Paul Forseth

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have to go back in time and remember that section 745 of the Criminal Code was slipped in but the effects of it, the consequences were not really appreciated at the time by the public. It took quite a while before these early untimely parole eligibility processes began to kick in. The press began to respond to the emerging public concern if not disgust, leading eventually to outrage when for example Clifford Olson laughed at parliament, Canadians and every misguided politician who supported the twisted logic of this section.

Section 745 has to go. It serves no positive benefit for the administration of justice. I have been on the line supervising parolees. I have heard all the games. It has no place in Canadian criminal law.

This section has been a focal point, a lightning rod, an example of something that brings the justice system and parliament into disrepute. Reformers will not rest until section 745 is gone. That is the people's agenda, the agenda from coast to coast. Thousands of names have been tendered in petitions here in this parliament on the subject.

We have had protest rallies on Parliament Hill and across the country on it. What does it take to get it done? Once it was mistakenly put in place it has been so long and so hard for Canadians to get government to correct the wrong done to the country.

Here again we have the topic before parliament and the Liberal members through their control of the system for private members' bills would not let a vote occur on my bill. However, it is still a national issue that will not go away. I brought my bill forward again to bring it up.

The House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights needs to deal with this topic as it considers victims of crime in its deliberations. Therefore, I propose a carefully worded motion to remind the government of its duty to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you canvass for unanimous consent that Bill C-258, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review) be not read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to be included in its review of victims of crime.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, from the government side we have just heard an incredible rationalization for releasing dangerous offenders. Liberals have demonstrated today that they are soft on crime.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

moved that Bill C-258, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I begin today by expressing my delight in being back in the House of Commons after the summer recess.

The summer provided me some chance to review what issues my constituents are most concerned about. One of the things they speak about is the economy. Today they are concerned about the falling dollar and the problem of future economic prospects. They see Canada for sale at fire sale prices and they are worried that draconian measures might have to be taken. They are concerned they will be paying out of their own pockets for this downturn in the economy.

They know that a large part of this crisis is due to a government that spent months sitting on its hands while the loonie was falling. It just did not quite know what to do.

We all know that the Liberals are really not good financial managers and that the international community has rendered its judgment on that point, a very negative judgment.

The economy is foremost in the minds of my constituents in New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby and I am certain that it is foremost in the minds of every Canadian. Almost in the same breath those who have spoken with me mentioned law and order and security as a very close second. They wonder if they are safe on the streets. Can they leave a window open all night long? Will their children be safe to and from school. My constituents are very passionate on these issues. They are passionate because they realize that no family, no one is immune from crime in Canada.

In my part of the country there is a divide between those who live from the streets and those who are trying to clean up the streets.

Some in this House may have read in the newspapers last week of the idea in Vancouver of having what you call in the vernacular shooting galleries, legal hangouts to do drugs. Certainly we can do so much better than this.

There is a proposal to open up a building where heroin addicts and others can congregate to get a fix. The proposal is to give them clean needles and in essence monitor that they do not overdose on drugs. It would not surprise me if the addict there will soon be provided with the drug itself from the government.

Proponents say this is going to clean up the streets and make the streets safer. I know that the member for Vancouver East is a proponent of this idea and has contemplated coming forward with a bill on this very subject. It will be a sad day if any level of government would ever give in to funding such a program.

These are the types of issues my constituents are talking about. They are worried. They want to be protected and they will be confident if criminals are off the street and they will have a better sense of safety. They will feel less worried knowing that violent criminals are actually behind bars where they belong.

Of course maintaining correctional centres is not inexpensive. The cost per criminal sometimes seems very enormous for continuous custody, especially very secure custody. But is it not also the best insurance that money can buy? Ask someone from St. Catharines, Ontario if having Paul Bernardo or Karla Homolka locked away makes them feel more at ease.

