, made phone calls and otherwise in a democratic society indicated that they wanted this section of the Criminal Code to be done away with. The justice minister promised that it would be done away with. He made representations to victims' groups and to the parents and other loved ones of murdered Canadians that he would respond to their demand that these convicted killers would not be let back into society.

What do we find has actually been done? Again, it is typical of Liberal deception that they tell Canadians they are going to do something to deal with an issue, but when what has been done is examined, what the actual measures are, they are toothless, ineffective and not at all as advertised.

The only thing this bill actually does is keep multiple murderers in prison for 25 years. Realistically this changes nothing. People like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo were not going to get out after 15 years anyway. Mandating that they are now going to serve 25 years and hailing this as a great step forward for public safety is absolute nonsense. These people were not going to get out in the public under any circumstances.

What does it do to convicted killers who only murdered one innocent, law-abiding Canadian in a deliberate cold-blooded, premeditated manner? Does it get tougher for these people? Does it send a strong message that we do not like this kind of thing, that we are not going to put up with it in our society, that if a person takes an innocent life they are going to pay such a heavy penalty that they had better think a long time before doing it? No.

It gives these people even more avenues of appeal and redress than they had before. Instead of going directly to a parole board jury to have a decision made about whether they should obtain early release or early parole, now they have to convince a superior court judge that they have a reasonable chance before such a jury of getting a favourable decision. Then if they do not like the superior court judge's determination on that issue they can go to the appeal level of the superior court. If they do not like that, they can go to the supreme appeal court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada.

After all of that, they still have the possible right to go before a jury, which is what they are doing now.

Instead of doing anything to send a signal to killers that murder will not be tolerated in our society, instead of fulfilling promises to victims and families of murdered Canadians, we now have more loopholes, more avenues, more layers of redress, more appeals and using the system than we did before. That is what this bill does.

It does not change a thing for multiple murders, except send a message that somehow if only one person is killed, a murderer will be treated a lot more lightly than if it is more than one. It actually gives more loopholes and more hoops that convicted killers can access in our system. It will cost a lot more for Canadians to allow the access to these measures. It changes nothing that responds, in any way at all, to the legitimate demands and concerns of the families and loved ones of murdered Canadians.

What else does it do? It makes a small change that says that when a murderer finally gets before a parole jury to see whether he or she should be given early parole or early release, the decision of the jury should be unanimous instead of only two-thirds of the jury. This is truly a big step forward for democracy.

In our common law system in centuries of jurisprudence, unanimity of jury decisions has been mandated. Why the Liberals in the first place would have said that a parole decision could be made with only a two-thirds majority of the jury I have no idea. Thankfully they have finally seen the error of their ways and are going to correct that, and well they should. We can hail this as a huge victory for democracy. Now the Liberals are saying that a jury decision must be unanimous instead of only two-thirds. I am sure that Canadians will be cheering in the streets when this measure goes through. It is certainly significant for the rights of victims and murdered law-abiding Canadians.

I hope Canadians who are following this debate will not be taken in by the deception of this justice minister and this government who talk a lot about doing something with section 745 of the Criminal Code that everybody was complaining about. They did nothing to this section of even the slightest significance or, even in the smallest way, to respond to the demands of the loved ones, the families and friends of murdered Canadians to have more justice. The consequences of the actions that were taken against these law-abiding people to have some peace was absolutely nothing. Canadians need to know this.

We see this over and over again with the government. It makes great representations that it will change the things that Canadians are demanding. If anyone ever looks at what is actually done, it is totally insubstantial, totally at variance with the tough talk that is given to the people making the demands, to voters, to taxpayers.

Much is made that something is being done. It is not much. It is not even worth mentioning. That is why we have been standing in this House, time after time, speaker after speaker, on our side of the House asking the government to be honest with Canadians, to do something substantial to deal with their very real concerns.

