Debates of Sept. 24th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not need a lecture from the member opposite on how to read the mood of the Canadian public.

As far as the Canadian public being fickle, I would caution the member to look at the results from the last election with respect to the Reform Party and see where the Reform Party currently sits in the polls.

She says the Canadian public sticks to the topic. I will stick to it as much as she did when she talked abut capital punishment which, by the way, is not covered in this bill.

The member opposite said that 4.6 per cent of households responded, and 87 per cent agreed that capital punishment should be reinstated. I think we have to be very careful here. I remember when the gun legislation was forwarded. I know what the numbers were in my riding and I would like for each of the Reformers to tell me what the numbers were in their ridings.

In my riding 87 per cent indicated they felt very strongly that the gun control legislation put forward in this Parliament by my government should be passed. There was a very small percentage that believed we should not put gun control and the rest did not have an opinion.

The member opposite says I read it wrong. I did not read it wrong at all. If I had just gauged it from the letters that came in from organized lobby I would have thought that everybody in my riding of Dartmouth wanted no part of gun control legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We cannot govern by polls, which is what the member opposite is telling us we should do.

When you are elected to this place, to the highest court in the land, you take your responsibilities seriously and understand when you stand in your place in this House that it is not just your opinion that you carry but the opinion of the people in your riding. I can tell the hon. member opposite that I do not need polls to tell me what is the right thing to do.

I talk to the people in my riding and I understand that the people in my riding have the same type of aversion to horrible crimes as I have. I do not need to be misquoted by the member opposite. What I indicated was that after there is a particularly horrible crime the Canadian public immediately will probably come up with opinions as to how best deal with it, which are not the opinions in the light of day they would have three, four or five days later.

Rather than having knee-jerk reactions to the administration of justice my government has made a decision to go about this in a very methodical manner to ensure the individuals, the victims, people in the judicial administration are consulted and that we hear from Canadians. Where appropriate, laws are introduced into the Parliament of Canada to adjust those elements of our criminal justice system that need adjusting.

What we will not do, and I hope it will never be done, is that we will become so controlled by extreme knee-jerk reactions, no matter how appropriate at the time, in response to a horrible crime that we start introducing legislation in this place which I believe would do a disservice to the evolution of the criminal justice system in Canada. I will continue to stand in this place on behalf of the good people of the city of Dartmouth and represent them to the best of my abilities.

I think the Reform Party opposite, rather than constantly taking positions for the minority, should think about governing responsibly in opposition, playing a responsible role and start speaking for the majority. The poll numbers lately would certainly tell Reformers they have not been doing that.

[An hon. member]

We will see who wins in Dartmouth.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

The last thing I wish to say to the member opposite who is yelling we will see who wins in Dartmouth, is I have a better shot of walking back into this Chamber than almost anybody because I have not fallen victim to extremists in my riding or across the country.

This country deals with issues such as the criminal justice system, such as social policy, such as maintaining the social fabric of this country, such as ensuring that things like equalization and the concept that the Government of Canada has a role to play in ensuring that programs of national standards go from one end of this country to the other are part of the fabric, something the Reform Party knows nothing about.

Ultimately the electorate will be the judge when the next election comes around and I will tell the members opposite that I do not fear that judgement, whatever it will be. I know the job I have done and my party has done is in the best interest of Canadians.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple items and I will try not to get wound up the way the previous member did and try not to be quite so partisan.

In my riding over 12,000 names came into my office about Bill C-68. Seventeen names came in saying I should vote for that bill. Twelve thousand to seventeen is an interesting figure when talking about listening to people.

I could say more about the good people of my riding who are equally as good as the hon. member's constituents. What we are talking about here is first degree murder. What troubled me most about what the member had to say was how he never said that. He kept saying criminals, someone who commits a crime, and talked about dealing with them in this way.

We are talking about first degree planned murders, and that is all we should be talking about in this bill. Is 15 years the time for the life of a victim? When someone has killed should that person serve 15 years? Is that the price of that life? I would like to ask the member that. This is premeditated, first degree murder.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point. An individual convicted of first degree murder will serve a life sentence, no matter whether they do get a reduced

period of time before parole because they served that sentence. That sentence is still applied even though they may be on parole.

This bill states that anybody who is convicted of first degree, premeditated murder will get the minimum of a 25 year sentence but after 15 years may make an application through a new process, an application that does not automatically get heard. It is an application that can be made but not necessarily automatically heard, which is the current case. The hon. member knows that.

Currently anybody who is convicted of first degree murder has a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years. They can now make an application after 15 years and that application must be heard. It means that a judge and jury must be convened and the judge and jury must make a ruling as to whether or not-

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

I am sorry to have to interrupt you, but we are resuming debate.