The reason I am speaking here today has to do with fixing a problem, a problem that has plagued our nation since 1976 when Warren Allmand, then solicitor general, introduced a law that gave a glimmer of hope to the worst criminals sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Allmand wanted criminals to have a chance at serving a lesser sentence if they could convince people they were suitable, so called, to return to society. Mr. Allmand never really liked the term life in prison, and capital punishment was not an option. He felt that was barbaric. Certainly he was focused on the offender rather than the balance of justice and victim rights.

After 15 years this Liberal government believes that a criminal should be allowed to seek the option of applying to a court for permission to be heard before a parole board. It supports the criminal agenda to walk, and who can blame them? I would not want to be locked up. Nobody would.

These criminals committed crimes, very serious crimes, and therefore they should be prepared to do the time, the whole time, 25 years before being allowed to apply for parole. That was the minimum exchange and the bargain that was made with this country for cancelling capital punishment from the law books.

Today when I finish my speech this House is going to hear the Liberal perhaps getting up and saying the chance for a Clifford Olson or a Paul Bernardo getting paroled is so slim that the Canadian public has nothing to worry about. Do we really think that Canadians want to gamble with those types of stakes especially when we see the record of those who are in charge of the system? I think not.

Bill C-258 would simply repeal the faint hope clause; very simple and straightforward. It is not necessary for the proper administration of justice. It has no place in criminal law. It undermines the system. However, repeal would come with a twist.

In past debates on this very issue Liberal members in this House have cited that if the clause were repealed it would immediately create constitutional challenges. In other words, criminals who were sentenced after the Criminal Code was changed to include faint hope would not be affected by a repeal of the clause in this bill.

It was an issue of retroactivity. I want to unequivocally state that while I would prefer to see the act changed to include violent criminals like Clifford Olson and so on, I see that maybe there are problems regarding constitutionality. Perhaps if we were to expand the debate, we could get into the flaws of Canada's constitution. This is not the place or the time for that.

The debate surrounding the issue has surfaced a great deal, particularly since Reformers came to Ottawa in 1993. We raised the issue for one simple reason. It is an issue that Canadians care about deeply.

As a country we want to feel safe. We want the reassurance that violent criminals, those who have committed murder are kept behind bars, are sent to prison for life. We want to feel that the rights of victims supersede the rights of criminals. The last point is important because Liberals are ignoring it.

Warren Allmand said in the House: “If the person is really reformed and no longer a danger to the public, that person after 15 years can be put back on the street to earn his or her living, to support his or her family, to pay taxes rather than being paid for by the state while in prison while the family is being supported by welfare. I am talking about a person who is no longer a danger to the public, who is no longer a risk and who is deemed to be rehabilitated by the parole board”.

Warren Allmand, like many of his misguided colleagues in this House during that parliament, put the rights of criminals ahead of victims.

I want to read a quote from Sharon Rosenfeldt whose son was savagely murdered by Clifford Olson. Ms. Rosenfeldt spoke these words during the last parliament debate before the Standing Committee on Justice:

When I learned that Olson had indeed made the application, I was stunned. Suddenly many images flashed through my mind. I felt shock but I shouldn't feel shock. I felt angry but I shouldn't feel angry. I felt hurt but I shouldn't be hurting. I felt betrayed and I felt panic. I couldn't breathe and I couldn't stay still. I kept pacing from room to room. I wanted to cry, I wanted to scream and I wanted to run.

Why do we have to go through this again? I felt weak and vulnerable. I could not lose my dignity again. I went into the family room and took my son's picture off the cabinet. I sat down and stared lovingly at him, outlining his face with my hands. He looked so perfect.

You see, I always have to reconstruct his face in my mind because a hammer was used on him. He was beaten beyond recognition. I cradled his picture next to my heart and once again made the same promises I had 15 years earlier. I got on my knees and I asked God to give me the strength to keep my dignity. This is very important to me because after Clifford Olson took my child's life, he also took my dignity for a while. I will not let Olson and the system do that again.

I would like my colleagues opposite just for a minute to put themselves into the situation of that victim or another. I would be interested to know how many Liberal members would preach the same message regarding the faint hope clause if someone close to them was murdered and then allowed the chance to be released early.