The Bloc does not want us talking about murderers but unfortunately for them, that is exactly what this bill deals with. It deals with first degree murderers. It is pretty hard to talk about first degree murderers without talking about their crimes. Of course, the Bloc finds it rather extreme to talk about murderers when we are dealing with a bill that tries to address the way first degree murderers are treated in this country.

We have an incredible situation in the law-making chambers of our country where a government is doing absolutely nothing to respond to the real concerns of victims and their families. We have the official opposition saying: "This is terrible, we do not even want to talk about these things. We think this is a little too extreme and too difficult to even raise".

Only the Reform Party is standing in the House and asking: "Why don't we as legislators give the people of this country what they deserve, something firm, something strong, something substantive, something that sends the signal to criminals convicted of premeditated deliberate murders in this country?"

I urge this House again to vote down this bill, to reject this bill and to demand this justice minister brings back measures that really respond to the concerns of the people of this country.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 makes some significant changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

It addresses three major changes. First, a murderer serving time for murder must appear before a superior court judge and prove to the judge that he should be allowed this glimmer of hope and that he has a reasonable prospect of success before this proceeds. That is just fluff. That is part of a routine procedure that I am sure judges will allow to happen. How does the judge know? He will let the jury decide.

Second, this bill introduces different classes of murderers. A person who commits first degree premeditated murder for the first time, or just once, will be given this opportunity. However, if a person does it twice or more, they will no longer be given that opportunity. This change is not retroactive to serial murderers, to people who are already in jail for multiple murders. It is lacking

severely by not addressing the 58 multiple murderers who are in prisons now.

Those people will be allowed to come forward for a review. Those people will be considered for a review. Those people will bring agony to the lives of the families of the deceased and bring back the emotions of fear and hatred.

The Liberals are supposed to have such huge hearts and be so caring that they will spend billions of dollars just to save one life. Yet they do not seem to care or be aware of what they are potentially doing emotionally to the families of the victims of these 58 people. That is what is wrong with that section.

Third, the bill introduces a requirement that the parole board bring down a unanimous decision rather than just a two-thirds majority. I will return to that issue.

The justice minister is tinkering around the edges with this bill. He is trying to satisfy his legal buddies in the system that he is allowing them to continue with the high cost of defence and high cost of the defence justice system, yet also trying to satisfy the Canadian public that he is addressing a serious matter.

I believe it will be revealed, as I am trying to do, as a sham. He is trying to suck and blow at the same time and it does not work. He has created different classes of murder. Some are not as bad as others. He said that changes to section 745 are to enhance community safety. But how does it enhance community safety to allow murderers to walk our streets?

The minister also said that section 745 will be available to those who are deserving. Consider a person who commits a crime with intent to murder. He plans, knows what he wants to do and does it. Yet somehow he knows before he commits this murder that he will be deserving through a glimmer of hope clause, section 745. He is only allowed to do it once, though. He knows that he has a chance to get out. Deserving?

The Minister of Justice is using the word deserving and making it synonymous with premeditated, with murder and with criminal. That does not sound right to me and it is not what he should be doing when he is trying to address the deterrent and punishment for crime and focusing on the criminal. He says he is preserving this section for those who should have access to it in a way that makes sense.

Premeditated first degree murder does not make sense but it happens, and the punishment for that is life with parole after 25 years, which is the kind of truth in sentencing we need. A person must know, as my colleague from Edmonton Southwest said earlier today, that if the penalty is 25 years, they serve 25 years. If the penalty is life with no parole, it is life with no parole.

We should have the punishment meet the crime and truth in sentencing, but we do not have that now. We keep having these escape clauses. That is why our streets are not safe and why the perception is being created for Canadians that they have lots to fear from these criminals who are being coddled more than the victims and victims rights.

It does not make sense that when someone takes the life of another human being in a premeditated manner they are still given a carrot or, as the justice minister puts it, a glimmer of hope. When these people killed another person they took away their glimmer of hope. They ended all their dreams and all their plans. They took away any chance that these people had to contribute to society.