I wish to point out that the next speaker will be the last to take advantage of the period of 20 minutes for speeches followed by ten minutes of questions and comments.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again speak on Bill C-45, which deals with changes to the Criminal Code, section 745 in particular.

According to the present section 745 of the Criminal Code, a person convicted of first degree murder who has served 15 years of his sentence may apply to a judge and jury in order to become eligible for parole.

The effect of this bill would, in my opinion, be to make the conditions for eligibility for a reduced sentence more difficult, frankly, too difficult.

According to this bill, first of all, a person has to submit a written document to convince a judge of the justification for the request. He cannot go before the judge to present his arguments verbally as to why he is eligible for having his sentence reduced to 15 years on the basis of good conduct or certain other factors. This must be done by written representation, which does not work in the inmate's favour.

Second, once this judge has been convinced, the jury which will hear the inmate's representations must be also convinced, this time unanimously according to the bill. Once the jury is convinced unanimously-not an easy thing to do-that the inmate might eventually be entitled to a reduced sentence, he then has to go before the Parole Board, which acts as the final decision-making authority and will probably allow a reduced sentence. If it does not allow it, the initial sentence will be retained as it was.

This is the process proposed to us in the new Bill C-45.

I have just been listening to the Reform and the Liberals squabbling over this matter of reduced sentences. As I see it, the two of them are not talking about exactly the same thing.

In fact, the Reform Party's main grievance is that sentences for first or second degree murder are often reduced as a result of plea bargaining between the counsel and the court. In other words, agreement is reached on a lesser charge that carries a shorter sentence. In the case of first degree murder, counsel will often negotiate with the Crown, and finally the parties agree to a charge of second degree murder, thus avoiding a life sentence. This means, according to rules that are beyond me and beyond most people, that in the final instance, we have people who get 12 years and are released after serving only two and a half years. Those who get ten years are walking around scot free after only three years, often repeating the same offence. That is not the problem here.

The problem we are concerned with here is people who are sentenced to 25 years without parole, what we call a life sentence, and who are not eligible for review till they have served 15 years of their sentence. The statistics show that, among individuals who served 15 years, and very few saw their period of ineligibility reduced after 15 years, only a few cases since section 745 came into effect-I may be wrong, but I doubt it-and I think that fewer than one per cent repeated. There are practically no repeat offenders. Fifteen years is a long time in a person's life.

When Parliament abolished capital punishment, and capital punishment is certainly very much on the minds of Reform members as we listen to their message, when Parliament abolished capital punishment, it knew what it was doing. Sociologists prepared studies on the subject and submitted reports to the justice committee. They said: Sentencing someone to 25 years without parole, without any hope of having his sentence reduced for good behaviour or other factors, is asking for trouble.

So it made sense to assume that providing opportunities for a reduced sentence would make it easier to keep the prison population within bounds, while at the same time ensuring the public safety.

However, some people had harsh words for this bill. They said it would raise false hopes among the prison population in maximum security prisons because of the length of their sentence. It was a way to tell them that if they kept their noses clean for a certain time, they had a chance, with good behaviour, to have their sentence reduced from 25 years to 15 years, which in some cases, was acceptable.

We have a Canadian-and this is a true story-we have a Canadian, Mr. Trân Trieu Quân, a Canadian of Vietnamese origin who has just been sentenced to life imprisonment in Vietnam. He asked to be shot. He said he would rather be shot than be

imprisoned for life or sentenced to 25 years hard labour. In one way or another, he knows he will not get out alive so he would rather be shot right away.

This is consistent with what I said last week: some people would rather be executed right away than be sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole. Mr. Trân Trieu Quân, whose release we as members of Parliament are fighting for, asked to be shot rather than having to put up with such outrage for 25 years.

The same goes for Canadian inmates. I think it is wrong to say that a convicted criminal must serve 25 years without parole. We must give inmates some real hope, not only on paper, not just a semblance of hope as the Liberals are trying to do with this bill and know very well they are.

This is nothing but partisan politics. The Liberals do not want the Reformers to be too gutsy, as my grandfather used to say. So they introduced a bill to make western Canadians feel like the Liberal government understands them, not completely but a little.

The Liberals do not want to go too far either, because if they do, if they give the Reform Party full satisfaction, it is Quebec that will object. As we say in hockey, "they will get it". I hope it will not be for too much longer, but Quebecers, too, are currently subject to the Criminal Code and Canadian justice, and their mentality is not exactly the same as that of western Canadians.

