Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
Petitions December 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present 11 petitions.
The first 35 petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and allow educational reform to take place within the context of the framework agreement in that province.
Bill C-234 December 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, all across the country there is a cry about the justice system and the Young Offenders Act. There is a cry for greater protection for those who are the most vulnerable in our society, our children and our senior citizens.
For the last 25 years that kind of philosophy has held sway in the creation of laws that grant greater and greater rights to the criminal. The Liberals have had the opportunity to show that their philosophy would create a safer society. However, that philosophy, that bleeding heart mentality, has failed. If it had worked it would have been wonderful but it has not worked. It has failed.
The victims of crime who appeared before our committees are crying out for some sort of changes. Those victims are full testimony of which I speak. They represent the common sense of the vast majority of Canadians who are speaking out on this whole issue of crime and the protection of society.
Bill C-234 December 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if this hon. member wants to stand before his voters during the next election and tell them very clearly that he voted in favour of the criminal rather than a safer society on Bill C-45 and on this private member's bill, let him do it.
Although he has taken the time of the House to raise the issue on the gun control bill, he has not told us how the registration of rifles and shotguns will reduce the criminal use of those firearms. Neither has the justice minister nor has any member explained how that will create a safer society.
Why did Reform vote against Bill C-41? We voted against Bill C-41 because the government created alternative measures for violent offenders. When Reform introduced an amendment to exempt violent offenders from alternative measures the government killed that amendment with this member's support.
Not only does Bill C-41 allow a legal process by which violent offenders may never see the inside of courtroom, it also encourages the courts to use conditional sentencing. From the time that Bill C-41 became part of our law two and a half to three months ago, the courts have freed rapists in at least in two cases, and a third one has just come to our attention. Serious violent offenders have been allowed to walk free while their victims have been traumatized and afraid to leave their residences. That is why Reform voted against some of the nonsense that comes down the pipe from the justice minister.
If this member wants to stand before his voters in the next election and debate with myself or any other member in the Reform Party, he will be skinned alive. Why will he get skinned alive? Because Reform wants reasonable and common sense legislation brought forward to deal fairly and in a balanced way with the safety of society and this legislation does not do that.
When our courts are encouraged to give conditional sentences to rapists that allows them to walk free while their victims cringe in their own homes, afraid to walk the streets, afraid to leave their homes, then there is something wrong with our justice system.
We will take them on in the next election and we will deal with these issues. We will allow the people to decide who is sucking and who is blowing. We can see clearly who is sucking and who is blowing in this country. It is the Liberals over there.
Bill C-234 December 12th, 1996
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Merry Christmas to you too.
If the hon. member would like to debate this motion, by all means let him enter into debate to express his concerns about anything I might have to say about this bill.
I will continue to quote what Mrs. Rosenfeldt said when she appeared before the committee. It is important that this House and all citizens of this country know the terror, agony and pain that victims of crime go through. She said:
I have known for the past number of years that it was his right to apply and that in all likelihood he would. Yet for some reason, although my mind knew it could be a reality, my heart, emotions and soul denied it. I was afraid to think about it, so I put my feelings on hold, something I've grown accustomed to. I know how to make certain feelings go numb. I learned how to survive like that.
You see, I have to stay strong because I made a promise to my son as his coffin was being lowered into the ground that I would do everything I could as his mom to ensure that the person responsible for killing him would be brought to justice. I promised I would never leave him until that happened. I know I have to put him to rest and that he
deserves to be put to rest, but the laws in our country prevent both of us from experiencing any peace.
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-.
I hope the justice minister is hearing this. I hope that all members of the House are hearing this eloquent description of the pain and agony this mother is going through and which this government is perpetuating by the actions it has taken. Mrs. Rosenfeldt went on to state:
Why do we have to go through this again? I felt weak and vulnerable. I cannot lose my dignity again-.I went into the family room and I 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.
The justice minister failed to stop Olson. He failed to protect Sharon Rosenfeldt, her family and the 10 other families whose children were murdered by Olson, from feeling shocked, angry, hurt, betrayed, weak and vulnerable. Instead the justice minister and the Liberal government are protecting Clifford Olson and granting him rights he ought not to have by refusing to eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-234 protects the rights of victims. It protects the Rosenfeldts and other victims from enduring the painful memory of having their young children ripped from their lives.
