Jack Ramsay

[Justice, April 8th, 1997]

You've looked into their eyes and have done nothing.

[The Austrums, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart on this cold April day. Last night the riding of Crowfoot lost two citizens, one so very young, and two more lay in the hospital.

Mr. Brian Austrum, administrator for the country of Camrose, a candidate for the federal Tory nomination and a valuable member of our constituency, was involved in a fatal car accident. The accident claimed the life of his wife Beverly and the life of his 15-year old daughter Melissa. The condition of Mr. Austrum and his 17-year old son Calvin is unknown at this time.

I know all members of the House will join me and my family in extending our most heartfelt condolences to Mr. Austrum, his son Calvin and daughter Elizabeth in their time of enormous grief and sorrow. Our hopes and prayers are with them.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again assure the members of this House and the people of Canada that this is not an amendment to Bill C-17. This amendment has nothing to do with Bill C-17. This amendment has to do with the bungling of the justice minister with regard to the former bill that he brought in, Bill C-45, that tinkered with the rights of first degree murderers for an early shot at parole after serving just 15 years of a so called life sentence. That is what this bill is.

What does this bill do? We have to do back to Bill C-45. I must also mention that this amendment could only have come in at this stage with the unanimous consent of the House. Because this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Bill C-17 it was inappropriate to bring it in. The only way it could be brought in was through unanimous consent.

We go back to Bill C-45. What was the problem with Bill C-45? The wording of Bill C-45 was supposed to provide victims who were appearing at section 745 hearings the automatic right to provide impact statements. The legal interpretation of that part of Bill C-45 showed there were no automatic rights, that the victims of crime, the families of the victims of the likes of Clifford Olson do not have standing. It is only at the discretion of the court that that are allowed to give an impact statement. This is simply not good enough. The justice minister knows this, so what is he doing? He is running now to change what he bungled in the first place.

This is just another example of a deficiency in judgment on the part of the justice minister. It flows like a current through a host of legislative and other decisions he has made over the last three and a half years. We are now examining an amendment, piggy-backed on to Bill C-17 that ought to have been dealt with back when we dealt with section 745 under Bill C-45.

My party stands for the complete removal of section 745 from the Criminal Code. We do not want the families of victims to ever have to appear to give an impact statement and be subject to cross-examination by the likes of Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo or the host of killers lining up and applying under section 745, which is a gift to them from the Liberal government and from the present justice minister.

That is what we are dealing with here. This is an amendment to Bill C-45. It has nothing to do with Bill C-17. Hopefully this time it will provide the automatic right to victims of crime to make an impact statement, regardless of what a judge may think. They will not be subjected to the discretion of the judge. They will have standing before parole hearings.

There is a down side to this. Although we did not support Bill C-45 because we wanted the faint hope clause that would allow first degree murders an opportunity for parole only after serving 15

years of a life sentence completely eliminated, removed from the Criminal Code.

We are prepared to support this amendment because it will give victims the right to stand before a judge and jury and tell them of the pain, agony and the hell they have gone through as a result of the taking of a life of a family member and to have that evidence impact on the jury. This must be seen in light of the passage of Bill C-45 and the refusal of the justice minister to remove the faint hope clause. This right must be granted to the families of the victims of the likes of Clifford Olson and others.

We are prepared to support it. However, again it demonstrates the bungling and the lack of the consideration for the victims of crime and the families of those victims by the justice minister. It is an almost desperate attempt by the justice minister to cover himself and argue on the whole area of the faint hope clause and his decision to retain it. He is writing letters to editors of newspapers across Canada suggesting that the Reform Party is exploiting the feelings and emotions of the families of the victims of Clifford Olson. This is disgraceful, shameful and simply untrue.

The victims of crime, including Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt, have made that very clear in written responses to the newspapers that we are the party which is standing for them. We are the party that is defending their rights and trying to give them an opportunity to develop a degree of peace of mind and not have to harrow up the horrible feelings they experienced when they first learned that their young son or daughter had been kidnapped, raped and murdered by the likes of Clifford Olson. They have to go through that again and again because the justice minister has allowed the faint hope clause to remain. If Clifford Olson fails in his bid he can appeal it or he can apply again and again. Bill C-45 would have denied victims the right to make an impact statement at those hearings.

Bill C-41 granted victims the right to make impact statements. Along came Bill C-45 and the bungling of the justice minister. If he were a drummer he would call his drums the bungle drums because of the capacity he has for bungling every time he turns about. He brought in Bill C-45 which eliminated the right of victims to make impact statements that were provided for in Bill C-41. Is that not wonderful? We have a justice minister who can stop on a dime and turn on a nickel here in the House of Commons. He can mock and scorn the Reformers who ask reasonable questions about his legislation and yet he cannot get it straight.