It is easy to talk the talk. Liberals preach that we should really give murderers another chance. Liberals say they served some time, therefore if they are reformed then let them have another crack at open society.

Would they really feel comfortable having the murderer walk the streets, the same murderer who took the life of a loved one? Would they maybe change their minds?

The reason I introduced this bill and the reason that I will continue to fight for the repeal of the faint hope clause has everything to do with standing up for victims like Sharon Rosenfeldt.

These victims deserve the right to have a voice. They deserve the right to be shown the utmost respect. However, the way the bleeding hearts have crafted our judicial system, it seems to give most of the rights to the criminal. That is the impression the Canadian public has.

The Liberals will say victims are given many rights such as victim impact statements and so on. The truth is that if they cared so much about victims, people such as Sharon Rosenfeldt and the thousands of others who find themselves in similar situations would not be so disgusted with the justice system.

Bill C-258 unfortunately would do little to stop Clifford Olson from his opportunity for a hearing. It would, however, stop such travesties of justice in the future. It would change the meaning of a life sentence. It would allow victims some peace of mind.

Clifford Olson will again be allowed the right to be heard before a court some day. Every time this happens, victims will be made to endure agony. There are many like him all because of a small clause in the Criminal Code, section 745, all because bleeding heart Liberals think the rights of the criminal supersede others.

As legislators we are bound by so many things. Reformers are doing whatever we can to change the system to make it fairer, to be more responsive to the Canadian agenda, more transparent.

We will fight for what is right, even if it is one small step at a time. That is the purpose of this small bill.

When a judge sentences a criminal to life in prison it should be understood that they will serve 25 years before eligibility for parole. I shudder when I think that someone like Olson, who brutally murdered innocent people, children, would be given a chance at all for parole, but that is the law.

The section I am trying to repeal provides a glimmer of hope to someone who does not deserve one. I understand it is not a guarantee that a criminal will be released, but that glimmer of hope is enough to send a shiver down my spine.

Members of this House should imagine only for a moment what it must be like for a victim knowing that the murderer of their son or daughter will have a chance to walk free.

I say to my Liberal friends, bandage up your bleeding hearts just for once and take a stand on behalf of victims of this country. I do not believe that any member wants the most violent criminals of this world to be walking the streets. That is not the issue. Therefore, there is no reason to want to keep the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code. I ask, for once do what is right and get rid of section 745.

[Housing, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that my parliamentary colleague and my constituency neighbour from Port Moody—Coquitlam was hit in the head by a golf ball when he shared the links with the Prime Minister this summer.

For some reason he mistakenly believes that he single-handedly dealt with the leaky condo disaster in British Columbia. He even believes that the tragedy was not that big of a deal until he brought it up in Ottawa.

If he has resolved the buck passing of this government for the water damage disaster, why are so many constituents protesting with picket signs when he speaks at local events? These concerned British Columbians are pleading for relief, the same relief which I have repeatedly asked of this government through letters, speeches and Order Paper questions.

It is time for the member to stop golfing in Shawinigan and start delivering help to constituents back home. He might remember them desperately waiting for representation, not a yes man from the golf course.

[Starred Questions, September 21st, 1998]

With regards to the weather-related “leaky condo” situation in British Columbia, which has evolved into financial disaster exceeding the Manitoba Flood and the Ontario-Quebec Ice Storm, does the Government have a plan to assist condo owners repair unforeseen damages by way of short-term emergency relief, and if so, does it permit any or all of the following: a ) RRSP funds to be used without tax penalties: b ) interest costs of repair loans to be used as a deductible expense, as it is for landlords: c ) repairs to be GST-exempt: and d ) expansion of the limits of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We are talking about who is accountable and who is responsible. We believe we have had very poor administration of public business since 1993.

I will refer also to his comment about treatment. Anybody involved in corrections has long abandoned the medical model of prisoner care. We got rid of that years ago. It is not someone who has a disease and therefore some kind of treatment or medicine is applied.

