Mr. Speaker, I support the hoist. In fact I would like to see this bill hoisted forever without a glimmer of hope of ever being returned.
As I rise to address Bill C-45, I will first comment on two points in the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
He suggested today in his speech that the removal of a parole application is barred by the principle of retroactivity. That is really what section 745 is. It is a section that allows for a parole application for the reduction of the parole ineligibility of a life sentence. The legal advice we have received is that the removal of section 745 would affect all people who are imprisoned at the present time and who would wish to apply. This would deny them the right to apply and it would be sound and constitutional.
I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's statements and he suggested that members of Parliament, including Reform members of Parliament, would use the pain and agony and suffering of families who have had their children murdered for the purpose of partisan political gain. If I understood him correctly, in my humble opinion that statement is beneath contempt.
I oppose this piece of legislation which in my mind and that of many Canadians demeans the value of a human life. Bill C-45 clearly demonstrates that the Liberal justice minister and a majority of his Liberal colleagues place very little worth on the lives of Canadians.
I would like each of the members of this House who voted in favour of Bill C-45, who voted to allow first degree murderers the opportunity for early release, to ask themselves: What value do they place on the lives of their brothers and sisters or the lives of their children? Do they feel their lives are only worth 15 years? Would the joy and excitement which rings in the voices of their young children and grandchildren be forgotten after 15 years?
I would like the justice minister to ask the Rosenfeldts when they attend the justice committee hearings today if they have forgotten how their son once smiled and laughed, or if they have forgotten how it felt to cradle and comfort their young child.
I would like the justice minister to ask the Rosenfeldts how they felt the day they learned Daryn was tortured, sexually assaulted and killed by the deranged Clifford Olson.
I would like the justice minister to ask Mrs. Rosenfeldt how she feels every time she is forced to think about Daryn's last hours of life, or how she felt on August 12 when Olson exercised his right for early release courtesy of the Liberal government.
I would like the justice minister to look into the eyes of Mrs. Rosenfeldt and explain why he supports the bid for early release of her son's killer. I would like the justice minister and all members to pause and think about our own children and grandchildren and then justify to Mrs. Rosenfeldt why her son's life is worth a meagre 15 years.
The 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 at the hand of this man.
The justice minister is responsible for Clifford Olson's news making 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 insistent that the bill be passed before the summer recess? Why did the Liberal government ask us and the Bloc not to unduly delay the bill?
We provided our co-operation despite the fact we do not support Bill C-45. 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 at early release. We did not want the Rosenfeldts and the other families to have to relive the nightmare they have endured for the past 15 years.
And although Bill C-45 would still give the likes of Olson an appeal to a judge, which I find beneath contempt, there is the possibility he could be denied a full judge and jury hearing he now has under section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The justice minister has 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 killed by Olson and he lost that gamble. Bill C-45 did not pass and Olson once again grabbed the spotlight he so predictably seeks.
For the benefit of the members of this House that do not sit on the justice committee, I would like to read the testimony given by Sharon Rosenfeldt 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 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 have 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 should not feel shock. I felt angry but I should not feel angry. I felt hurt but I should not be hurting. I felt betrayed and I felt panic. I could not breathe and I could not stay still. I kept pacing from room to room. I wanted to cry. I wanted to scream and I wanted to run again-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 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 and he failed to protect Sharon Rosenfeldt, her family, and the 10 other families whose children were murdered by Olson from feeling shock, angry, hurt, betrayed, weak, or vulnerable. Instead the justice minister and the Liberal government are protecting the rights of Clifford Olson by refusing to eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code. To emphasize my statement I would like to quote Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy who said:
You, this justice committee, and I wager every MP and MPP in Canada, have not heard the screams of terror and the cries of their child as she plead with her killers to let her live, to let her come home, but everyone has heard the synthetic cries of murderers wanting protection in prison for his or her safety, or wanting better food or a bigger cell, or no cell mate, or a different cell mate, or release from prison. The wants and the wishes of the murderers are even given fiscal priority over the needs of victims' families whose members need professional counselling: the mothers, fathers, siblings of all ages, grandparents, cousins and friends whose lives are forever changed.
I cannot begin to imagine the pain these parents experienced when they were told their children had been taken from them. I attempt to empathize with the families of murder victims, however, I cannot fully understand the depth of horror they have gone through. To have this agony awakened by a section 745 application provided by the Government of Canada is beneath contempt. Like them, I believe the lives of their children are worth much, much more than 15 years.
