Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
Petitions November 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present two petitions. In the first petition 189 constituents from British Columbia request that Parliament refuse to accept the justice minister's anti-firearms proposals. They insist that he bring forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.
Lacrosse Hall Of Fame November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in 1963 lacrosse enthusiasts in New Westminster, British Columbia thought that since the city had such a great lacrosse heritage it would be the ideal location for the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame. It took some aggressive campaigning but it was worth the effort as the hall's charter was awarded in November 1964 and incorporated under the societies act in 1965.
In 1966, 48 charter members were selected by committees from the east and west. To date 284 inductees have been honoured in the hall of fame for Canada's official summer sport.
This past Saturday at the Royal Towers Hotel in New Westminister, the hall welcomed six new inductees, two builders and four box players. From the builders was Annie McDonald of Ontario and Mason Sheldrick from British Columbia. From the players was Grant Heffernan and Lou Nickle of Ontario and Bill Rawson and Doug Hayes from B.C.
These six inductees have served Canada's national sport honourably and I might say they have served it strike free. Congratulations to the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame.
Justice November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister is consulting and delaying. He obviously does not know what to do.
His trial balloon on criminal intoxication would mean that intoxication could be used as a defence because there would be a separate punishment for voluntary intoxication, with consequences of half or less the maximum of the main offence; in other words a drunkenness discount.
Is the minister suggesting that even for something as serious as murder, if someone is intoxicated they could receive only half or less of the regular sentence? Or, will he toughen the Criminal Code rather than opening more escape hatches?
Justice November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Minister of Justice released a discussion paper that outlined possible amendments to the Criminal Code, one being a defence based on cultural or
religious practices. It would mean that if it was the practice of a religious group to use prohibited drugs, weapons or ritual abuse it could be exempted from the Criminal Code. The minister is definitely flirting with these ideas, or else they would not be contained in his paper.
Is the minister prepared to implement such amendments to the Criminal Code that possibly could put Canadians at risk and bring to even further disrepute the criminal justice system?
Justice November 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, for the third time in less than a month the excuse of extreme drunkenness has been used as a defence in a criminal court.
The Supreme Court recently made a ruling in the Daviault case and what has ensued has been devastating for all victims. On Friday in Alberta a man was acquitted of assaulting his wife following a 24-hour drinking binge in 1993. The judge ruled that the man could not be held responsible for his actions because he was so drunk he was insane.
Reform MPs have twice asked the Minister of Justice to enact legislation to plug this loophole but we still have seen nothing.
This is not the Land of Oz and the minister I hope is not Dorothy. Supposedly the justice minister is troubled by these cases, but we all know that his clicking of the heels three times will not make the issue disappear. Amending legislation must be brought in immediately if victims in the country have any chance at all for justice.
Petitions October 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present two petitions today both dealing with the same subject.
Constituents from the city of Burnaby, British Columbia, pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
Criminal Code October 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-226 today.
This is the type of legislation for which Canadians from all parts of the country have been calling. This is the second hour of debate on the bill and much of what has been said related also to the death penalty. I am not going to be addressing that issue. It remains part of the background of everything that we say. I am not speaking in cliches.
Unfortunately I was not able to be in the House during the first hour of debate. However I did read Hansard to check what the other members of Parliament had to say about this bill. I was particularly outraged by what the Bloc Quebecois members said. I will quote from Hansard directly: ``For a person who has received a life sentence the parole system is the light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think that the victims' relatives will suffer after 20 years. They certainly have suffered and everybody
deplores that fact. However, we do not have to always give in to the people who shout the loudest".
This statement is absolutely appalling. If the speaker had ever experienced the murder of a close friend or a relative I doubt that he would be speaking so casually. I do not think that the sentiments of that member represent mainstream Canadian values.
On February 24, 1976 the Solicitor General of Canada introduced Bill C-84. This bill defined two categories of murder: first and second degree. As well Bill C-84 abolished the death penalty.
According to section 231 of the Criminal Code, first degree murder is that which is planned and deliberate, the murder of police officers or prison guards acting in the course of their duties; or murder committed during hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping.
When Bill C-84 was introduced Jim Fleming, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, said that it was most important to give criminals a glimmer of hope. He said that some incentive has to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals. Incentive for what? My observation is incentive to con the system.
Last week I received a fax from a citizen in Mississauga, Ontario who wrote of the horrendous story involving the murder of RCMP Constable Brian King in 1978. The writer is a nephew of Mr. King. I understand that the member for York South-Weston had previously mentioned this story in his speech, but I think it is too important not to mention it again.
Constable Brian King was an RCMP officer in Saskatchewan and was on that fateful night to be the trophy of two men who were full of hate, determined to stalk, capture and kill a cop. They wanted their friends to see how powerful they were. The two successfully distracted Brian, overpowered him, seized his service revolver, secured him with handcuffs, threatened him at gunpoint and eventually went on to murder him with two rounds into the skull. This was no crime of passion. This was cold, calculated, premeditated murder.
They were both sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. When the two men were sentenced one commented: "What's 25 years?". Twenty-five years is not a deterrent.