When we administer prisons or programs we must provide options and we must provide consequences. We can provide opportunities for offenders to rehabilitate themselves. In some cases these individuals were never habilitated in the first place and were the walking wounded in the psychological sense and/or physical sense. We must provide some types of programming, but to say that we can just write out a prescription in the medical model ideology is a long outdated notion in corrections.

First we must have fiscal responsibility. Then we are able to generate wealth to pay for the social programs we need.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which member he was talking about. We had no Reform Party members from Edmonton North in the House of Commons in 1991. We had one member from Beaver River and that was it until 1993 when we had the Reform wave.

We have always been consistent in saying that if the gun registration program could clearly be demonstrated to be efficacious for public safety we would support it. In view of a lack of evidence it clearly appeared to be a misappropriation of public money and should be reassigned to other areas of the justice system.

We are supportive of gun control. We have had handgun control in Canada since 1934 or something like that and we never objected to Bill C-17. However, it was escalated to the final level of wasting money on a program which the government has failed to demonstrate will accomplish its stated objectives.

Money is laid aside for a program and it has stated objectives, but it has failed to justify that it will deliver the stated program objectives. We are predicting at some point in the light of day after we spend several hundred million dollars down this blind alley that it will in retrospect be seen to be misappropriated money.

Why do we not spend that money on the Young Offenders Act and other facilities rather than waste it on gun registration?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago when we brought attention to this House about how certain prisons were about ready to blow as far as riots are concerned and the management-staff relations were right on the edge. That has to do with funding. It has to do with administrative attitude and it has to do with care of how the government administers its prisons.

I was quite pleased to hear that the solicitor general a few weeks ago announced something in the order of 1,000 new staff across the country would be hired. We applaud that.

There is no change in message from the Reform Party. We have always advocated we needed more facilities, not just brick and mortar in building more jails. We need more of a broader set of complex facilities. Some of them may be without locked doors, but a range of facilities to respond to the challenges if we are to have a justice system to respond more resolutely to crime. That means there will be perhaps some type of custodial facilities. But that does not necessarily mean the old-fashioned high tiers with a dome and bars.

Certainly it does mean the kind of facility that may respond to the treatment needs of individuals and also adequately separates different offenders from each other, specializes in programs but also controls their access to the community. We also consider the protection of the community first.

Remember, the Reform Party is bringing the message to the country of fiscal responsibility so that we can generate the wealth to pay for the social programs that Canadians want, for the people's agenda we might say is to provide more facilities in Correctional Service Canada. That has been the people's agenda but it certainly has not been the bureaucratic top down agenda that we have from governments for the last 15 years.

It has squeezed Correctional Service Canada. Yet the public has been asking Correctional Service Canada to do things when it really never had the resources to do. Because of the fiscal irresponsibility in other areas and the failure to set appropriate priorities, Correctional Service Canada has really been in a tough situation.

The more the government is fiscally responsible, the more it is able to generate wealth and reorder its priorities to respond to a people accountable agenda rather than a top down agenda. That is what we are looking for.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the business of supply of the main estimates at this time is on Motion No. 1 on the justice. I will confine my comments to the administration of justice. Although there is much that I would like to talk about concerning this rather weak government.

In respect of the motion of the expenditure of funds in the general areas of public safety and the administration of justice, the justice minister and the solicitor general spend a considerable amount of our precious resources. Specifically I want to talk about what is happening with this government in the administration of jails. It is associated with the correctional services that it administers. The history has been a long one but it has not been without problems and failures. Considering the difficult and problematic people correctional services deal with on behalf Canadians we owe a thank you to the honourable record of custodial staff across this country who work in jails.

I received with satisfaction the government's announcement several weeks ago that it was going to hire more jail guards. The government has a labour contract in place. I do not believe that it has been fulfilling it in recent years concerning staffing strength and being able to meet the standards that it has agreed to.

The government has an obligation to all Canadians and to the world community to operate prisons according to the standards of basic decency and human rights. Canada has been rather judgmental and condescending about human rights in other countries but how about how we operate our jails. Canada may believe that we are so much better than others. There are standards that we have committed to and that we must fulfill.

