Jack Ramsay

[Criminal Code, October 4th, 1996]

He will be able to appeal after 15 years.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to follow my leader in this final debate on this bill. I rise today to speak once more in opposition to Bill C-45 because it demeans the value of a human life and it is unworthy of support.

I have repeatedly stood in this House, as have my colleagues, and asked one simple question, a question the justice minister and the Liberal government have failed to answer. What is a fair and just penalty for the taking of an innocent life?

Last week when I was in Quebec with the standing committee which is in the process of reviewing the Young Offenders Act, I had an opportunity to meet with several convicted first degree murderers.

One young man had killed his mother, father and brother. Another had stabbed his girlfriend 18 times. I asked them what they believed was a fair and just penalty for their crimes. I asked if 10 years was enough for what they had done. They said: "If we were to ask the victims if 10 years was long enough the answer would be no. If we were to ask them if 25 years was long enough, the answer would still be no". No length of time would be long enough in the eyes of their victims according to these murderers.

What then would be an appropriate penalty? We must answer this question. This unanswered question remains at the heart of today's debate.

On February 24, 1976 the Liberal government introduced Bill C-84 to abolish the death penalty and to create two new categories of murder, first and second degree murder, both of which carried a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Those convicted of first degree murder were to serve 25 years before being eligible for parole while second degree murderers would serve between 10 and 25 years prior to release.

The 25 year minimum for first degree murder was the Liberal government's trade off for the abolition of the death penalty. Instead of the death penalty society was to be protected by the incarceration for life of those who deliberately and with premeditation killed with no consideration for parole until a minimum of 25 years had been served.

However, unbeknown to the vast majority of Canadians, the Liberal government of the day betrayed them by slipping section 745 into the Criminal Code. Section 745 nullifies the term life imprisonment and bestows on killers an unjustifiable right to early release before serving a minimum of 25 years.

An hon. member who spoke earlier is absolutely right when he quoted me as saying a life sentence is not about rehabilitation. I mention it because of the importance of this issue. It is about punishment. What is a fair and just punishment for the wilful premeditated taking of an innocent life, particularly of our children?

It is also about retribution for the most horrible crime in society, the unlawful taking of an innocent life and the devastating affect this has on society. Liberals do not believe in punishment, at least those who run the Liberal government. They do not believe in punishment or retribution, only in rehabilitation. That is what we have been getting from the bleeding hearts for the past 25 years. They tolerate the most extreme crimes in society at the expense of law-abiding Canadians. They mock and scorn the requests of all those who seek the removal of section 745 of the Criminal Code in its entirety.

The pathetic performance today by the member for Kingston and the Islands is a typical example of that mocking and scorning that goes on in this House on such a very serious matter. In the absence of capital punishment I am confident Canadians, as the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police believe, the minimum penalty for first degree murder should be life imprisonment with absolutely no chance of parole until at the very least 25 years have been served.

The government talks about the glimmer of hope. There is the glimmer of hope which all Canadians would support and that is after 25 years give that individual, if rehabilitated, an opportunity for parole.

Bill C-45 does not meet those demands. Bill C-45 does not ensure a minimum of 25 years imprisonment. In fact, Bill C-45 is nothing more than a meagre attempt by the justice minister to sugar coat this repulsive provision of the Criminal Code for reasons of political expediency. This is not just my view. This is shared by victims' groups all across this country.

To amplify this point I would like to read to the House portions of a recent letter addressed to the justice minister by Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy on behalf of Action for Victims:

How can you skate over the glaring surety of a charter challenge regarding slapping an electronic bracelet on an innocent yet potential high risk offender but fail to deal adequately with releasing convicted first and second degree murderers? Oh right, they only lost their freedom of movement for a determined number of years but earn their rights to an early release.