To worry about the rights and democratic freedoms of murderers I do not believe is as much of a high priority as the rights of the victims and of their families. The minister is not recognizing the emotional needs of the people who are left behind. Let us not forget that a victim's sentence is forever. It is life six feet under in a cemetery. Therefore life should mean life and a life should mean a life.

Under the charter of rights all people are supposed to be equally and are to be protected equally under the law. The justice minister has created different classes of Canadian citizens, telling people they may be valued more or less depending on how they die or how many people they die with. If one person is murdered, that murderer is deserving of a glimmer of hope. However, if two people are murdered at the same time by one person then that murderer does not deserve a glimmer of hope and is put away for the full sentence.

It gets more complicated. If two people kill two people are they deserving? In other words, one person's death is not proof enough. Is not one person's death in a premeditated, planned fashion proof enough of the criminal tendency of that individual? It takes two deaths for this government to act and then it will get tough.

Our first priority must be the law-abiding, taxpaying decent citizens. Government must respect that Canadians have the right to demand that their government give them safe streets and communities by cracking down on hard criminals, especially those who have been convicted of first degree premeditated murder, no matter how many people's lives they affect.

Parole boards are supposedly set in place for the purpose of rehabilitation after an individual is subject to parole and goes before this parole board. This is a quasi-judicial body. For many who serve on it the qualifications are vague. They are not really based on merit and no real knowledge is required to serve on this board.

This board is given the power, 15 years later or 18 years later, to overrule a judge's decision years after the fact. Years after the fact the circumstances are different and the evidence is somewhat forgotten. A prosecutor and a defence lawyer argue the case in a more detached and arm's length fashion. I know this to be true because I witnessed one this summer in Calgary.

I went to a section 745 hearing-I believe the man's name was Ramsey-and listened to Ramsey's defence lawyer trying to justify why this person deserved to have his sentenced reduced from 25 years. He had already served 16. He had been in there for 16 years but he was a model prisoner. He was rehabilitated and he had applied to get out early.

The prosecutor said: "No, this gentleman does not deserve to be let out. This gentleman is manipulating the system. He is playing games". There was a very descriptive and vivid explanation given of the crime. It was a drug related crime. He stood over his drug partner and shot him twice in the head. The jury listened to the description of the crime. I reacted to the evidence. I said to myself: "No, you stay in there and serve your 25 years".

That gentleman got 18 years because of the two-thirds rule. He got it reduced from 25 years to 18 years. By doing the right things in jail and by following the advice of his lawyer he was able to get his sentence reduced, despite the brutality of his crime.

This bill should be repealed, just like the prior bill that was introduced by the member for York South-Weston. We should get on with other legislation.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-45.

Let us examine what this bill is about. Of course the amendment which the Bloc put forward is to give the bill a rest for about six months so it can be studied in even greater depth. Quite frankly, I agree with the motion, except that it does not go far enough. We should give this bill a rest, period. We should throw out this useless bill. Let us get back to talking about a criminal justice system in which sentences fit the crime and in which the sentences are designed to protect society by not allowing criminals to get out early to commit another crime. That is what we are talking about.

We listened to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands verbally assaulting us out of the view of the cameras. I would like to talk about some of the comments which he made yesterday in his presentation.

"The point is most murders, from my limited knowledge", and I will certainly agree with that, "in this area are crimes of passion. I do not think the offender sits and thinks of the consequences of his or her acts when a murder is taking place". What a profound statement. The fact is many murders are committed in this country with premeditation. That is what we are talking about, premeditated murder, first degree murder. We are talking about cold blooded murder.

Do we accept the philosophy of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the philosophy of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the philosophy of the Minister of Justice and the philosophy of the Liberal government and a good majority of its members? Do we accept that philosophy as being how we should deal with people who commit cold blooded, vicious murders? Should the Liberal philosophy be the guiding light as to how we treat these people? Or should it be how Canadians, how our society, how law-abiding citizens feel about this? That is the question we have to ask here today.