Under section 745 these two same murderers were eligible for an early review. Constable King's family now has to suffer through months of reliving the memories and the grief as well as the fear that these convicted cop killers will be out, possibly to kill again.
The Bloc member who said that the families will get over it in 20 years has not read a letter like this nor has he spoken with any person who has gone through such a trauma. What kind of representation is that?
There is more to section 745 than just the simple direction of it. The entire parole system is in disrepute with Canadians. My office has received letters concerning the operation of the parole system. In almost every case the comments are that the parole board does not do what it is supposed to do. However, the mission statement of the National Parole Board paints a rather nice rosy picture. It states:
The National Parole Board, as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release and pardon decisions and clemency recommendations. The board, by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens, contributes to the protection of society.
On October 6 the new chairman of the parole board appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At that time I asked him whether he could give me a written job description of exactly what the chairman does. Unfortunately at the time he was not aware of any written documentation on this but stated that he would get back to me with some information.
I received a letter from Mr. Gibbs this past Monday but no full job description that could be used for performance evaluation was included. Instead this was what was written: "Further to my recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on October 6 and your request to be provided with a copy of the chairman's job description, I wish to report that such a document has never been produced. I can assure you however that although no written mandate has been provided, my role is well defined in law and policy and my expectations very clear".
After reading this and understanding the climate of unaccountability that this represents, I know exactly why Canadians are upset that they are paying top level bureaucrats six figure salaries to state that they only know by word of mouth what their job entails. It is a matter of trust. It is a matter of public accountability.
Let me talk briefly about the success rate of our great parole system. From April 1978 to March 1988 there were 17,444 cases of offenders released. As of March 1993, 73.6 per cent successfully completed their terms of supervision.
Some might look at that and say that is an excellent result. I do not. The remaining 26.4 per cent were split between two categories: 2,494 cases violated their conditions of parole and 2,111 cases violated parole because of committing a new criminal offence. All in all, this is a rather poor success rate.
This past summer Allan Kinsella, a convicted murderer, asked the court for release after serving 15 years of his life sentence. His appeal for a section 745 hearing was denied. Because of that Kinsella got mad from this procedure and then with another inmate escaped last week. Police are still searching for these two men who are considered to be dangerous.
Let me recap these events. First, Kinsella commits a murder and is sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. Second, at 15 years into Kinsella's sentence section 745 of the Criminal Code kicks in. Third, December 13, 1993 the section 745 review is denied. Fourth, in July Kinsella is transferred to the Bath institution in spite of the fact that the assistant attorney general for Ontario sent letters to the Solicitor General warning that Kinsella was dangerous and unsuitable for transfer and that there was a good chance he would attempt to escape. Fifth, on October 19 Kinsella and another inmate escaped and are now considered dangerous.
I should not be having to give this example because if section 745 had not even been put into place and had the Solicitor General of Canada been doing his job, Kinsella would now be locked up in Kingston Penitentiary, a maximum security prison for dangerous offenders, exactly what Kinsella is and always has been.
The Minister of Justice has stated in the House that the government's position is crystal clear. Let me quote from Hansard : ``We introduced an amendment to section 745 to provide plainly that whenever an application is brought under this section that the court is obligated to hear from the families of the victims''.
I say including the victim in a process may be good but it is not good if a murderer gets out on early parole. I would really question whether Liberal backbenchers across the way know what the minister is really saying. People are fighting for life to mean life and not to make a statement at a parole hearing that might have little effect on keeping a prisoner in prison.
My question to the justice minister yesterday certainly revealed that the government is completely out of sync with what Canadians want on this measure.
People are in prison for a reason. In the case of murder they took someone else's life and for that they should serve life. Section 745 brings disrepute to the operation of the justice system and its presence in the Criminal Code has implications beyond the technicalities of the section.
I call on the members of this House, the people have spoken and now it is time for the people's representatives to speak and vote for this bill regardless of what the justice minister says.
Young Offenders Act October 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it was quoted this morning that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police as well as the Canadian Police Association recommended that judges must have access to longer and more appropriate sentences and that 16 and 17 year olds charged with serious crimes should automatically be tried in adult court.
These recommendation do not come from bleeding hearts or social agencies. They come from the men and women who defend our streets.
Will the minister endorse the recommendations of the two associations, or is he going to sit back and listen to the broken record of the professional criminal justice community?
Young Offenders Act October 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday a youth charged with criminal negligence causing death with a stolen car was sentenced to one year in a youth detention facility. In frustration the judge presiding over the case remarked that politicians, not judges, were the lawmakers. The judge's hands were tied and because of a weak Young Offenders Act the offender walked away with a year.
In view of this case, how many more insupportable decisions does the Minister of Justice need to hear before he will make substantive and not cosmetic changes to the Young Offenders Act?
Justice October 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of making changes. How about Allan Kinsella and Serge Damien who escaped from the Bath institution who should have been held in a maximum security prison and should not even have had a hope of parole for 25 years?
Will the minister tell this House whether or not he would support the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code and therefore make life indeed life?