Shelving C-45 and Olson's judicial review and finally giving more than a quick look at high risk offenders by actual legislation looks like, sounds like a pre-election handout to me. It is obvious that you may be able to avoid ever having to deal with Olson's judicial review or the contentious Bill C-45, as they can be put on a slow back burner until the election is over. But we will not fail to recognize that this shuffling of files on your desk is just clever politics.

We hear from a mother who lost her daughter at the hands of a murderer expressing her concern to the justice minister in as eloquent a manner I suppose as I have see yet.

Bill C-45 strips multiple or serial killers of the right to apply for early parole and creates an additional bureaucratic hurdle for single killers to jump before exercising their right to a full jury review of their parole ineligibility. Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which allows for the expenditure of additional funds for section 745 appeals.

When questioned in June, the justice minister said the extra money will be allocated to Correctional Service Canada for longer periods of incarceration for those killers denied a judicial review by a jury. This is misleading and an absolute joke. The justice minister via Bill C-45 has set up another level of appeal for first degree murderers and this is what will incur additional costs. Multiple killers currently incarcerated will not apply directly to a jury but must first satisfy a superior court judge that their application for a reduction in parole will have a reasonable prospect of success.

If the superior court judge denies one of these 28 multiple murderers their right for a judicial review by a jury they can appeal this decision to a higher court, of course at taxpayer expense.

As well, if the jury denies them a reduction in their parole ineligibility, provisions within section 745 allow them to apply again. The same process will be applicable to all first degree murderers. I question the necessity for extra funding in this regard, given the number of criminals, including violent criminals, who will never see the inside of a prison as a result of the Liberals'

alternative measures as contained in Bill C-41 and the change from indictable offences to summary conviction fines as prescribed in Bill C-17.

Bill C-45 may delay but will not prevent killers from getting a judicial review and ultimately a reduction in their parole ineligibility. Bill C-45 and the review of a killer's application by a judge will do nothing but add an expensive layer of bureaucracy to our growing justice industry.

This will add to Canadians' financial strain and undermine their personal security. The minister's June 11 introduction of Bill C-45 just 10 days before the House recessed for the summer was nothing more than a half baked attempt to deflect criticism for not preventing Clifford Olson from once again making headlines despite the fact he had almost three years and ample support to bring this bill before the House.

The minister's efforts to limit child serial killer Clifford Olson's bid for early release failed. To the horror of all Canadians who have shared the pain of the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were brutally ripped from their lives on August 12, 1996, Clifford Olson was eligible to apply for early release.

As revealed in the court challenge on Bill C-68 launched by the governments of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Yukon, the minister did not adequately consult his provincial counterparts regarding that bill. I would respectfully suggest that the provincial attorneys general are not alone. Canadians have not been consulted with regard to Bill C-45. Canadians have not been granted by this Liberal government an opportunity to be heard on the issue of section 745, as they have not been granted an opportunity to voice their opinion on capital punishment.

I conclude by saying again that I oppose Bill C-45 because it is unworthy of my support.

[Justice, October 2nd, 1996]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we recognize in the minister's response that he is forgetting one more time about the victims of crime.

Fourteen years ago Darlene Boyd's teenage daughter was raped and murdered, her body burned by Jim Peters. In four months this murderer can apply for early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code.

How can the justice minister justify putting Darlene Boyd through this torment and anguish one more time?

[Justice, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the justice minister continues to support the right of murders to a full judge and jury review of their parole ineligibility after serving just 15 years of a life sentence. By doing so, the justice minister continues to support the criminal and ignores the pain and anguish of the families of murder victims.

The minister and his government have repeatedly taken the side of the criminal at the expense of law abiding Canadians. Why does the minister of justice not eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code completely and deny all first degree murderers, including Clifford Olson, any opportunity for early release and demonstrate his willingness to come down on the side of the victim?

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to anyone who understands the circumstances that Judge Reed's fear is a direct result of the justice minister's failure to exercise his authority to protect the judicial independence of the courts.