Quebecers, who also experience all manner of crimes and acts of violence, of extreme violence-as we recently saw in the Isabelle Bolduc case-but who believe more strongly in social reintegration, in the possibility of rehabilitation, are not fooled by the requirement for a unanimous jury.

In the end, it is nothing but a smoke screen. This bill is basically hypocritical. It is obvious that if an inmate has to apply to a judge, secure a unanimous jury decision and then have a majority on the Parole Board rule in his favour after completing a 15-year sentence, chances are that he will have served his full sentence before the Parole Board has to make a decision.

This is what we object to in this bill. We feel that the bill is hypocritical, and that is why the hon. member for Bellechasse has put forward an amendment. We are not proud to see the rules in section 745 become more stringent for inmates, not out of compassion for them, but because the safety of our prisons is at stake.

It would already be an improvement if the decisions did not have to be unanimous. An inmate who behaved during his years in prison and who had an opportunity to show remorse for his crime might benefit from a reduction of up to a maximum of ten years in the number of years. This person could be rehabilitated and perhaps become a productive citizen.

There are costs involved in keeping people locked up. A study conducted about 18 months or two years ago showed that each inmate costs the state something like $50,000 per year, if not more. There are also social costs related to keeping people in jail when they should no longer be detained.

Statistics show that very few of those who applied for a judicial review under section 745 relapsed into crime. Those who did relapse were the ones who were the subject of some wheeling and dealing at the time the complaint was lodged and who were sentenced to 12 years but did three, or 10 years and did 2, or five years but spent six months in jail, etc. They are the ones who relapsed, because they felt the justice system had no backbone. But those who actually spent 15 years in jail think otherwise, because 15 years is a long time.

Fifteen years ago, most of us here, including myself, had hair on our head. During those 15 years, some people, including myself, gained 25 pounds. Things change over a period of 15 years. Reformers should realize that 15 years is a long time and that the possibility of being paroled is a glimmer of hope that we give to inmates during that period.

People have come to my office to make representations. Chiefs of police have told me truly shocking stories. They expressed their views. I respect them and I understand them. This was evidenced recently, just a few days ago, when the Minister of Justice tabled his bill on the wearing of a bracelet by criminals who are potentially dangerous but may not in fact be dangerous, who have not been convicted but could eventually be. The chiefs of police applauded to this measure.

If police chiefs were authorized to put everybody on file, to have a record on everybody and to restrict people's movements to a very limited area, their work would be made that much easier. I cannot blame them for that. But human rights may not be police chiefs' primary concern.

In the headlines in Quebec these days, you can read about officers in charge of investigating other officers being openly threatened by fellow officers, and this is apparently not unusual in the police community. Human rights may be relegated to the fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh place in the police community, but politicians must give them a higher priority. We do not represent only police officers. We represent people from all walks of life, including the victims of often heinous crimes.

I do not think we should come here to demand an eye for an eye. Society should not seek revenge. The purpose of the justice system is not to avenge, to repay those who do violence to someone else in kind. Society must protect itself against criminals, and that it why

we have criminal legislation: not to avenge heinous crimes, but to provide public protection. That is what we are here for.

I guess my friend opposite, the hon. member who has rejoined the Liberal caucus, agrees with me on this, because he normally objects immediately when he does not. I congratulate him and I congratulate him on his return as well, but I am sure that, like me, he understands that society, the government, justice, must not go after individuals. Justice transcends everything represented by hate, outrage, bitterness. Justice must be there to be applied.

And if I had any recommendations to make, one would be to begin by putting a stop to the well known practice of plea bargaining: someone who has committed a murder would be liable to a sentence of murder in the first degree, that should be the charge. But in the guise of speeding up the process, of saving the taxpayer money, we will reduce his sentence by just a bit, instead of sticking him with the offence he actually committed. If he co-operates, a little more is shaved off, if his behaviour is good, a little more again, and if he is an employer providing jobs, another little bit. In the end, we have ridiculous situations where 10 year sentences have been whittled down to 2, 9 years to 3, and so forth. Every day we read in the papers about repeat offenders. Often it is because they have not been through the deprivation and frustration of 15 years behind bars. But those who have, and the statistics prove it, do not reoffend.

I think that, ideally, section 45 should have been left alone, but they wanted to quiet the agitated rumblings of people with an axe to grind. They wanted to satisfy people who are applying political pressure and who have political clout, in order to keep everyone happy. The result is something that is neither fish nor fowl. It is just like all the wonderful Liberal bills we have seen for the past three years. That is Bill C-45 for you.

