Debates of Oct. 21st, 1997

Division No. 15

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 16

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a very serious issue that concerns all Canadians. I attended in September a memorial service honouring the law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty. One way of ensuring protection for peace officers and indeed all Canadians is to ensure that individuals who are convicted of first degree murder do not receive early release.

On September 29, the following day, I asked the Minister of Justice if she would stop worrying about the protection of criminals and do the right thing by repealing this offensive section of the Criminal Code.

Her answer certainly demonstrated little if any compassion for the families of victims. She basically told us at that time that in no way does she intend to repeal this section and that we will have to content ourselves with the amendments that were made by her government last year; that is, she intends to simply lock the issue up and throw away the key, something she refuses to do for first degree murderers.

If the Minister of Justice does not know it, Canadians do. Modifications made in January 1997, of which the Liberals are so proud, do not prevent dangerous criminals such as Paul Bernardo from applying for this early release. The answer should be, and the minister knows this, that people like Mr. Bernardo should not have the right to go through a judicial screening process in any way, shape or form. Going through this judicial screening process is in itself an extreme insult to the victims, their families and all victims and Canadians in general.

People like Mr. Olson and Mr. Bernardo have forfeited each and every right that every Canadian has and they should not have the possibility to rehash their crimes and offensive acts. This is not a right convicted murderers should have.

The minister needs to know and needs to be reminded of what occurred at the Olson hearing in British Columbia this summer. Let us remind the minister of this horrific hearing that took place in August 1997. It was a very sad and frustrating day for the families of Mr. Olson's victims who had to sit through this ordeal of the appeal hearing and relive the horror this man put their families through 15 years ago.

There is no justification in the world for a hearing like this to take place. It only underscores the need for the immediate abolition of section 745. Furthermore, it provided the media, in particular television, with the opportunity to sensationalize the coverage of this hearing. It shamelessly appealed to a number of people in the public who lust for vicarious enjoyment of the agony these individuals had to live through.

I understand that when this change to the Criminal Code was brought in and amended, this faint hope was permitted to continue. Although it was lessened, this was the intent of the changes that were made. This faint hope clause still exists in its present form. The argument that it is a useful tool for rehabilitative purposes is certainly lost on the families of those individuals who have to relive this process and have to undergo the further agony of having this person who committed these horrific acts be given media attention all over again.

Life sentences were initially a substitute for the taking of a life as retribution on occasions where first degree premeditated murders occurred. Let us live up to the intent of the life sentence. Let us put truth in sentencing. Those criminals who have gone through the process, been tried, convicted and put behind bars should be kept there. I remind the Minister of Justice that the opportunity is there and I put it to the minister that now is the time to live up to Canadians' expectations.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We consider these reforms a fair compromise between normal concern for victims and the safety of society and the search for a criminal justice system that reflects a whole set of values.

Section 745.6 was intended for exceptional cases.

With the amendments we have made, offenders who commit multiple murders after January 9, 1997 will no longer be allowed to apply for judicial review. In addition, the two changes we made to the system, including offenders currently in the system provided that they had not already applied when the amendments came into force, were judicial screening and that the jury considering the application must be unanimous.

In the Bernardo case even though the murders were committed before the amendments came into force, the judicial screening and the unanimity on behalf of the jury will apply.

No one can ignore the pain that the Olson and Bernardo cases have inflicted on the families of the victims. The difference between the government's approach and that of the Conservatives and Reform is that the government wanted to do more for the victims and their families and to acknowledge the pain they feel. We are not going to stop only with the focus on section 745. We are doing more in terms of the families of the victims and the government will be speaking to that in the future.

[The Speaker]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:46 p.m.)