Debates of Sept. 24th, 1996

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I also wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of Dame Janet Fookes, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons of Great Britain.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has proposed that Bill C-45 be hoisted for six months. I think that is a splendid idea. I would like to see the bill hoisted indefinitely, if not forever. Then maybe the justice committee would have time for a little sober second thought and could allow this House to pass judgment on the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston. However, we know that is not going to happen because the juggernaut is rolling.

Bill C-45 is typical of our justice minister's philosophy which values the rights of criminals far more than the rights of law-abiding, taxpaying, decent citizens. This philosophy does not just show up in Bill C-45. There is a pattern. For example, look at Bill C-68 which my colleague from Lethbridge has already touched on. In his bill the justice minister has expressed a willingness, an eagerness to harass and persecute millions of honest people in order to promote his social agenda.

Now he has a new thing coming forward, Bill C-55. Ostensibly it is to apply more restraint to dangerous offenders and to have to some limited extent more control over people who society would not countenance. I will admit it is a faltering little step in the right direction. But in this same bill there is provision for the surveillance and control of people who have never been convicted or even openly accused of a crime. What in the name of heaven ever happened to due process?

Liberals are always great on due process. To be entitled to it a person first has to commit a serious crime, preferably a really vicious premeditated murder and then the Liberals will love them to death. Then our justice system will pull out all the stops to protect their rights. But if the person is an ordinary citizen who has never done anything to offend anybody, look out. Our justice minister will have something in store for him, something which flies in the face of all traditional concepts of British and later of Canadian jurisprudence.

Some people say that it does not help to keep people locked up. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands probably has something to say about that. He has a lot to say about everything else. I just wonder how the people in his riding would feel about his views about just getting rid of the prisons and throwing the prisoners out on the street, that they are good folks and we have got to be nice to them and we should not be mean to criminals.

Does it help to keep people locked up? I will say one thing, it sure cuts down on recidivism. They do not commit a lot of crimes when they are already incarcerated.

The government calls section 745 the faint hope clause. The word on the street is that it is not the faint hope clause; it is the almost a sure thing clause. To date, although we have only been really using it for two years, 80 per cent of the people who have applied for the right to appeal for a reduced sentence have been granted that right. What kind of a faint hope are we talking about?

The other part of this bill which I find extraordinarily offensive and which many people have already mentioned is that it establishes a difference between good murderers and bad murderers. A person who kills only one person is a good person and is not really bad and therefore should not be terribly punished. If someone kills two, look out. What happens if three people kill two people? What do we do with someone who is guilty of one and a half murders?

With respect to good murderers and bad murderers, there is one Joseph Robinson who about 10 days ago was convicted of second degree murder. Perhaps the House will say I am digressing here by bringing forward a second degree murder but give me a little patience and I will explain where I am coming from.

Normally the penalty for second degree murder is life, ten. This gentleman was deemed to have been motivated by racism. It was a hate crime. His term for parole eligibility was increased by two and a half years. I have no trouble with the tougher sentence. As a matter of fact, in view of the crime that this gentleman was convicted of, I would not have trouble with a much tougher sentence. It was an extremely brutal crime and the extra time was probably warranted, but hardly the rationale.

However, if you shoot a police officer for sport, and there are two well documented cases of this that I am aware of, you have the right after 15 years to come forward and ask to have your parole eligibility reconsidered. As was mentioned in this House earlier today, one person who did just that had his parole period cut down to 18 years. He did shoot a policeman for sport.

Where in the name of common sense and rationale is the justice in that? We are making a mockery of our justice system. Nobody on this side, and I do not think anybody in Canada, is saying hang them high, hang them often, throw the key away. For heaven's sake, can we not reintroduce a bit of common sense into a system that has completely gone off the rails? This is where I come from, this is where my colleagues come from, this is where the general public of Canada is coming from. They are sick and tired of seeing

these miscarriages of justice perpetrated by our very own justice system.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in support of the Bloc's attempt to hoist this legislation. This legislation is not really worthy of passing this House.

What I have seen in the debate around Bill C-45 is a pattern on the part of the Liberals across the floor to focus on the rights of the poor prisoner, rehabilitation of the poor prisoner, rather than on the issues that Canadians really care about, the rights of the victims and the safety of our society. Those are the issues that Canadians really care about. This legislation shows once again and is part of a pattern of this Liberal government in not going nearly far enough on legislation and on its actions as government.

For example, with regard to the deficit and debt this Liberal government has made a start in that area but has not gone far enough or fast enough. As a result what we have is almost a $30 billion deficit added to our debt last year. Now our debt is up to almost $600 billion. It is part of the Liberal pattern, not going far enough, not being tough enough.

What happens as a result of Liberal inaction? The interest payments on our debt are almost $50 billion a year and because of this increase in interest costs the Liberals have cut spending on programs like health care and education. The Liberals have not gone far enough.