Bring us a bill that would state in black and white that, in the case of such a charge, lawyers may not plea bargain, because this is where the sentence is actually decided, and then I might listen with more interest. But I totally disagree with Reform's attempt to bring in capital punishment through the back door for an upcoming debate. This is Reform's hidden agenda.

If Reform's main concern is to protect society from dangerous criminals, there is the new legislation on dangerous offenders, a very interesting bill I urge them to read.

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

Madam Speaker, I am never really sure at times where some of the folks from the Bloc are coming from, and whether the hon. member supports or does not support the bill.

The member made a very interesting statement a moment ago. He said, with regard to first degree murderers, that 15 years is a long time, people are suffering. I really find that incredible statement, considering that first degree murderers have pre-planned the execution they have undertaken. They have usually, if not always, little or no regard for the victims.

I wonder how my colleague across the way can rationalize the plight of the victim with that of a first degree murderer for whom he says 15 years is a long time, people are suffering. If he believes for a minute that the families of the victims of these first degree murderers are not suffering for their whole lives then he is truly mistaken.

I would like to ask the member how he rationalizes a statement like that in view of the fact that all of the victims in our society suffer even more?

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fail to understand how the victim's pain and suffering will be reduced if the convicted criminal is sentenced to 20 rather than 25 years in prison. I do not understand.

My learned colleague, whom I salute and for whom I have enormous respect, tells me that 15 years is not long. He should go ask Brian Tobin, the current premier of Newfoundland, whether or not 15 years is a long time. He should go ask him. Fifteen years is a long time in an active person's life. It is probably the maximum sentence that can be given so a convicted criminal has a real chance to rehabilitate himself and reintegrate into society. After 15 years, the inmate is often too old to start over on the right foot.

It is the kind of balance we try to achieve when drafting a bill like this one: giving a criminal a real chance to return to society while limiting the possibilities that he will reoffend. We are trying to find the right balance between the two, something the Reform Party does not seem willing to acknowledge. This is unfortunate.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question. The member seems to eliminate the word justice in his speech.

I would like to remind the member that the victims of this land are calling for justice, not revenge. That is the only thing that could happen that would ease the pain of a victim to the slightest degree. If they believe that at least justice prevailed in their case, they would feel better. It has not.

Would the member explain to me, if he can, why there are tens of thousands of Canadians who belong to all kinds of victims' groups across this land, calling not for revenge but for justice.

I do not know why these members have such a hard time with that word. I know how the member would respond if I said: "Would capital punishment be a deterrent?" We would get into a long debate about no, it does not deter, et cetera.

Does the member believe that serving 15 years for first degree murder is a deterrent to crime in this country?

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, we must not confuse justice and vengeance, as reformers seem to do. I do not think they are acting in bad faith, but I do believe they confuse the notions of justice and vengeance.

An uncle of mine got killed. It was an accident. There was no malicious intent. He was killed in a car accident and it was not clear whether the driver involved was under the influence or not. This was in 1952. In those days, a driver who had had just one beer would automatically have been sentenced to life in prison. It was considered a very serious offence. Finally, a pardon was granted, and the driver involved spent three years in prison. Our family saw him again, because he was a friend. This person never relapsed. He led a perfectly normal life. He was much more a victim of circumstances than anything else.

Had we let our frustration get the better of us, this person would probably have spent 10, 15 or 20 years in prison, at an enormous cost to society. This person would not have made a contribution to the community, while today he is rehabilitated. He is the father of several children who work and who make a contribution to our society. This is an example of rehabilitation and this is why I believe in it.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I could not let the last little bit of meandering go by.

We are talking about first degree murder. What does that have to do with a traffic accident, for heaven's sake? We are talking about the lower rung of human society going out and obliterating people for whatever reason. It has nothing to with traffic accidents. It is terrible that the member should even entertain that type of argument because it is specious.

The other thing that he mentioned-he mentioned it twice in his long and rambling speech-was that it costs money to keep these people in jail. It costs $50,000 a year. If $50,000 a year is too much, what value does the hon. member put on human life?

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not at all sure that we can put a price tag on human life, as does the Reform Party. When a person dies in a freak accident, it also causes grief to the family. If we try to establish a link between one's grief, the prejudice that is caused and the person responsible for this grief, we are bound to make miscalculations or mistakes. It goes without saying that everyone is sad, particularly when we are the victims of a heinous crime. Our purpose is not to protect those who commit heinous crimes.

Earlier, I referred to the current dangerous offender legislation. A few days ago, we kept hearing about the Bernardo case and the case of the serial killer in western Canada who was eligible after 15 years, whose name escapes me for the moment. Reform Party members lump it all together and this is where they are wrong. Justice that is just, the word says it all, and unbending, yes, up to a point, must not allow itself to be flouted and ridiculed, which is very often the case in criminal trials when lawyers get to plea bargaining. But once the sentence and the rules of the game are clearly set out, justice itself must abide by the rules. That is what we are saying.