Correctional Service Canada has an awesome mandate. The average Canadian has no idea what it is like in our major prisons. I have visited a number of those prisons. I have observed that we have our problems but some progress is being made. We can do so much better.

Canadians need confidence in the ability of the government to take care of the people's business and to administer prisons in full accordance with the commitments and the labour agreements made which are well within the bounds of the international standards. A measure of a nation's stature and its civilization, among so many other things, is how it administers its prisons and treats the basic rights of even the most objectionable heinous offenders.

A budget is being put forward tonight. Canadians want to be assured that this Liberal government, which has been so poor in managing its other departments, this weak government through these requests and appropriations is fulfilling its mandate of public protection and basic decency both for the humane environment for the workers who work in jails and for their charges. We must do a comprehensive job of duly considering the keepers and the kept.

Will this government assure this House that the funds requested fulfill completely all its labour contracts and the manuals of standards of operations that it has outlined for itself? Will the funds requested permit the speedy resolution of all outstanding union grievances? Is it appropriately taking into account the dynamics of stress and administrative pressure? The best riot prevention program in a jail is a system that meets all standards, that is fully staffed wherein there are no corners cut on required staff levels, bed loads and living up to the commitments it has made. We need more capacity to provide a greater range of facilities and operations to more innovatively respond to the challenges presented by some of these very problematic individuals.

Canadians have a right to expect better of than we have been getting so far from this weak government. Canadians need to be assured that the money requested fully meets the public constituents' needs. On checking the details the government's administration of departments lately falls short of its press releases. The Liberals who smile and pronounce it repeatedly have been shown to fail to deliver. So please say it isn't so with corrections Canada or the Ministry of Justice.

I call on these ministers to place themselves on the record in this House that the administration of the federal corrections for instance meets all standards and commitments. I need not remind the minister of what it means to mislead this House. We have had many instances of the government saying one thing but in reality it finally turns out to be quite different upon examination. I challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to say it clearly, place it on the line and tell it like it is. Let the average rank and file guard on the tier or the control centre personnel read what the minister says. May what the minister says match up to the real experience of staff on the line behind the walls. They are paying attention.

Can it be described how the money is asked for, will be spent and that there will be value for dollar? Will the government fulfil its commitments? It makes its obligations to follow the rules. The shortcomings of the government in its administration of justice are well known across the country but the resources asked for under the general area we are talking about tonight in the estimates are considerable. Built into that area are the mandates of the solicitor general and the justice minister.

Let us first review what is contemplated under justice and then we will recount what the solicitor general wants. We should put what is being asked for specifically on the public record. Under the Minister of Justice and operating expenditures, the grants listed in the estimates in contributions are $477,456,000. Related to that are the human rights commission with $12,874,000; the commissioner for federal judicial affairs with $4,354,000; the Federal Court of Canada with $27,002,000; the human rights tribunal with $2,076,000; the Law Commission of Canada with $2,791,000; offices of the information and privacy commissioner of Canada with $5,760,000; the Supreme Court of Canada with $10,090,000; the Tax Court of Canada with $9,304,000; the Security Intelligence Review Committee with $1,239,000.

Then there is the solicitor general and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with $900,459,880; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police external review committee with $718,000; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police public complaints commission with $3,123,000. It continues in the justice area.

We will be voting on every one of these tonight. For the Department of Justice operating expenditures, the grants listed in the estimates and contributions total $115,248,185. There is also the solicitor general, Canadian Security Intelligence Service with $5,580,000.

It is up to the government to respond based on what it has requested. Will it give value for money? Will the reality fulfill its rhetoric and its press releases?

The opposition is watching. Canadians are watching. What is being expended is an astounding amount of money in the general area of justice, yet the dissatisfaction about the government's justice and public safety agenda has never been worse. There is little public confidence in the justice system and Liberals are responsible. They are accountable. I challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to justify their spending requests to this House.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my impression that the wording of the motion that was agreed to did not include any reference to quorum calls.