He cannot get it straight in Bill C-45. He cannot get it straight in Bill C-41. He cannot get it straight in the Airbus fiasco. He cannot get it straight in the Pearson airport fiasco. He cannot get it straight in a host of legislative initiatives that show in spite of all his so-called skills and ability he is lacking in sound judgment and common sense. That is what we are dealing with now through this amendment.

He has bungled one more time and so he brings in an amendment which has nothing to do with Bill C-17. It covers the bungling that has occurred in Bill C-45 that takes away the right of the victims to make impact statements which were granted under Bill C-41. This bill is something that we have to examine and support because until there is a Reform government in this country the faint hope clause will remain.

As Scott Newark said in B.C. to the families of the victims of Clifford Olson: "The only way you are going to change that law is by changing the government". The people of this country are going to have an opportunity to do that within the next few months if all the rumours we are hearing are accurate. People will have the opportunity to vote for a party that will place the rights of victims ahead of the rights of the likes of Clifford Olson, the Bernardos and so on.

The people will return a verdict concerning the bungling of this justice minister and this government. They have asked repeatedly through letters and petitions for initiatives to be taken. They have been denied repeatedly by this justice minister who pretends that he understands and agonizes along with their pain and their suffering but his actions never demonstrate what he says. He never demonstrates his concern for the victims of crime.

Yes, we will support this until we form the government. We will abide by the wishes of the majority and not by the will of a handful of people around the justice minister and Prime Minister.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, we will be supporting this amendment as it appears to be an addition to Bill C-41 and could not be brought in at this time without the unanimous consent of members of this House.

This amendment goes back to the conditional sentencing contained within Bill C-41. The particulars of that bill encourage the courts to use conditional sentencing. Since this bill was proclaimed there have been at least two occasions where convicted rapists have been allowed to walk free while their female victims are cowering in their homes because they are afraid to walk on the streets alone. It is absolutely unacceptable that this danger was brought forward at the time this bill was being examined at committee stage.

The government insisted on ramming this thing through and allowing violent offenders access to conditional sentencing. The government would not limit the provisions or the application by the courts of conditional sentencing and it still is not narrowing it. It is still not reducing the application of this portion of Bill C-41, the conditional sentencing portion.

What this amendment does is it simply reiterates what the courts already do. Do any of the judges release anyone on conditional sentence if they feel that the public is in danger? Of course not. What does this amendment do? It does not alter the discretion of the court to use conditional sentencing. It simply states that it must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent

with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 and 718.2.

What can the people of Canada, who are concerned about violent crime, draw from this? The justice minister has once again bungled in creating this bill which allows violent offenders and rapists to walk the street as they do today without seeing one day of a sentence in jail. This is wrong and it is the wrong signal for this government, which brags about its care and concern for the rights of the victims, to be sending.

We have at least two rape victims cowering in their homes while their assailants walk the streets free on conditional sentencing. This amendment will do nothing to support that. It suggests to the judges that they do what they already do. Is any judge going to release someone on conditional sentence if the circumstances indicate that the individual may be a danger?

What does this amendment say to the judges? It says "You must be satisfied. You have not been satisfied in the past so you now must be satisfied. We do not trust you so we are putting this in the code which states that you must be satisfied that serving a sentence in the community will not endanger anyone. However, if it is your opinion that a rapist should walk free you can certainly go ahead and do it because we are not going to restrict the application of this law. No, we are simply going to cover our rear end because we are facing an election". The government wants to say that it has done something through this amendment to create a safer society. This is nonsense.

We in the Reform Party asked the justice committee if it would not consider restricting the application not only of conditional sentencing but alternative measures.

Violent offenders also have access to the alternative measures portion of Bill C-41. We introduced an amendment that would exempt violent offenders from access to alternative measures and it was denied. It was turned down. It was killed by the Liberal members who hold a majority on the justice committee.

Now we see where cases are being appealed in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario over conditional sentencing. This is what has moved the justice minister to take unprecedented action to ask unanimous consent of this House to bring in an amendment to Bill C-17 which has nothing whatever to do with Bill C-17 but which has a lot to do with the bungling that occurred back in Bill C-41. Very clearly this amendment is not going to restrict the discretion of the courts to free violent offenders on conditional sentencing, and that is what this is all about.

The justice minister is placing at risk innocent people by not restricting the courts from the use of conditional sentencing because they can continue to allow violent offenders to walk free, as has been the case with the two rapists I referred to earlier, while their victims cower in fear in their homes.