In our view, 15 years is not automatic. Reform Party members think that, on the morning of the fifteenth anniversary of someone's sentence, the prison warden brings the keys, opens the cell door and says to the inmate: "Off you go, now". That is what they would have Canadians think in the current debate. This is quite simply not what happens. Inmates already have to go through an involved process, which will be even more involved with the new bill, and Reform Party members paint a picture of prison walls coming down. I do not agree.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get into a couple of the points I want to make during this speech, I want to cover some comments that have been made.

Yesterday, for instance, the government whip read some statistics about crime. He said crime was going down. Maybe it is well-meaning to try and win an argument on that basis, but by and large where there are murderers and where there is crime one has to deal with it.

It is pretty difficult in my riding to talk about crime going down because crime is not going down. In Vernon, not too far from my home, about three or four hours' drive, in April 10 people were shot. A week and a half ago five people were murdered in my riding.

This week, starting this morning, many members may know that the trial of the individual charged with murdering young Tanya Smith is taking place. That happened very close to my home. It is difficult to listen to people on the other side downplay the importance of what this debate is all about.

Members have talked about all kinds of crimes in this debate. We just heard a little bit of rambling from one of the separatist individuals, again downplaying the issue of first degree murder. First degree murder is premeditated murder. It is deliberate. It is a pre-planned action by people with no conscience, by people who

deliberately obliterate a life or lives and who are not worried about the consequences.

I think we have to consider when these people are getting out and why. I heard the member for Dartmouth a while a go talking about knee-jerk reactions from the Reform Party.

It is rather interesting that now the Liberals are taking credit for the amendment to section 745 of the Criminal Code when in fact it was one of their own members who brought up in a private member's bill the repeal of section 745, which they dislike so much. For that reason and for voting against the budget, that member is no longer a Liberal. And they are taking credit for the amendments to section 745. I find it incredible. The next thing we know they will be bragging about it.

It was not this government at all. It was due to the efforts of an individual who had the courage of his own convictions to fight and ride it through, to work with victims all over the country.

[An hon. member]

His government was the problem.

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

That is right. The Liberal government was actually the government that was standing in the way. It was the government that delivered this section 745 to us in the seventies.

I have been at a parole hearing, and I may be the only one in this House who has, of an individual who went up for the first time for a section 745 federal review. That person and another individual took the life of a young policeman in Cloverdale, British Columbia in the seventies. They encouraged him to chase them down the street. When the 19-year old RCMP officer stopped them and came over to the car they killed him with a shotgun. It was premeditated first degree murder.

They were both sentenced to hang. Did they hang? No, they got life. They got Liberal life, 25 years. Did they do 25 years? One of them is attending college today very close to my home, much to the disappointment of the sister and the brother of the young policeman who was killed.

The brother attended the parole board hearing. The sister lives in Montreal and could not get there. They were in complete disgust. They had been saying: "There he was, out of our lives. This person had life". But this year they had to relive it all over again. What is wrong? Why do we have to put victims through this time and time again? It is appalling the way this government thinks.

Another comment by the member for Dartmouth is Reformers are extremists. This is the most insulting tactic of the Liberal government and all of its hacks sitting over there. If you think that section 745 should be repealed, to those folks you are an extremist. If you did not agree with Bill C-33, special rights for homosexuals, you are a homophobic. In this country, if you fight immigration cases and try to get people deported, as I have-criminals, a killer, a rapist-you are a racist.

This government and its members are getting our society to think that if we do not agree with the Liberal point of view, we are racists, bigots, homophobics or extremists. It is terribly insulting.

Let us see what the Liberals think about victims. On April 29 we brought in a victims bill of rights. They said they agreed with it and would deal with it in the fall. Is it on the agenda of the Liberal government at the justice committee for the fall? Absolutely not. The victims bill of rights is not on the agenda, but we will spend a whole bunch of time in this House talking about a faint hope clause for first degree murderers. Look after the first degree murderers. A separatist colleague said fifteen years is a long time, people are suffering. That is too damn bad. I will tell members who is suffering in this country: millions-not hundreds of thousands-of victims.

We brought nonsense which came from the lips of a Liberal member here. I said guess who is suffering? The victims are suffering. He says "nonsense". There you go.

[An hon. member]

I wonder what the people in Kingston think of that.

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

No victims in Kingston perhaps. That is nonsense that they are suffering. They are saying those who are really suffering are the poor individuals who got 15 years for first degree murder.