The minister should have immediately suspended Ted Thompson and launched a complaint against his senior official as well as Chief Justice Julius Isaac with the Canadian Judicial Council for their unprecedented interference into the independence of a sitting judge.

Why did the minister not take every reasonable action to immediately assure judges that any interference into their independence would not be tolerated?

[Justice, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that fear is spreading within our justice system. Madam Justice Barbara Reed has expressed her fear of making a court decision that goes against the whims of the government.

Justice Reed states in a letter to the Toronto Star that: ``I am shaken by the thought of the vitriolic attacks I must expect to endure if I make a decision unfavourable to the government''.

What has the justice minister done to create such unprecedented fear in the mind of this judge?

[Bill C-68, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last year the justice minister repeatedly stood in the House and assured all members he had consulted extensively on Bill C-68.

He also stated that he was in continuous consultation with the offices of the provincial attorneys general. The attorneys general from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon appeared before the standing committee and testified that these statements were not accurate and that only minimal consultation had occurred at best. The James Bay Cree and the Yukon First Nations also told us they had not been consulted. Yet the minister emphatically insisted that consultation had occurred.

We now have irrefutable evidence that the minister's statements were inaccurate. Many feel, as I do, that we have been mislead. The proof is this. The governments of Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon have launched a court challenge against the registration portion of Bill C-68.

The lack of consultation has led to an unnecessary legal confrontation with huge financial repercussions for taxpayers. It has also destroyed the credibility of the justice minister of Canada.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

We have a $600 billion debt.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, from my understanding of the ruling, I cannot use the word "guts" in my speech. Is that true? Because it would fit nicely in my speech as I address some of the points we have heard from the other side.

I rise today in support of my colleague's bill, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, private member's Bill C-261. Bill C-261 is about giving Canadians an opportunity to voice their opinion on one of the most contentious issues in Canadian history, the use of the death penalty for first degree murder.

It is strange for me to hear my colleague from the Bloc who just addressed the House say he is in favour of the democratic process in their referendums, where the direction and the guidance and the operation of the country is done by the will of a majority when it comes to electing him to his seat in the House. But after he is elected to his seat in the House he is saying to 69 per cent of the people who are opting for a referendum or opting for a second look at the death penalty: "You do not know what is in your own best interests, so you are going to have to trust me". That is what the member from the Liberal side has been saying.

They are saying to the people of Canada: "You know what is in your best interest when you elect me to the House, but after that, on issues like capital punishment or other issues that impact on the individual from a moral point of view, you have to leave those decisions to me because I know what is best for you. You do not know what is best for you, your family, your community or your nation. That has to be left to the elites like us". That is what this member is saying and that is what the Bloc member has been saying.

I do not want to focus my comments on the point of capital punishment. I do not want to take up any more time of the House debating the pros and cons of capital punishment. I chose today to focus on the issue of democracy because this is the essence of my colleague's private member's Bill C-261.

Bill C-261 is an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act. I support the use of national referendums to determine the will of the majority on issues of a moral or contentious nature. If the Liberal government believed in democracy, if it truly believed the majority rules in this country, it would support the use of national referendums and support this private member's bill.

Liberal members would put aside their Liberal philosophies and personal biases regarding the use of the death penalty and they would allow Canadians through this democratic means to decide the fate of first degree murderers.

The definition of democracy contained in the Gage Canadian Dictionary is not unlike those found in most other dictionaries:

1) a government that is periodically elected and thus controlled by the people who live under it. Under a democracy, the people rule either by direct vote at public meetings or indirectly through the election of certain representatives to govern them;

2) the ideals and principles of such a government, such as equality of rights and opportunities and the rule of the majority;

A democracy is formed by the will of the majority, not by minorities, special interest groups or lobby groups. The majority elects a government to establish laws and programs that protect the lives and property, the liberties and the freedoms of all its citizens.