Surely one can see from the bill that the Minister of Justice has set himself up as some sort of king who is going to decide all. This is quite astounding. He has the audacity to determine unilaterally that in this country there are good murderers and bad murderers. If someone commits one murder they are, in his mind, a good murderer and they get to apply for early parole after 15 years. If they commit more than one murder they serve a life sentence of 25 years.

There are two points I would like to make. First, how does he have the audacity to suggest that the crime of killing one victim is any less severe than someone who kills two or three people? How can he make that judgment? Could he tell the family of a victim that the killer was in fact classified as a good killer and someone who killed three or four people was a bad killer? Could he actually say that? I think not.

The other point I want to make in talking about multiple killers is that in his philosophy and in most of the Liberals' philosophy, a multiple killer should serve a life sentence of 25 years. I would hazard a guess that most Canadians would prefer that a multiple killer serve a life sentence of 25 years for every murder he or she has committed.

In other words we are talking about consecutive sentencing as most other countries have. The governments of those countries try to reflect in the criminal justice system what society wants. If we were to carry that line of thought into this debate, then certainly we should not be talking about whether or not a killer gets out early if they kill one, two or three people. If we were to truly reflect the feeling among the Canadian people when it comes to first degree premeditated murder, then we would be talking about capital punishment in this House today.

Poll after poll, survey after survey has shown that a majority of Canadians first of all would support the return of capital punishment for first degree murder in this country, but most important, an

even higher majority of the people in this country would simply like to be asked. That is what the Reform Party has been pushing for.

If this government had any intestinal fortitude, any sense, any brains, or any sense of democracy, it would take that question to the people of Canada. If the government is afraid to deal with that question, then let us let the government off the hook and take that question to the people of Canada in a national referendum. Ask them if they would like to have the return of capital punishment in this country. Just ask them. The government will not do that because it knows what the answer will be. The answer will be an overwhelming yes and that does not align with the Liberal philosophy.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce when he was justice minister was the one who put through section 745. A companion to that bill was to eliminate the death penalty and replace it with life sentences and the early parole application. That was a reflection of the philosophy of the Liberal government of that day and it is apparent in this group of Liberals sitting here today.

The minister has set the quota at one life, should at some future time the killer want the opportunity to make an application to reduce his or her parole. It is disgraceful and reprehensible that the justice minister, who really was elected only in one riding and was given a little bigger job once he got here, has set himself up as judge and jury as to how the criminal justice system is going to work without regard for the real jury out there which is the Canadian people.

Where do the Canadian people fit in this scheme of the justice minister's? Quite frankly, they do not count. That is very clear in this bill.

We talked about consecutive sentencing. If the minister is so determined that people who commit premeditated multiple murders should serve a life sentence, why do we not see something in the bill that says a life sentence for every life someone takes? Where is that in the bill? If someone kills two people, it should be two life sentences. If someone kills four people, it should be four life sentences. Consecutive sentences. That would be the thing that would keep these people in prison. Consecutive sentencing puts a value on the taking of each and every life in the case of multiple killers.

Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences. He killed 11 people. Premeditated and pre-calculated, he killed 11 people. As a matter of fact one of the victims was the daughter of the man who gave me my first job. That has no relevance to this except to point out that I have some personal knowledge of the savage acts Clifford Olson committed and he should never ever even have the opportunity to apply for early parole.

The U.S. uses consecutive sentencing. Some states have abolished their parole boards which would be a good idea given the record of our parole boards in this country. They have abolished them to ensure that criminals serve their entire sentences. However that is not in the philosophy of the Liberal Party, the Minister of Justice and cohorts from governments past, the cohorts in this bill. It is not in their philosophy.

The Liberals are too busy looking after criminals and placing them on the same plane as their victims. This government believes that the rehabilitation of criminals should have as much attention and as much respect as the victims of crime themselves.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Or more.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Or more.