Let us talk about victim rights. We brought a victims bill of rights in the House. Is it going to be talked about by this government? Absolutely not. What did we ask for? We asked for victims to have the right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process. Has the government mentioned that in this discussion? Absolutely not.

We asked that victims have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including where the offender is, when he is getting out and where he is going when he gets out. Has that been discussed here? No, we have discussed first degree murderers and the faint hope that they get out in 15 years.

We asked that victims have the right to choose between giving oral and a written victim impact statement before sentencing, at parole hearings and judicial reviews. Has that been discussed? No, it has not been discussed.

What about being informed in a timely fashion of the details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain or to know why charges are not laid if that is a decision of the crown or police? Or the protection of anyone who intimidates, harasses or interferes with the rights of a victim, or to know if a person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmittable disease? Does it care about that? Did it vote on it? Did it take it to the justice committee? No. What it takes is a faint hope clause for first degree murderers. That says everything about this government.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always think it is disgraceful that an institution such as the Parliament of Canada-I am unable to begin for the noise. I was saying that I always think it is disgraceful to hear insults, comments on both sides of the House, and I think it is one of the reasons the Canadian public has lost confidence in Parliament as an institution and in politicians.

When we hear comments such as those we have just heard, when insults are hurled back and forth, this affects Parliament's credibility. We should be able to respect our differences. That is all I wanted to say, that it bothers me. When I was elected in 1993, I had a great deal of respect for the institution, and I still do. I believe in it, and I do not feel that comments such as those we have just heard will do anything to increase its prestige.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-45, which deals with changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code. First of all, I think it would be appropriate to tell this House and our viewers just what section 745 contains.

Sometimes we tend to speak a sort of insider's jargon. We speak of "745, paragraph 1, paragraph 2" and so on, and therein perhaps lies the problem of legal language. These are discussions between people in the know, and the ordinary people listening to us need to know what this section is all about.

Before I read the section, just to put us in context, people need to know that the government tabled Bill C-45 right at the end of the session, June 11 to be precise. One of the reasons for so doing was to prevent British Columbia serial killer Clifford Olson from making an application under section 745 of the Criminal Code during the summer of 1996. As the section stood, he became eligible to apply for parole on August 12, 1996.

I must make it clear immediately that this bill, pushed through at full speed by the Liberal government, by the federal Minister of Justice, is somewhat reactionary, along the lines of the right wing approach of the Reform Party. By adopting a Reform-style program with all possible haste, the Liberal government wished to show that it was looking out for victims and for victims' rights, that criminals ought to remain in prison, and so forth. I must point out, right from the start, that the party to which I belong feels, as has been stated already in prior speeches by my hon. colleague from Bellechasse, that the interests of victims must come first.

However, in Canada there are certain principles of natural justice that must be respected, which is what I intend to demonstrate in the next few minutes. I may point out that the first paragraph of section 745 of the Criminal Code provides, and I quote:

(1) Where a person has served at least fifteen years of his sentence

(a) in the case of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first degree murder, or

(b) in the case of a person convicted of second degree murder [-]he may apply to the appropriate Chief Justice in the province in which the conviction took place for a reduction in his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.

The same section also says that on receipt of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate Chief Justice shall designate a judge of the superior court to empanel a competent jury that will determine, and this is the important part of paragraph (2) of section 745, "whether the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence, the nature of the offence for which he was convicted and such other matters as the judge deems relevant in the circumstances."

So, very briefly, this section provides, as also specified in paragraph (4), that the jury, in full possession of the facts, may reduce or eliminate altogether the number of years. So it does have certain powers.

It should be clear before we go any further that, if we take the Clifford Olson case, a jury in full possession of the facts would never authorize the release of Clifford Olson, and that should the National Parole Board receive an application, its reply would be negative.

We must see this section in context. The section was introduced in 1976 by the Trudeau government, when capital punishment was abolished. This measure was introduced at the very end of the debate to ensure a majority in Parliament for the abolition of capital punishment. Twenty years ago, this section represented a kind of security for supporters of capital punishment. The government could say: "This does not mean that after a certain time, we will automatically release dangerous criminals or serial killers, and so forth".

Again, I agree with the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Chambly, who said earlier that this was not a question of mathematics, with different sets of criteria depending on whether two, four or ten murders were committed. These are

totally subjective criteria. Still there must be a common thread, some uniformity in dealing with this or that type of murder, whether it is murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree.