Bill C-234 would abolish section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would take away the rights of killers to a review of their parole ineligibility. In doing so it would restore truth in sentencing by making life mean life with no hope for parole until at least 25 years of that sentence have been served.
In closing, to the members on the other side of the House who voted against Bill C-234, who voted in favour of allowing first degree murderers the opportunity for early release, I ask: What value do they place on the lives of their brothers and sisters and the lives of their children? Do they feel their lives are worth only 15 years? Will the joy and excitement which rings in the voices of their young children be forgotten after just 15 years?
I would like the justice minister and all members of the House to pause, particularly at this time of the season when our thoughts turn to our family members, both close family members and extended family members, and to members of our communities, to our friends and neighbours, and think about their own children and then justify to Canadians why their lives and those of all their family members is worth a meagre 15 years.
Convicted murderers, rapists and others who take it upon themselves to assault or take the life of another human being throw all their rights away the minute they launch their deadly attack, all their rights, except to a fair and just hearing. For the criminal justice system to provide a killer with a so-called glimmer of hope or to restore their rights is a further injustice to the victim, the victim's family and an offence to Canadians because the killers did not offer a glimmer of hope of any kind to their victims. No, they viciously and sadistically murdered them.
Bill C-234 would restore that justice. It would make victims rights a priority. It would protect the families of murder victims. More important, Bill C-234 if adopted by the House, would place some real value on the lives of all Canadians.
I appreciate the Chair having ruled my motion to be in order and for allowing members of the House to make the final decision on Bill C-234. I would ask all members, whether or not they support the bill, to at least bring it back to the House so that it is this House which will make the final decision and not a handful of members of Parliament in the justice committee.
Bill C-234 December 12th, 1996
moved:
That, no later than the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on the tenth sitting day after the adoption of this motion, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code, shall be deemed reported back to the House without amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate what Bill C-234 is all about. Bill C-234 eliminates section 745 of the Criminal Code. It extinguishes the right of a first degree murderer to have their parole ineligibility reviewed after serving only 15 years of a life sentence. Bill C-234 makes a life sentence mean life.
On November 21, 1996, in a ruling that my motion on the Order Paper was in order, the Speaker said: "The motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot in fact provides the committee with a period of time in which to consider and report the bill if it so chooses. At the same time, the motion provides the House with a mechanism to remove the bill, which is its property, from the committee so that the House itself can take up consideration of the bill".
The Speaker further stated: "The House does not know what has occurred in committee and consequently cannot know what amendments the committee has made to the bill. Therefore, if the House wishes to once again take possession of the bill, then the inclusion of the words "without amendment" establishes clearly that the House will be dealing with the text of the bill it adopted at second reading".
My motion is based on my privileges and those of my colleagues being breached.
The action of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs not reporting Bill C-234 back to the House impedes members from performing their legislative duties. It impedes members from debating in this House, an open forum unlike the committee, an issue which is of utmost concern to our constituents.
On December 13, 1994, Bill C-234 formerly Bill C-226, was referred to the justice committee by a majority of votes in this House. The minister of defence who was then the Minister of Transport, and the member for Vancouver-Quadra, along with 72 of their colleagues and all Reform members present in the House voted to send Bill C-234 to committee. All members who voted to send Bill C-234 to committee fully expected it to be reported back to the House, providing members another opportunity to debate the bill and where the final determination upon the bill could be made and I suggest should be made.
The fate of this private member's bill, the fate of all private members' bills should not be left in the hands of just a few committee members beyond the authority of this House. The House gave life to the bill and only the House has the authority in its final determination. For a committee to kill a bill which was given life by this House and a majority of its members is a violation of our privileges as members of Parliament.
Bill C-234 was circumvented by the justice minister's Bill C-45. The committee allowed Bill C-45 to take precedence over the private member's bill. Bill C-234 was introduced almost two years before Bill C-45 yet Bill C-45, a government bill, was the bill chosen by the committee to be dealt with first. If I had not put a motion forward in committee to have Bill C-234 dealt with, this
private member's bill would still likely be in limbo today in the justice committee.
Bill C-234 was dealt with simultaneously with Bill C-45. However, Liberal members of the committee were obviously more favourable toward the minister's bill which clearly led to the demise of Bill C-234.