The Liberals are too busy pampering criminals to have any time to deal with the concerns of victims.

The member for Fraser Valley West has put forward a victims bill of rights that has been widely accepted all over this country. No matter what the Liberals say about the Reformers when it comes to crime and punishment, we will say what the people say. Reformers will stand here and talk long, loud and clear about criminal justice. At least our party will reflect the views of the Canadian people in this House.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the sad parts about this whole debate is the fact that the Liberals appear to have completely forgotten about the victims and the victim's families. There is a lot of talk about the rehabilitation and release of the convicted murderer. There is a lot of talk about the rights of the criminals. I have gone through Hansard and I have not come up with anything that has been said by a Liberal in this debate that deals with the issue of the victim's families in any substantive way. It is for the living that we speak.

I was interested in the speech of the member for Kingston and the Islands last evening. He said: "In my opinion the bill goes counter to the principles governing the treatment of offenders and that is why I am against this bill". He said earlier in his intervention that in fact he was planning on voting against the bill.

What about the treatment of the victim's families, not what about the offender? Further he said:

I would like to go back to the four principles of sentencing that I talked about. I mentioned first, the protection of the public; second, the punishment of the offender; third, the rehabilitation of the offender; and fourth, the deterrence to others. I believe those are the four principles on which any sentencing bill ought to be judged.

His comment makes my point does it not? His comment is: How are we treating the offender? It has been said many many times by

my colleagues that we are not talking about a crime of passion. What we are talking about here is premeditated first degree murder. We are not talking about an incident that just happened to happen. We are talking about the most vile offence that one human being can commit on another human being.

It is therefore strange that while the Liberal government, the justice minister and indeed the whole party would be spending time on Bill C-45, which is an anaemic response to the demand of Canadians for the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, they spend no time talking about victims or victims' rights. It was the Reform Party that brought to this floor under the very careful guidance of my colleague from Fraser Valley West, a motion to which the justice minister agreed by the way, that the House was going to consider a victims bill of rights. That has not happened. Quite frankly, I think it will probably be a sunshiny day for bikinis in the Arctic on December 25 before we ever see the victims bill of rights in the House.

The member for Kingston and the Islands also said in his speech last night: "On the other hand, there are a large number of persons who have committed murder who pose no danger, who are remorseful and who wish they had never done it and, in my view, ought to be released and become contributing members of our society again".

Is that not wonderful. People have intentionally and willfully taken the life of another human being and have left behind them the shattered lives of their victims' families. The shattered lives of mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, relatives. Their lives will never, ever be the same again. Their lives have been so twisted and distorted by this heinous crime, yet the member says, and I will read it again because it is just so, so outstanding. "On the other hand, there are a large number of persons who have committed murder, who pose no danger, who are remorseful and who wish they had never done it and, in my view, ought to be released and become contributing members of our society again".

I ask members opposite: What are we doing here? Why are we spending this amount of time on a meagre repeal of some parts of section 745 and spending no time looking after the victims' families? Why are we doing this? I would love to have an answer from any Liberal member. Why do we spend so much time mollycoddling the criminal and ignoring the victim? Why do we do that? Any answers? I would love to have an answer to that question because I do not think there is one.

Last evening the government whip also displayed an attitude toward the Reform Party, which has attempted to bring the concerns of the people of Canada to the floor of the House, that is really an example of how many if not most of the Liberals feel toward our representations. I will quote him now referring to the Reform Party: "They think they have a monopoly on the truth. Canadians know what they are all about. It is a game of fear and hatred that they are trying to promote, Canadians one against the other. That is wrong".

Those are not only spiteful words. Those are words of distortion. I have said so many times in the House and I will say it again. There is more common sense in the average coffee shop in Canada than we will ever have in the House of Commons.