This is a do nothing amendment. When the justice minister had the opportunity to correct the error in Bill C-41 in the area of conditional sentencing simply by restricting it to non-violent offences he failed to do that. He refuses to do that just like he refuses to do anything to deny first degree murder as a shot at early parole after serving just 15 years in spite of the fact that hundreds and thousands of Canadians have lobbied this government through petitions and letters to our members of Parliament to eliminate section 745.

When it came time for the justice minister to make a decision he decided in favour of the criminal and against the victims of crime and the safety of society. He wants the criminals, the first degree murderers and others, to have a shot early parole just like he wants the violent offenders, the rapists of this country, to have a shot at conditional sentencing.

Why does the justice minister not consider the safety of society and restrict the application of conditional sentencing to non-violent offences? He would have the support certainly of the members of the Reform Party caucus and all members of this House because that would be reasonable. It is not reasonable to allow a rapist out free on conditional sentencing. It is not fair and it is not reasonable.

The deficiency of judgment expressed by the justice minister over the last three and half years runs like a current throughout many of his decisions and initiatives since he has taken up the justice portfolio. This is only one more example of the deficiency of judgment of the justice minister. He is refusing to respond to the cries of people across this land and the common sense of the majority of Canadians. He is refusing to respond to that.

He is going to continue to allow the courts wide application of conditional sentencing that has led to his concern to bring this about in the first place. What does it do? He is going to simply be able to stand up and say "We have done our best. We have issued a caution in the Criminal Code through this amendment to the courts that you must not use conditional sentence if you fear that conditional sentence will create a danger to society". Of course every judge in the country makes those considerations at the time of sentencing.

Yes, Reform members will go along with this but it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever. The justice minister had a chance to reduce the application of this portion of Bill C-41 and failed to do it. He will answer on the hustings in the next election for this degree of incompetence.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 will receive the support of our caucus. We think there are measures in the bill that are going in the right direction.

I have some real concerns about the ability of Canada to enforce laws against offences committed outside our jurisdiction. Because of that concern I am prepared to recommend to my caucus that we support the amendment that has been placed before us which we are debating today.

What are some of the reasons for supporting this amendment and really what is the amendment to do? The amendment will strike from the bill sections 4.2 and 4.3.

Section 4.2 states:

Proceedings with respect to an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 170, 171 or 173 shall be instituted in Canada only if a request to that effect to the Minister of Justice of Canada is made by:

(a) any consular officer or diplomatic agent accredited to Canada by the state where the offence has been committed; or,

(b) any minister of that state communicating with the Minister through the diplomatic representative of Canada accredited to that state.

Section 4.3:

Proceedings referred to in subsection 4.2 may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General

This means the attorney general of the province in which the individual the charge is being initiated against lives.

First of all, what this would entail is an intrusion by the Justice Minister of Canada into what is normally the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces which is to initiate criminal proceedings. It would give the justice minister an overwhelming say in the prosecution of offences under the criminal code. We would see a division of powers. I should say we would see an attack on the division of powers. In fact, there would be a collapse of the division of powers between those who make the law in this country and those who are supposed to enforce it.

All of a sudden we would have the justice minister being the key figure not only in making the law but in initiating any criminal proceedings and prosecution under the law. I think that is wrong and we have to be very aware and cautious of allowing that kind of collapse between the division of powers that exist in a democracy.

Second, I have great concern that we are going to be able to successfully prosecute an infraction that occurs in another country. How will we do it? How will we get the evidence into this country to successfully prosecute? If the justice minister is going to be the one who decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution are we going to look at the same delays that we now see when individuals apply to the justice minister under section 690 of the Criminal Code, those who feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice occur? We have had 690 application after 690 application presented to the justice minister and in some cases it has taken years for him to assess the fresh evidence and make a decision.

We just saw two cases that have been hung there for years and finally decided upon by the justice minister. One was the King case and the other was the Beaulieu case. We still have a case that has been outstanding for at least four years, a 690 application that the justice minister is still looking at, the delay for reasons unknown.

Are we now going to say the justice minister has to decide on all these cases that might be coming forward as a result of the creation of this new law? It is absolutely wrong. Not only that, the justice minister can only move on complaints not if they come from you or me, Mr. Speaker, who might be over there and happen to witness a crime. No, they have to come from a consular officer or a diplomatic agent accredited to Canada. Therefore, if you or I are over there and happen to see an offence committed by some individual against a child, we cannot bring this to the attention of the authorities here. We cannot even bring it to the attention of the justice minister.

According to this legislation, we have to bring that to the attention of the justice minister through a consular officer or a diplomatic agent accredited to Canada by the state where the offence is being committed or, if we cannot do it that way, by any minister of that state communicating with the minister through the diplomatic representative of Canada accredited to that state.