This was evident in that Bill C-45 was promptly returned to the House. In only 11 days, Bill C-45 was introduced, sent to committee, reviewed in committee, debated at report stage and third reading and passed. All this was done with less than two weeks before Parliament recessed for the summer.
The justice minister had almost three years to introduce bill C-45, but he chose to drag his feet. He chose to introduce Bill C-45 at the eleventh hour. The justice minister chose to gamble with the emotions of the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were murdered by Olson. The justice minister lost that gamble.
The justice minister is directly responsible for Clifford Olson's August 12 bid for early release. He is directly accountable to the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were ripped from their lives by the hands of Clifford Olson. The justice minister is responsible for Clifford Olson's newsmaking attempts for early release.
The justice minister claimed Bill C-45 was not about Clifford Olson. He claimed the bill was not a result of Olson's August 12, 1996 date to make application for early release. Why then was the minister and his government so intent that the bill be passed before the summer recess? Why did the Liberal government ask us and the Bloc not to unduly delay this bill?
We provided our co-operation despite the fact that we do not support Bill C-45. We did not then and we still do not support it. We gave our word that we would not block the passage of the bill because we did not want to be responsible in any way for Olson's bid for early release. Unlike the Liberal justice minister, we did not want the Rosenfeldts and the other families to have to relive a nightmare they have endured for the past 15 years.
Although Bill C-45 would still give the likes of Olson an appeal to a judge, which I find absolutely repugnant and beneath contempt, there was the possibility that he could be denied the full judge and jury hearing he now has under section 745 by virtue of the actions of this government.
Bill C-45 was stalled by the Senate and Olson once again grabbed the spotlight he so predictably seeks.
For the benefit of the members of this House who do not sit on the justice committee, I would like to read the testimony given by Sharon Rosenfeldt before that committee on June 18:
Emotional upheaval-that was what I felt on February 8, 1996, when I found out that Clifford Olson, the killer of my son, had applied for his 15-year judicial review. I do realize that the full application cannot be made until August 12, but I know that all the paperwork is ready.
I have known for the past number of years-
Criminal Code December 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to support the private member's bill by the hon. member for Mississauga East. This is a good bill. It is therefore regrettable that it has not been deemed votable.
The member who moved this bill has given one of the most eloquent speeches I have ever heard made in this House. It so clearly described the control that the bleeding heart mentality has had upon the justice system for the past 25 years.
The Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in this government through added private members' bills. By the admission of the member for Mississauga East, one of the Liberal's own backbenchers, this promise has been broken. The government backbencher accused the Liberal dominated four member committee that determines which private members' bills will be votable of short circuiting controversial bills such as this bill.
The Mississauga East MP said: "We supposedly have open government but we have secret committees and I would guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I am not suggesting it is a kangaroo court. It is more like a cockroach court. You cannot see them at work and they run".
The hon. member was also quoted in the Hill Times a couple of months ago as saying: ``If I had a bill on lawn care, I bet I would have success in getting it through the committee. If I had a bill that offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the place in a week. But if you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct an obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate''.
I could not agree with a member more. The member made these comments in reference to her private member's bill on consecutive sentencing, Bill C-321, which was rejected by her colleagues.
Harsher comments appeared in the Hill Times yesterday in reference to Private Members' Business. These words, which I would like to reiterate, are from Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of murder victim Leslie Mahaffy:
I am disgusted but not surprised by the heartless comments on the issue of consecutive sentencing that came out of the flapping mouths of government Liberal members as recorded in your paper on November 11, "MPs Slag Private Members' Business".
-the Secretary of State for the Status of Women says she was not familiar with this serious issue for victims' families because she had not attended caucus that week and as a result had nothing to say. Could it be that the issue of consecutive sentencing has been at more caucus meetings than she? Or perhaps she simply doesn't read newspapers about serious issues of crime.
Another cruel remark dealing with sentencing of serial predators made by another bright light Liberal-
She named the Liberal which I am not allowed to do, but that Liberal happens to be the chair of the women's caucus.
-chair of the women's caucus is equally inane. Her diatribe that she might support consecutive sentencing if (the member for Mississauga East) brings the issue to the forefront again is mindless and absurd to say the least. The fact that she made this comment after consulting with the justice minister and the Liberal (member for Mississauga West) adds to the obscenity. With this calibre of consultants, I suggest it is time for (the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore) to seek better advisers.