When the comments of concerned Canadians are spoken on this floor in plain 25-cent English words, for the government whip to stand and say: "Oh, it is hatred. They are trying to pit Canadian against Canadian", no we are trying to represent the views and the wishes of the people in Canada's coffee shops. We are trying to represent the views of the people in the living rooms and kitchens of Canada. We are not falling over, the way the justice minister has fallen over to the people in his justice department and doing all of the things that are politically correct. We are trying to correct something in this nation and get the focus where it should be. The focus again is that we must return to consideration and respect for the citizens of Canada and not just the criminals.

This is a bill that is going to pass. It will pass because that is the wish of the Prime Minister and that is the wish of the justice minister.

It will not pass as a result of the wish of the majority of people in Canada. The Liberals have the arrogance and the audacity to come to this Chamber and say: "We know what is best for the people of Canada, so we are going to turn, we are going to twist and we are going to give a little puffery and a little image and we are going to make it appear as though we are actually responding to the current concerns of the people of Canada".

Time will tell. There was a time when the people of Canada were prepared to buy into the big old parties, buy into the Liberals and the Conservatives, which is where the old thing of "Liberal-Tory, same old story" came from. They are the same old story.

We had wonderful prognosticators like Dalton Camp on television last night saying: "People want to have choices, but they want to have a narrow band of choices". There are the Liberals here and there are their kissing cousins, the Conservatives, there. They want to be able to make those choices within that narrow band. The problem for many of the Liberals, particularly for the government whip, is that we offer choices outside the narrow band of this cosy little club. We offer choices that people in coffee shops are asking for. We offer choices to Canadians in ordinary plain English.

This bill is inadequate. This bill will pass, unfortunately. This bill will be a minuscule improvement, but when the Reform Party forms the government in Canada we will make this bill right.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45 and also to comment on the amendment that was made by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

Bill C-45 in the discussion that is going on here is only a part of a much larger discussion. The real question we should be looking at in this House is whether the government is being tough enough on the criminals and those who break the laws of this country and fair enough to the people who are victims of those crimes.

We should examine the three years of the Liberal record, this Liberal government's record, led by the Prime Minister who was once a minister of justice, as to whether it is dealing with the criminal issues of this country or whether it is continuing this soft, easy, be kind, rehabilitative approach that the Liberal Party has used over the years which has brought us to the state of affairs we have in Canada today where criminals are out of hand.

They are not afraid to break the law. They are not afraid to commit a crime. Youth are not afraid to commit a crime because they know the punishment will not be severe.

That is the environment this Liberal government and this attitude of the House of Commons for the last 10 to 15 or 20 years have brought as a consequence to the citizens of Canada.

In the three years that have passed, the Reform Party came to this assembly saying: "We must be tough on criminals. Those who misuse a firearm in the act of some type of crime should be punished severely. Throw the book at them". That is what we said.

What happened? The government decided that it would punish the innocent citizens of Canada by making them all register, pay money, put in a bunch of red tape, and the criminals still have access to the guns that are unregistered, committing crimes.

A crime that was just committed in Abbotsford, the report for which came out yesterday, indicated that the person who took the lives of a family used a registered gun. This was after the authorities were told that this person was a threat to the family.

Now we are going to register six million guns and it will not do a thing against crime in this country. That is one issue. Again, the Liberals are soft on criminals. Register the guns of the innocent people but leave the criminals alone. They have the guns anyway and will use them.

Let us look at young offenders. We have raised the issue over and over again in this Parliament that we must be tough on young offenders, that they cannot get away with what they are doing. Young people of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age are committing adult crimes. The courts cannot deal with them. We cannot give them adult sentences because the system, the law of the country, does not allow it to happen as easily as it should.

Again, that is a symptom of liberal attitude, a liberal approach to dealing with crime in the country, to keep peace order and goodwill in this country. You be kind, you rehabilitate, you spend a lot of money on social workers, counselling and talking, but you do not deal with the issue.