The greatest guarantee to the individual of these fundamental rights and freedoms is found in the expressed will of a well educated and informed majority.

Historically, these characteristics have formed the strongest stabilizing force within society. A group of nations, supported by their majorities, freed the world of the Nazi regime which denied millions their liberties, their freedoms and their very rights to live and own property.

It was the will of a majority of Americans who demanded Afro-Americans have the freedom to vote over the objection of a minority. It was a host of nations, supported again by their majorities, that turned back the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Although history may provide exceptions, the greatest violations of fundamental human rights have occurred at the hands of minority groups and elite groups like those represented by the voice over here. It has been nations governed by majority rule that have established and maintained to the greatest degree the fundamental rights of the individual.

The leader of the federal Tories ignored the determination of his youth delegates on the question of capital punishment at their recent convention. The Reform Party believes this issue must be decided by the majority of Canadians in a free and open vote after all aspects have been fully debated.

Our method is democratic. The Tory leader's method is not. Neither is the method of the Liberal Party so far heard expressed today in this debate.

The top down, autocratic leadership displayed by the Tory leader and by this government is what gave rise to the Reform Party of Canada in the first place and is the type of leadership that leads to a violation of fundamental human rights.

The previous Tory-Liberal governments' undemocratic form of leadership has plunged our country into a $600 billion debt hole. This debt has been created, at least in part, by the establishment of grants and programs aimed at special interest groups without the consent of the majority.

The greatest threat to our social and economic stability of our families, individuals and our nation is the unlimited power of government to tax away our property and our wealth without our consent.

The issue of Quebec sovereignty dominates in the provincial legislature to their economic detriment. The Bloc keep pressing the issue in the House despite the fact that the majority was heard, despite the fact that referendums on Quebec separation produced a no vote not once, but twice.

The reinstatement of capital punishment cannot be determined by the Liberal government alone. We know only too well whose side the Liberals are on in this contentious debate on capital punishment. We know whose side they are on in the debate on Bill C-45.

Unlike the Reform Party, the Liberal government and the leader of the Tory party are not on the side of the murder victims and their families. The Liberal government is on the side of the killers. This was evident in its opposition to the private member's bill repealing section 745 and in its support of Bill C-45 which continues to grant first degree murderers an avenue for early release.

This was never more obvious than it was yesterday when the parliamentary secretary accused us of exploiting the families of murder victims, which, as I said in the House yesterday, was beneath contempt. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River accused us of exploiting the families of murder victims for political purposes. He said: "The Reform are always interested in talking about the effects on the victims". Yes, we are always interested in talking about the devastating effects of murder on the families of murder victims. We have a duty and a responsibility in talking about the horrifying trauma of victims' families knowing their son's or daughter's killer may be released early as a result of section 745.

I will have the hon. member and his colleagues know that I have been contacted by families of murder victims. They have thanked

me and all colleagues in the House for telling their painful stories to Canadians and what section 745 means to them; for telling Canadians how section 745, the Liberal made glimmer of hope for the most sadistic people in our society, has made them relive their nightmares.

If the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and his Liberal colleagues do not want to talk about the victims, if they want to remain in their ivory towers, oblivious to the real pain and suffering which is occurring in the country, then so be it. We will remain in touch with the people, the people's feelings and their concerns.

In closing I say this: The reinstatement of capital punishment ought not to be determined by the House, a handful of politicians; it should only be determined by a majority of Canadians. This is the nature of democracy, a majority rule, which most citizens have no difficulty whatever in understanding.

[Justice, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Wilfrid Beaulieu has been waiting for word on his 690 application from the justice minister for over two years. Richard McArthur has been waiting longer than that.

It is unbelievable that Clifford Olson, a serial child killer, is guaranteed a review of his parole ineligibility by this government while the Beaulieus and the McArthurs wait almost indefinitely at the pleasure of the justice minister in the face of evidence that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

When can Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. McArthur expect a decision on their 690 applications?