If Reform's zero in three plan had been put in place, and we campaigned on this during the last election campaign, we would be debating what to do with the surplus. Should we reduce the debt more rapidly? Should we maybe spend more on health care and education, the areas that are most important to Canadians? That is a much better type of debate than most of the debates that we have had in this place as a result of Liberal inaction.

On every justice issue that has come to the House the Liberals have refused to go far enough. Canadians are very unhappy about that and very displeased with that. As I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-45 and other justice bills over the past three years, it is very clear the government does not have the will to do what it takes to make our country a safer place in which to live.

It should be no surprise because in 1972 it was solicitor general Goyer and a Liberal government that deliberately changed the focus of the justice system. This is part of the problem and part of the reason we have not had changes that are nearly tough enough and which go in the right direction.

This change was a change away from a top priority in our justice system, the safety of our society, making our homes and streets safe places in which to live.

The focus was taken from that and changed. The focus became, as we have heard throughout this debate, especially from the member for Kingston and the Islands, the rights and rehabilitation of the criminals.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands probably got a lot of votes with the speech that he gave on this yesterday. What he was saying and showing is great concern for those poor prisoners. He has a lot of prisons in his riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am sure he got the prison vote. I hope they are not enough votes to carry him so that he is here in the next election.

This change in the focus to where the top priority has become the rights of the criminal, rehabilitation of the criminal, must change. It is certainly not what Canadians want. The focus that Canadians want is a focus that places as the highest priority in our justice system the rights of the victim and the safety of all Canadians in their homes and in the streets. That is what the focus should be. The Liberal's legislation that would move Canada toward that goal of being a safer place in which to live has been dismal indeed.

On the other hand, Reform has proposed several substantial changes that would refocus the justice system on the rights of the victims and on safety of people in this country.

For example, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West presented last spring a victims bill of rights focusing on the victim. The Liberals refuse to focus on the rights of victims. They do not seem to care about the victim.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West presented a victims bill of rights. Had it passed, it would have become law. Did the Liberals support Reform on the effort to refocus the justice system, to give a higher priority to the rights of victims? Did the Liberals support this move? No. They voted against it. That legislation was shot down. Because of that, the victims still do not have the rights they deserve.

I want to quickly, because it is worthy of some debate and recognition, go through some of the points that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has put forth in his victims rights bill, which is the type of legislation that Canadians want.

For example, he said victims should have the right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any victim services available. It does not happen now.

They must be informed of the offender's status throughout the process including but not restricted to notification of any arrest, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender from custody, including notification into which community the parolee is being released and the conditions of release, parole dates and all that type of information.

We would think in a country like Canada with supposedly a well developed justice system that the victim would be shown at least as much consideration as the criminal. That is not the case. That change is needed.

Another proposal by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West is that the victim would have the right to choose between giving oral and/or written impact statements before sentencing. It is a right one would expect in Canada.

If this Liberal government will refocus, if it will come back again and do what Canadians want, focusing much more on the rights of the victim and on the safety of society, we will not have nonsense legislation like this and Canadians will be much more pleased with what it is doing. Right now Canadians are extremely upset with the inaction of the Liberals.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not let the moment pass. I listened to colleagues opposite who have made a point here this afternoon of detailing in debate how bad things are. I do not for a moment think the Canadian criminal justice system is nearly as bad as they say it is.

The most important thing I want to say here today is that both of my colleagues opposite have failed to address the bill that is being debated here now. Each one of them has criticized the section 745 procedure that is now in the Criminal Code. They have attempted to outline why it is unbalanced, unfair, inappropriate, unjust. But neither one of them has stated what this bill, which amends the section 745 procedure, does.

It attempts to redress the perceived unfairness that existed in that procedure. It increases the criteria that would enable someone convicted of a capital crime, someone who is serving more than 15 years in prison, to readdress the issue of parole ineligibility.

This bill raises the bar, raises the standards so it will be extremely difficult for someone to obtain a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility. Some of my colleagues think this bill goes too far and is too strict and will make it virtually impossible for a convict to obtain a reduction in a parole ineligibility period.

I know most of my colleagues on this side of the House support the bill, support the purpose for which it was put forward. They believe it will redress inequities perceived by the Canadian public with respect to the application of this section.

In case anyone would want to take members opposite as having the complete picture on criminal justice reform, each of the colleagues opposite has failed to note criminal law reform initiatives, statutes passed in this House involving the corrections act, the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, all of which have been passed and are being worked on by this Parliament. Not a mention of these progressive reforms in the criminal justice area. I wanted the record to show that just in case anybody might have failed to note that.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this topic. I cannot believe that we are taking such mediocre steps to solve what is a very big problem.