As far as the Bloc Quebecois' position is concerned, we must point out that our party is not against reviewing section 745. After 20 years, I think this section needs to be updated. Legislative review is normal process in the Quebec and Canadian society. We do not do things in 1996 as we did in 1976. Our values, as a society, may have changed. In saying this I am trying not to pass judgment on today's values, but the fact remains that we do not have today the same values as we did in 1976 or in the 1950s.

Again, I am not passing a qualitative judgment on today's values. We know that, as a society, we still have a some way to go in terms of values. It was therefore normal to review section 745.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, just days before the summer recess, the Minister of Justice brought in what we consider an important amendment to the Criminal Code.

It is our party's opinion that Bill C-45 would have deserved, and still deserves, thorough and careful consideration, instead of being rushed through for emotional reasons in reaction to a Reform Party agenda item and that the Liberal government should act differently.

The Minister of Justice maintains that section 745 should not be repealed, as requested by the Reform Party, because he believes in the rehabilitation potential of inmates. But the proposed amendments restrict the judicial review process to such an extent that, while it still exists in theory, the provision is all but inoperative.

So, he is not prepared to repeal the section, as requested by the Reform Party, but he makes its application so difficult that it does not mean anything any more. That is what the people on Ile d'Orléans, around Beaupré, call talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

Madam Speaker, you have indicated to me that I have only a minute and a half left, so I will have to skip certain parts of my presentation.

I do wish to state, however, that we consider this amendment to section 745 to have been badly presented, badly managed by the Liberal government. As a party, we are well aware of the pain and suffering experienced by victims' families in seeing the person who murdered their loved one resurfacing in the court process. For this reason, as a party, we feel that the Criminal Code ought to contain clauses to ensure that the families of victims are not forgotten.

This is the problem with our legal system, we are strong on inmate rights, and so forth, but often tend to forget victims and victims' families. If the victim has had the misfortune to lose his life, his survivors must bear the burden of their suffering for years. We ought to keep victims' families firmly in mind.

We ought therefore to make sure that victims' families are given a hearing, if they wish one, during the review process. Another bill, Bill C-41, requires judges to consider victims' or victims' families' testimony as part of the evidence, and this is a very good thing.

In conclusion, we feel that section 745 ought to be examined far more thoroughly, possibly with public consultation. Statistics on the use of judiciary review and the very low percentage of repeat offenders among released criminals warrant far more extensive and far more serious attention.

An important section of our Criminal Code cannot be modified in a rush, at the end of a parliamentary session, by getting around the usual rules of parliamentary debate. The Minister of Justice cannot change the basic principles of criminal law in Canada because he is carried away by emotion, or for political expediency.

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

Madam Speaker, I have prepared a 20-minute speech so I hope I do not run over my time. I know you will let me know.

First, I would like to thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me in the debate. I did speak last Tuesday on second reading debate of Bill C-45. I am speaking today for a very special reason. Why? Because it is rush, rush, rush with this government trying to put this bill through, the same as it did with Bill C-68 and C-41 when it invoked closure and Bill C-33. It seems whenever we have a real contentious issue, whenever we have something that really affects Canadians this government just pushes it through with total disregard.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

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

I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands in his usual form, continually talking when others are talking, continually being rude. I have come to expect that from him so I will just continue.

Since last Tuesday I did look over the justice committee meeting minutes. I noticed that where the witnesses spoke in the justice committee every one of them seemed to be concerned with time.

Mr. Jessop is a police staff sergeant and his concern, apart from the fact that he mentioned dangerous offenders, is why is the Liberal government not doing something about dangerous offenders. He said: "I am told we are not introducing dangerous offenders

at this particular point because it is not politically expedient to do so. I would suggest that this is not the way we should be thinking. We should be dealing with dangerous offender legislation". That was from a police sergeant.

He also goes on to say that the RCMP are really displeased with the justice agenda of the Liberal government. He said: "The government should be considering repealing section 745 if they want to restore some integrity to the criminal justice system". He continues: "Section 745 contradicts fundamentally not only public confidence but the entire philosophy of how our criminal justice legal system has grown". That is a staff sergeant speaking.

What about time? Are we rushing it through? He looks right at the committee and says: "You have the opportunity in the three days left-and I address this specifically to the Liberal members of this committee-to actually do the right thing. I would urge you to repeal section 745".

Mr. Scott Newark, executive director of the Canadian Police Association, also spoke. He was concerned about clause 5 of Bill C-45 which deals with victims' information. He said: "It potentially excludes victim information from section 745 screening hearings or judicial reviews, other than for new offences". He is right to be concerned on that.