Young people are out of hand; not all of them, the percentage that wants to break the laws and take advantage and run in the drug trade and the sex trade and whatever else is going on, to steal and to violate other people's property. They are out there without a threat of what will happen to them. That must change.

What about those who violate families in any way? Do we have tough laws with regard to those who would violate members of their families in any way? Do we have laws in place that would say to a father who violates his children or his wife in a negative way that there will be severe punishment? Our books do not say that.

I had some faith in our Minister of Justice when I first came here. For the first three months I listened to him and I thought here is a person who is progressive and ready to change the system, to deal with the issues. But what has come out since then is this soft, rehabilitative, counselling, easy on the criminal approach that is not dealing with the problem of our country.

I could list issue after issue. Bill C-45 is a typical example of that where we are in a different era. One would think the Minister of Justice was in the 1950s or the 1960s when there were a few crimes. There were a few murders. But there was nothing as violent as what exists today. There was nothing at all in the system. Those old ways will not deal with the matters now.

Here before us is one opportunity to toughen up the laws. For those who murder someone, considered as first degree murder, we can change section 745. We can talk about Olson, Peters and others in a long list. We say to them that if they commit premeditated murder, if they take the life of someone else for their own exploitative purposes, we want to give them access to the right to serve a sentence of only 15 years rather than 25.

The two people I mentioned happen to have murdered more than one person, so the law before us, which would be hoisted by the amendment I am addressing, would not deal with those people. It would not deal with them because they have committed two murders. That is certainly a shortcoming of the act.

But where did this Liberal government begin to go soft and feel it had a better approach than the people of Canada? It was back in

1975 and 1976 when the matter of capital punishment was under discussion in this assembly. I recall that discussion very well.

At that time in the legislature of Alberta we also had a discussion. Many members of the Alberta legislature took polls in their constituencies to see how they should vote on this matter and what kind of a recommendation the legislature of Alberta should make to the House of Commons of Canada.

A member of Parliament at that time, an Alberta member who later became prime minister, took a poll in his constituency. The people that day voted in favour of capital punishment. In my constituency it was around 90 per cent. Most constituencies in Canada voted over 80 per cent in support of retaining capital punishment.

What did the Liberal government of the day do back in 1976? It abolished capital punishment. Member after member stood in the House and said: "Canadians do not understand. They do not understand. They do not realize that capital punishment may mean that we take the life of an innocent person". They thought capital punishment should be abolished because an innocent person might lose their life.

Many of the people who are charged with first degree murder are obviously murderers. Let us look at Olson and Peters. They committed murders. Should they have the right to continue to live on this land, supported by us in rather lavish facilities in the prisons of this country? I believe that is wrong.

I believe if we took a vote today in Canada on the issue of capital punishment there would be no question. Canadians would say, with at least a 90 per cent majority, that capital punishment should be reinstated.

We could categorize who it applies to and who it does not. We could protect ourselves as legislators against using the instrument of capital punishment on someone who may be innocent. That is very easy to do. We could define to whom capital punishment would apply. Canadians would accept that.

The point I want to make in this debate is that the Liberal government is not listening to Canadians who want to be tougher on criminals and fairer on victims. They want rights for the victims of crime in the country. Canadians want that and the government is not delivering.

The Reformers are that voice for Canadians. We are saying we want to be tougher on criminals. We must deal with the issues. If someone commits murder, whether they murder once, twice or more, they should be sentenced to 25 years in jail. That is the most severe sentence we can apply at the present time because the Liberals softened their whole approach in 1976 and changed the law so we could not take more drastic measures. That is the way it should be, 25 years and no less. There should be no right to appeal the sentence after 15 years.

As legislators and as Reformers we will fight for that position during this Parliament and certainly in future Parliaments. When we become government that is one specific thing which will change.

[The Speaker]

As it is almost two o'clock, rather than begin with another speaker, perhaps we could move to Statements by Members.

The Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as time passes, the position of the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems increasingly uncomfortable.