I have omitted a small portion of Mrs. Mahaffy's letter to the Hill Times but I would like to read her last paragraph which has been quoted already in this House but deserves being quoted again. She said: ``Shame on all of you for adding to our pain and for your lack of humanity and the lack of wisdom to make a difference''.
I will also read from an article which appeared on November 27 in a B.C. newspaper regarding the justice committee's national forum on youth justice. For the record, I did not support the expenditure of $60,000 to host this meeting because I felt we would be going over old ground by hearing from a number of witnesses who had already appeared before the committee. My opposition to this wasteful use of taxpayers' money caused me to endure a berating and to have obscenities thrown at me by the chair of the committee.
Nevertheless I quote from that article:
Ottawa was a bust for Chuck Cadman. Cadman, whose teenage son Jesse was stabbed to death by another teen four years ago, was invited to speak before the federal standing committee on justice affairs last weekend in Canada's capital city. But the Guildford dad who founded the victims rights group Crime, Responsibility and Youth (CRY) after his son was murdered, says the trip was a waste of time. "I spoke maybe five minutes total", he said. "It was a joke. I shouldn't have even bothered going. The meeting was poorly chaired", he charged.
Of 33 participants, Cadman said, only himself and a representative of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT), another victims' rights group, spoke from the victims' perspective. The other participants were lawyers, criminologists and members of groups like the John Howard society, a group advocating convicts' rights. Everything else was geared to the rights of offenders Cadman said. "I was the only person in the whole bunch who took the victims' side to anything", he said, "and someone from CAVEAT". He said he appreciated being asked to attend, but added, "it was so obviously one-sided".
It certainly is not the first time a witness or an observer has called the committee a bust or a sham. The mayor of Cornwall walked out on the committee calling it a complete waste of time and accusing the committee of being predisposed. I am a member of that committee and sometimes I cannot disagree with the observations of Mr. Cadman and the mayor of Cornwall.
So far in this Parliament, 16 private members' bills have been introduced to reform Canada's criminal justice system. What has happened to the vast majority of these bills? Absolutely nothing.
This includes Bill C-234 of the member for York South-Weston. This very necessary bill has not become law. It did not even come back to the floor of the House of Commons because the Liberal members of the justice committee killed it. They did this despite the fact that Bill C-234 has the overwhelming support of the Canadian Police Association, Victims of Violence, and tens of thousands of Canadians who have written letters and signed petitions.
Bill C-234 most certainly has the support of the Reform Party because this private member's bill would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would extinguish a killer's glimmer of hope for being released before serving his full life sentence. It is an injustice that members of this House who gave life to Bill C-234 were denied the opportunity to dispense with or pass this most important private member's bill.
It is also an injustice that the bill of the member for Mississauga East has not been deemed votable. This bill should become law.
Bill C-321 provides for truth in sentencing, a true Reform principle. Bill C-321 provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences on a person who commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same event or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.
Bill C-321 should be expanded to include all offences. No one should get a free crime ride but that is precisely what we do in this country. We permit sexual offenders and other offenders to commit two, three or more offences and serve only one sentence as the other sentences are served concurrently. This is absolutely absurd.
It is also absurd that we permit multiple murderers such as Clifford Olson who killed 11 children to serve only one life sentence when he should be serving 11 sentences. Each of the innocent lives he stole should be validated. Each life is worth at the very least a life sentence. Likewise a person who commits multiple crimes should be given an appropriate sentence for each and every crime. Bill C-321 would end this absurdity. It would put an end to freebie crimes in this country. Therefore I support the member and her bill. I support truth in sentencing.
At this time I would ask for unanimous consent one more time from this House that this motion become a votable motion.
Excise Tax Act December 3rd, 1996
Read it.
Impaired Driving December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and extend my appreciation to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for bringing this motion forward and for his determination to have this area explored in view of our desire and thousands of Canadians' concerns about the possible reform of our impaired driving laws at the federal level.
The hon. member for Halifax has quite rightly pointed out the maximum penalties for drinking and driving, but that is not the issue. The issue is the courts are not issuing penalties anywhere near the maximums. The concern is that there should be minimum penalties which the courts must deal with.
This House passes legislation in order to tell the courts what to do, which is exactly what this motion is designed to do. At least it brings forward the opportunity for reasoned debate on this very important issue.