He also pointed out that having notification on Monday, when he was out of Alberta, that the bill was going to be introduced on Wednesday, is terrible. Shame on the justice committee when they had ample opportunity, over a year of preparation on C-45 and on private member's Bill C-226 since it was introduced in December 1994. They have known about it since that time. He was correct when he stated: "It has been the case that parliamentary committees were supposed to have the time and the ability to analyse legislation". That is a very important statement. Indeed, that is what parliamentary committees are supposed to do.

He finishes with: "I share not only what I would call your frustrations"-he is talking to members of the committee-"but frankly as a citizen, the outrage at the process that is being foisted on people when the opportunity to do a proper job was present for over a year. And that is not only true on this bill; that was the case last year on the DNA search warrants that resulted in another sloppy piece of legislation without a DNA data bank attached to it". Those words are straight from the mouth of this expert. "The right thing here", he said, "is to repeal 745".

He was questioned on cost. As a matter of fact it was Reform's justice critic from Crowfoot who questioned him on the costs of these hearings and whether they were costly to the Canadian public. He said that he could not be definite but it was between $50,000 and $100,000 a hearing and that the more sensational hearings are probably up to millions for the taxpayers. Of course they take a lot longer than the original trial.

I look at this and say to myself: Debt, deficit and accountability. This government has us so far in debt and deficit, there is no accountability and let us just keep on having hearings even if they should not be allowed and are not necessary and to heck with worrying about the taxpayers and the dollars.

Witness Sharon Rosenfeldt from Victims of Violence International, who everyone I think is aware of the tragic loss in her family, said: "This is such an important issue it has to be talked about and addressed in a much broader context than is being done at this time by just a few days in a quick rush in front of the justice committee. I just cannot accept the new amendments the justice minister has put forward. I still have to stay with the total repeal of section 745".

What about Darlene Boyd, another person who has had a tragic loss in her family? She said: "Murder is all too readily said. Another word I frequently hear is rehabilitation. I truly believe that the man who took our daughter's life and that of the young girl from High River is not and never will be rehabilitation material, especially after serving only 15 years in his confined environment. To rehabilitate there has to be some spark of remorse and James Peters did not demonstrate any of this. The chance of filtering men like James Peters back into society after 15 years through the system we now have is too great a risk. We will be digging more graves for innocent people".

I think the member for Kingston and the Islands again misses the point, the chance is there and that is what is so frightening and scary.

There is witness Debbie Mahaffy. We all know about Debbie's loss. She said: "We found out about the various committee hearings by accident and I am very glad that we scrambled our way to Ottawa and got here on time". What is this rush? "Is life in prison with no eligibility for parole up to 25 years enough for taking the life of one person? No. Is it enough for taking the life of more than one person? No. Is 25 years a waste of a life? Yes. But the killers who decided to murder my daughter made that choice. By doing so they decided their own fate and are now wasting their lives in comfort. Our laws should reflect our evolving society and everyone in society should be protected by our laws".

These witnesses are people who are experienced. They are not removed from the situation. Debbie finishes with: "It is irresponsible of this government to allow time that much power and control over its decisions. Less time for communication, less time for discussion, less time for murderers to serve is a sad commentary on the quality of life we are now leaning toward in Canada".

The presentation by Priscilla de Villiers, president of CAVEAT, is very interesting. She said:

I am appalled at the way this has been presented to the people of this country. I am appalled not just because of section 745 or any other section of the Criminal Code. This is a travesty of the parliamentary system.

We have had a bill asking for discussion of this on the books for 18 months. We got an official communique on Thursday, I think. I first read this bill on the airplane to Saskatchewan and Steve Sullivan and I had to come back in the middle of last night to beg for five minutes of time to make our little statement because we are the few people here who do not benefit from the system. Shame.

Shame on this reluctant concession to what is becoming very quickly a serious election issue. Shame on you that you have not taken into account the words of ordinary Canadians who say: We are bothered by this; we are concerned. Give it the consideration it deserves. If you then, in your wisdom as a governing party decide not to support it, fine, that is your right. But to have this ramshackle excuse for an appearance just to say that we actually appeared here, it is a shame on the entire process.

I have to agree with her. Why has this country deteriorated so far from people facing responsibilities for their actions? It began in 1971 with the Liberals and Solicitor General Goyer who summed up the government agenda when he told Parliament: "We have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society". Therein says it all. They stressed the belief that society and not the criminal was responsible for the crime. From that time on the whole system existed to serve the criminal. And in 1976 when the Liberal government abolished capital punishment, Canada replaced it with a life sentence of 25 years.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Rubbish. Rubbish

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

But that is not good enough. Now we are still talking about section 745 which was brought in in 1976. I am really concerned that members on the opposite side who are busy right now constantly harassing me when I am speaking do not understand.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

How about extremism?