I do not know if all the members here have gone through the trauma of having a person in their family murdered. We have and it is devastating. It is absolute abhorrent. It is totally impossible to imagine. If any of us were to imagine that this evening our life might come to an end because someone else would choose to take it, it would give us a perspective on this problem that is quite different.

We need to pay very close attention to what we are talking about and that is the gravity of the situation. We need to send a message loud and clear that cannot be mistaken, that in our society, in our country, it is not acceptable to contemplate and to actually carry out the taking of the life of another person. If that message does not come through, then I do not know what does.

I am aware of the fact that we cannot pass a law that will make people good. I do not think that is possible.

The purpose of the law is to restrain those who are not good. The purpose of the law is to say to that person who is contemplating the act of first degree murder that the person is going to have to say: "If I do this, there are big consequences for me". Right now in Canada those consequences are inadequate.

We are talking in this bill about the question of first degree murder, contemplated, carried out deliberately. I urge members, especially the Liberal members, who are the ones who can do something about this, who are the majority in the House, they are the people ones who can say by voting correctly on this bill we want to send that message. We want to protect society. We want to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens.

Failure to do so is failure to exercise our responsibility as parliamentarians to do what is right in protecting law-abiding citizens in this country.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

During the ringing of the bells:

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.

[The Speaker]

Tomorrow?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the chief opposition whip has asked that the vote be deferred until tomorrow. We ask that the vote be deferred to later this day at the conclusion of Government Orders. Mr. Speaker, you will have to make the decision.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I am thinking about it. I am not going to think too long because the bells are ringing. If there are going to be discussions, I am prepared to wait a few minutes while I discuss this with my chief clerk, but no more than a few minutes. Unless you want me to make the decision, I will give you a few minutes to talk about it if you like.

Hon. members have asked me to decide. Of course the sole criteria for deciding is not who came to the table first. Members will recall that about a year ago I was asked to make a decision on this type of matter. At that time I ruled that the vote would be taken at the later time that was asked for in order that all parties could get as many of their members here to vote as possible.

My decision is that this vote will be taken tomorrow at the latest possible time. That is at 5.30 p.m. That is when we will hold the vote.

The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prisons And Reformatories Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

I have had the chance to observe what has been going on here over the last couple of weeks and indeed what has been going on in this House over the last few months. What we have here is a simple case of Liberal electioneering.

I give the Liberal Party more credit than do most Canadians. The Liberal Party knows very well that the criminal justice system is a huge concern in the minds of the Canadian people. Liberals have done their polling and their homework and know that most Canadians think there is a huge void between where the criminal justice system is and where it should be.

Let me be the first to say that my colleagues in the Reform Party and I take a whole lot of credit for getting out the information to the Canadian people. It has raised their awareness to a point where they are starting to say that there is something wrong with the justice system.

The Liberals know that the Canadian people are very concerned about the justice system, the way the prisons, the parole system and the sentencing procedures are. The Liberals are trying to balance just how much it will take to make the Canadian people think that they are actually doing something about the disparities in the criminal justice system. They are trying to balance that and at the same time not offend the bleeding heart philosophy of the Liberal Party and most of its members.

If ever there was a definition of a conundrum, we have it right here between the Liberal philosophy of dealing with the criminal justice system, with people who commit murders and robberies and with people who drive impaired and kill people. There is a problem in dealing with all of those issues in the criminal justice system and balancing that against Liberal philosophy.

I do not envy the Liberals for being in that position. The fact is that when it comes to being honest with themselves, let alone with the Canadian people, when they are faced with this situation they honestly know they cannot give Canadians what they want because it throws their philosophy out of balance.

What we have here is a situation of tinkering, smoke and mirrors, deception, making believe that they are doing something but they are not. We see the government failing to take the necessary steps to restore justice to the criminal justice system.

Bill C-53 would amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act by adding a statement of purposes and principles with respect to the temporary absence programs. It also permits the provinces to create additional types of temporary absence programs for people convicted of crimes. Further, and this comes as no surprise as far as this government is concerned, Bill C-53 will extend the period of temporary absences to 60 days. Does this mean that prisoners are now going to be able to go on a Club Med holiday because they have more time out of the can?

Finally, the bill sets out the grounds for suspending, cancelling or revoking temporary absences and confers the power to apprehend and return persons to custody.

Those are the provisions contained within the bill, but a huge concern to the Reform Party and of far more importance is what is not included in the bill. What is not included in the bill is a clear statement that the protection of society must be paramount, the most important thing, of prime consideration with respect to temporary absence decisions. What is not in this bill is a statement that says the most important thing when considering temporary absences must be the protection of the Canadian people, of society, of our wives, of our husbands, of our children, of our grandchildren, of our cousins, of the Canadian law-abiding people.