There are over 110,000 members in the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization. This organization was born out of the anguish and pain caused by impaired or drunk driving. This organization was formed as a result of the inaction of the federal government. If the government were addressing this issue, this organization would not have any need or basis to lobby, to raise funds and to do what it can to bring this matter to the attention of politicians who seem oblivious to the need to do something in this area.
Last Thursday night I arrived home in Cameras, Alberta. The very next evening a drunk driver ran into a car which was being driven by a father. The mother was in the front passenger seat and their four children were in the back. Both the mother and father were killed while the children were left alive. The oldest is fourteen and the youngest is five. It happened in the area of Armenia which is in my constituency as a result of the boundary change. The family was from the small city of Cameras which has a population of approximately 12,000 to 13,000.
That catastrophe will touch thousands of people in that area. And what is being done about it? Nothing is being done about it at the federal level. Some of the statistics on the subject have been introduced into this debate by my colleagues. From 1983 to 1991, 17,630 people died in Canada in alcohol related crashes and 1.1 million people were injured. In 1992, 14,014 were killed. In 1987, 5.2 million days of employment activity were lost.
Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in 1995: "Every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the country". I hope this is not lost on hon. members.
The justice minister stood in this House and justified Bill C-68 at least in part with the horrific statistic that every six days a woman is shot to death in this country. I would just point out that every six hours someone is killed in this country by an impaired driver. Certainly the House and the Government of Canada should be looking at this issue. It should not simply brush it aside because as the member for Halifax has stated the maximum penalties are what they are; the maximum penalties are not worth the powder to blow them up unless they are utilized. What is the purpose of having a maximum penalty if the courts never consider the maximum penalty or anything near the maximum penalty?
I understand my time has expired. I have appreciated the time to speak and perhaps I will be able to continue later.
Judges Act November 28th, 1996
Minimum? Minimum?
Judges Act November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward by the government as a very simple and straightforward bill, a bill that we were advised was housekeeping and a kind of innocuous bill. However, the more we look at it and the more I hear about it from people trained in the legal field, the more concern I have about it.
Some of the concerns I have are of course justified by what the justice minister has said.
I would just like to quote what the justice minister told the Senate committee when he appeared before that committee earlier this year: "There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge such as Madam Justice Arbour to be granted a leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the UN. Nor does the act permit the salary and expenses of a judge during a period of leave to be paid by any organization or entity other than the Government of Canada or, in the case of expenses, by the government of a province.
"The amendments to the bill now before this committee have the full support of the Chief Justice of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council. They would permit this type of arrangement to be entered into by Madam Justice Arbour and, in exception cases, by other judges. The provision contained in the bill's proposed new section 56.1 would be a narrow exception to the general prohibition set out in section 55 of the Judges Act against the judge engaging in any occupation or business other than her or his judicial duty".
If that is accurate, if the purpose of section 56.1 would be a narrow exception to the general prohibition set out in section 55 of the existing Judges Act against any judge engaging in any occupation or business other than her or his judicial business, it seems very clear that this act should have been passed before Judge Arbour accepted the appointment to her position with the UN on August 1.
What is the situation today? This bill went before the Senate and it came back with an amendment that I have some concerns about and which I will be offering an amendment to.
The question is very clear and of great concern. Is Judge Arbour now in violation of section 55 of the Judges Act? If she is not, what is the purpose of this particular amendment, section 56.1, which would exempt her from section 55, which creates a prohibition for her or other judges to accept employment in any other form?
We now have an Ontario federal court justice who has now accepted a position with the UN, a prestigious position, there is no question. However, there are at least three learned individuals who have expressed concerns about Bill C-42. Professor Morton appeared before the committee. In another debate on another amendment to the bill, I spoke to the comments he made before the committee. Professor Russell and Professor Manfredi also expressed grave concerns about the legality of what is happening here.
I am not going to belabour the House at this time on this bill. I am simply going to move the following motion:
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees with amendment 1 made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, and that this House agrees with the principles set out in amendment 2, but would propose the following amendments:
Insert the words "for a period not to exceed three years" after the words "judicial duties" in section 56.1(1); and
Strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following: "If Madam Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses, in connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations"; and
That the following words be added to section 56.1(3): "notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary, fee, remuneration or other emolument described in section 57"; and
That the following words be added to section 56.1(5): "and that benefits payable under these sections will be paid or will commence to be paid at the expiration of the leave of absence without pay".