He was obliged to campaign for the leadership because part of his caucus threatened to abandon ship if the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie became master of this vessel, and he was elected at the end of a leadership race that was not a real race. Following the referendum defeat, he face the need to justify the very existence of his party, which an increasing number of members seem anxious to leave, and now, according to Le Devoir , apparently part of his caucus has been pressing the former Premier, Mr. Parizeau, to take up the leadership of the Bloc Quebecois.

Faced with this challenge to his leadership, will the hon. member for Roberval remain at the helm of a ship that has become rudderless or will he do as others have done who dream of pursuing their careers under the more clement skies of Quebec City?

The Death Of Ludmilla Chiriaeff

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the grand old lady of dance died yesterday. A leader in the development of dance in Quebec and the founder of the Grands Ballets Canadiens, Ludmilla Chiriaeff has been an inspiration to all young modern dance groups that make Quebec an outstanding centre for artistic expression through dance.

Throughout her career, Ms. Chiriaeff believed in the talent of Quebecers. Referring to her contribution to dance in Quebec, Ms. Chiriaeff said, and I quote: "We worked together to be creative, not to be different from others, but to be who we are".

Ms. Chiriaeff believed and invested in our homegrown talent. Today, other creative artists continue this legacy to ensure that dance maintains its special place in Quebec. Many thanks to Ms. Chiriaeff for bringing us her talent, her energy and her creative spirit.

Copyright Act

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first it was the CBC, then the unity fiasco and now we have a copyright frenzy.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage displays a complete lack of understanding of her department. Parliamentary committee hearings on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, are beginning. The committee is to have the legislation back in the House in only eight weeks. All I want to know is, where is the fire?

This legislation is perhaps the largest undertaking this department has introduced and the Minister of Canadian Heritage is running a hurry-up offence in order to pass it. Phase II of copyright sat on the government's plate for almost two years, yet the minister wants Bill C-32 jammed through the committee in just eight weeks.

This is another example which clearly indicates the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not have a clue of the issues facing her department. The committee has received over 150 requests from Canadians to appear, yet because of the government's self-imposed time line, less than 60 submissions will be heard.

Canadians want to be heard. They should be heard. Why do we have a Liberal copyright frenzy?

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Gilles Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, did the government intend to give members of the RCMP the right to collective bargaining and binding arbitration before Bill C-30 is passed?

In the wake of the task force appointed to review the Canada Labour Code and led by lawyer Andrew Simms, it was specifically recommended the government seriously consider this possibility.

All police corps in Canada enjoy these rights. Why not the RCMP? I think its members should be treated impartially, and that will happen only if they have a union that is recognized by and above all independent of leadership.

Sinclair Secondary School

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Durham Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School of Whitby recently received international acclaim at the Carl Bertelsmann Foundation's annual competition to identify outstanding public institutions.

The board was honoured for excellence out of a field of competitors which included school systems from Scotland, Norway, New Zealand, Hungary and the Netherlands.

In selecting the Durham Board of Education, the foundation noted its dedication to the improvement of education quality by offering optimum freedom of organization to individual schools which enables students to develop to their full potential. A $300,000 prize from the foundation will be used to further improve learning opportunities in Durham region.

I wish to congratulate the Durham Board of Education and Sinclair Secondary School in Whitby on achieving this prestigious international award. Well done, Durham.

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary celebrates its 125th anniversary this year. It was founded in 1871 to maintain law and order in Newfoundland and it continues to have a strong tradition of policing in the province.

After Confederation in 1949 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrived in Newfoundland to police most areas of the province but the constabulary force remained in St. John's. By 1981 it expanded its services to include the city of Corner Brook and all of the northwest Avalon.

In 1979, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, added the prefix "Royal" to the constabulary. This is an honour given to only seven other police forces in the Commonwealth.

I am sure all hon. members will be pleased to join me in congratulating the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary's tradition of 125 years of excellent service to the people of Newfoundland.