Why is this not in the bill? Because this Liberal government has a philosophy which is held over from the Trudeau days. It is a philosophy that was brought to this House and this Parliament by the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Kingston and the Islands, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and the Prime Minister himself. All the holdovers from the Trudeau government. I am sorry, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was probably a little bit young then but that philosophy is still here.

The Liberal philosophy is that as a Liberal government it must place the rights of prisoners on the same plane as the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims. That is the philosophy of this government. The government may ask: "Well why do we lock them up if that is the case?" The fact that they lock them up is that the law says they have to, but this government is doing everything it can do to change that law and let them out. That is the problem and we have it right here in Bill C-53.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act which governs the behaviour of the parole board has a clear statement that the protection of society is to be the most important factor in determining whether or not a prisoner should be given parole. I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Liberals will try to amend that act to remove that statement.

Bill C-53 considers the protection of society to be of the same importance as the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Personally I find it quite appalling that this government would have the audacity to put the protection of society, of people who have never committed a crime, our children, our brothers, our sisters, our parents, the protection of law-abiding Canadians on the same plane and the same importance as the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the communities. That is the most appalling philosophy I have ever heard and this government has done it.

Once again the Liberals are elevating and promoting the rights of criminals. It is as simple as that. Let me just repeat that. Once again this Liberal government is attempting to elevate and promote the rights of criminals.

The Liberals may want to pat themselves on the back for that but I am sure the Canadian people will not give them a hand on that one. The bill says to Canadians that their safety as law-abiding Canadians, as families is not the primary responsibility of the correctional system.

This Liberal government has the nerve, the audacity to put forward a bill that says to Canadians their safety is not the prime responsibility of the corrections system. Congratulations. Their safety is of no more importance than a criminal's rehabilitation. Congratulations. This is absolutely ludicrous. How can this government, how can these Liberals even consider the thought?

How can they consider saying to Canadians: "I am sorry, the correctional system in this country really does not think that the safety of our families and our communities is important. Therefore, we are going to elevate the rights and the privileges and promote that criminals get out into society quicker. Do not worry, if they commit another crime, we will just pick them up, put them back in and then go through the same process again".

The Liberals opposite are saying that I am crazy. Let us listen to what the Library of Parliament has to say. These are not my words. The Library of Parliament says that this bill gives less importance to the protection of society than does the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This appears in the legislative summary prepared for all members by the Library of Parliament. It does not represent my personal opinion on the bill. This is an impartial opinion of the contents and effects of this bill.

The legislative summary also states: "The principles set out relating to temporary absences are similar to those set out in the CCRA with the significant exception"-this is the Library of Parliament-"that in the act the protection of society is to be the paramount consideration in the determination of any case". I go back to what I said before. It is not so much what is in this bill; it is what has been left out, that is, the consideration of society when it comes to releasing criminals into the community.

Members will note that the author of the Library of Parliament legislative summary uses the term "significant exception". They picked it up right away. They agree with Reformers when we say that this bill does nothing to protect society. It will in effect place the protection of society on the same plane as the rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals into our society. That is appalling. Canadians will not and cannot accept that for a moment.

That is just a symptom. That is a result of this Liberal philosophy that was born in the Trudeau era and brought forward to this Parliament by members of Parliament who were present then. We see it so much in evidence today.

The author from the Library of Parliament uses the term "significant exception" with good reason. It is very significant that the Liberals do not consider the protection of society to be their primary concern. That is significant and we have seen it.

Time after time they have presented government bills in the House that purport to toughen up the justice system, that purport to get tough on criminals, that purport to get tough on people who commit horrendous crimes in this country. In actuality they are just a smokescreen to fool the Canadian people into thinking this Liberal government actually cares about whether people who do crimes in this country pay a price for them or not.

Of equal concern to the Liberals, judging by some of the bills they have brought forth, is the criminal's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. I believe that this is wrong that they place these two things on the same plane. The protection of society must be reflected in every single part of the criminal justice system. The protection of society must be paramount.

No other part of the criminal justice system deserves to be even anywhere equal to the protection of our society. No rights of criminals, nothing to do with the parole system, nothing to do with lenient sentencing, nothing to do with temporary releases; none of that should even begin to come on the same scale as the protection of our society, of our children, of our sisters, our brothers, our parents in this country. Nothing should ever even begin to climb the scale to get to the level that protection of society is.

I read these bills and I think are they nuts over there? Where is their logic? I need to give the Liberals a simple lesson in the purpose of our justice system. I am even going to dumb it down for them so they can understand. They should listen closely. We put bad people in prison to punish them for their bad acts and protect society from their bad behaviour. Is that too complicated for this government to understand? We put bad people in prisons and we punish them.

There is no way that anyone in their right mind could even consider supporting Bill C-53. It is a bill with so much audacity, with so much trickery in it, with so much electioneering in it that it does not even deserve a place in this House. I certainly oppose it and so do my colleagues.