Do members know what that is setting up? It is setting up a situation that looks good, that we are taking some action against these child sex tourists, people who would go to another country and involve themselves sexually with children.

I will say five years from now if the justice minister is still around and we ask him how many successful prosecutions or otherwise have been registered in this country as a result of this legislation, it will be very close to zero. Why? Because of the narrow restrictions that are being placed on any successful prosecution. It is not just the fact that it is going to be difficult to produce evidence. Are we going to bring the victim over here? Are we going to bring witnesses over here at enormous cost? How are we going to do it?

That is part of it. Once the complaint information has gone through this very narrow restricted channel and the justice minister says to the attorney general of the province in which that accused person or the targeted person lives "go ahead and charge this person" it is wrong. It is not going to work.

It is another attempt by this government to create a smoke screen that it is going to get tough in an area that is very difficult to handle and that is frowned on and creates revulsion in the minds of every decent thinking Canadian.

We are prepared to support this bill in the hope that we are wrong in our estimation of the difficulty that is going to be presented toward any successful prosecution. We are prepared to support this bill. But I am not prepared to support that part of the bill that gives the justice minister the final say on prosecution under this statute. Why should be trust the judgment of the justice minister when a lack of sound judgment and common sense runs like a current through a host of the legislation that he has brought forward and other decisions that he has made?

How can we trust the judgment of a justice minister who grants victims the right to make written impact statements in Bill C-41 and takes away that very right in Bill C-45? How can we trust the judgment of a justice minister who tells this House that he consulted on a regular basis with the attorneys general of the

provinces when putting together Bill C-68 and we had those attorneys general appear before the committee and say that there was no consultation at all? How can we trust the justice minister? How can we trust his judgment?

I support the amendment to strike from the bill this special power granted to a justice minister whose judgment over the last three and a half years has proven to be unsound and lacking a basis in common sense.

I cannot support the justice minister's having this kind of power and it is not unlike the kind of power he has given himself in many bills through orders in council. He will not get my support in this area for this kind of authority and power that could stymie any successful prosecution or any complaint from going beyond his office or beyond his desk. I will not support it.

[Victims Of Crime, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, of course we have to address the bungling of this justice minister. Under Bill C-41 he granted victims the right to make written impact statements and under Bill C-45 he took that right away from them. We are talking about the bungling of this justice minister.

The minister and his government have made the claim that making Bill C-45 retroactive could result in a charter challenge. Why would the minister worry about a court challenge? He should be used to them by now.

So far the justice minister's Bill C-68 has been challenged as being unconstitutional. The conditional sentencing provision of the justice minister's Bill C-41 is in court in B.C., Ontario and Alberta. The minister cost the taxpayers $1 million in the Airbus fiasco and now taxpayers may have to cough up millions more in the Pearson airport deal.

Why is he not willing to err on the side of victims, even if it does result in a court challenge? Whose rights are more important to him, those of mass child killer Clifford Olson or those of the families of his victims?

[Victims Of Crime, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, victims of crime claim the justice minister has betrayed them. He betrayed them through Bill C-41 when he denied them the right to make verbal impact statements. He betrayed them in Bill C-45 by denying them the unconditional right to make impact statements of any kind at parole hearings.

I ask the justice minister this. Why has he added to the suffering of these victims? Why did he deny victims, particularly the families of Olson's victims, the automatic right to be heard at section 745 hearings?

[Copyright Act, March 13th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, when I arrived at my seat, the whips were just passing by. In view of the technicality that I may not have been in my seat at the proper time, I did vote in support of the motion but if I was late then I would stand on record as having supporting this motion.

[Justice, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in a split decision today in the Federal Court of Appeal, Justices Linden and Henry decided that the Canadian standard for the issuance of a search of warrant was required to be satisfied before the justice minister submitted the letter of request to the Swiss authorities to search and seize Karlheinz Schrieber's bank documents and records.

In laymen's terms, the Department of Justice was on a fishing expedition without a legal base to do so. This has resulted in an expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayer money defending unjustified actions.

Is the Prime Minister going to waste more taxpayer dollars to appeal this case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to carry on the pretence that he and his government have a legal leg to stand on?

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, every family member of victims who appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-45 opposed the bill. That is why we represent their concerns here today.

Private member's Bill C-234 would have eliminated section 745 from the Criminal Code entirely. The justice minister voted against this bill. By doing so, he voted in favour of Clifford Olson and against the 11 families that lost their children to Clifford Olson.

Can the justice minister today explain to these families and to all Canadians why he voted for Clifford Olson and against the families of these victims?