Bill C-45 and the justice minister's last ditch attempt to pass a bill of this nature clearly shows that the minister does not empathize with the families of murder victims and the nightmares they endure as a result of the reliving of the heinous crimes committed against their children and grandchildren. Instead the sympathy is with the murderers of our children, the Olsons and the Bernardos.
Bill C-45 clearly shows that the letter written to him by Sylvain Leduc's grandmother, Teresa McQuaig, had absolutely no impact on him. This grandmother's pain and her plea did not change the justice minister's support for the early release of first degree murderers or his attitude toward justice.
Here is what Sylvain's grandmother said in her letter to the justice minister:
The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked and cold in a morgue. My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death. I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I could not stand it until I knew he had clothes on him.
My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this intestinal fortitude, but I call it my soul. It is there that love, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell. The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb and on other days it is like jello. It has lost its desire for living. It does not care much about everyday things any more. It has lost its desire for food, sex, enjoyment, travel and books. There is a emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it. Horror and fear live there also.
Sylvain's murderers have done this to me. When all is quiet I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull those horrible pictures. I receive psychiatric care but I find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense and it takes so much energy to get there. I find it also hopeless. I feel like a dead flower who has been trampled down. I feel like I have been robbed.
That forms part of the letter to the justice minister. For the justice minister to allow that anguish to keep festering to allow this grandmother's wounds to be opened and reopened is wrong. Yet that is precisely what Bill C-45 allows. Every time a killer applies for a judicial review of his parole the family and society relive the horrible memories and live in terror of the day these killers will be released early from prison.
I would like to share with the House the feelings and memories of two other mothers whose children were murdered and who presented testimony to the justice committee. The justice minister
should have been present during Mrs. Boyd's and Mrs. Mahaffy's testimony. He should have faced these two grieving mothers and publicly explained to them why he places only a value of 15 years on the lives of their children and why he is not protecting these grieving mothers instead of those who have murdered their children.
I begin with Darlene Boyd:
In 1982 our 16-year old daughter Laurie was abducted, sexually assaulted repeatedly and stabbed 18 times. They did not leave her any dignity. They then proceeded to douse her body with gasoline and set her on fire. She was the second victim. There was a High River girl. It was the same scenario, but they beat her head with a tire iron.
This is what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who commit heinous crimes like this. I truly believe that the man who took our daughter's life and that of the young girl from High River is not and never will be rehabilitation material, especially after serving only 15 years in his confined environment. To rehabilitate there has to be some spark of remorse, and James Peters did not demonstrate any of this. The chance of filtering men like James Peters back into society after 15 years through the system we now have is too great a risk. We will be digging more graves for innocent people.
Truth in sentencing must be addressed here. Our maximum penalty for murder in this country is life with no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years. This, however, is a lie and the lie is still going on. They are still telling this lie at the time of sentencing. Nobody told us about section 745. We found out about it from a newspaperman, not from the parole board or the legal system, but from a newspaperman. That demeans Laurie's life right there, I would say.
Section 745, Bill C-45 and the members sitting on that side of the House heave demeaned Laurie Boyd's life as they have demeaned the life of all Canadians through their continued support of a murderer's right to early release. Section 745 provides killers with an avenue of early release. This makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.
In the absence of the death penalty the only just and fair penalty for premeditated first degree murder is life imprisonment. To those who say that we do not have a glimmer of hope without section 745, I would suggest to them that there is a glimmer of hope after 25 years because that is what the law states. No parole for 25 years. They do have an opportunity of parole after serving 25 years.
Although Debbie Mahaffy does not support the return of capital punishment, she does support the complete repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy believes section 745 should be repealed because she believes her daughter Leslie's life is worth at the very least life imprisonment without the eligibility of parole for 25 years. I quote Mrs. Mahaffy's testimony of June 18 this year:
To do anything less than that is to say the best is irresponsible, unconscionable and does not represent our Canadian values of zero tolerance of violence, but continues to erode the sanctity and the preciousness of life and fairness. My family and all victims' family members have to recover from a death that is not normal. The bereavement is not normal, the grief is not normal, the recovery is not normal, and to build, to redefine, to live a new and normal life will take a lifetime, not just 25 years, but the rest of my life.
I am talking in absolutes. Twenty five years is absolutely 25 years before considering a release back into society, because that is the closest balance our government could ever come to my absolute pain and other victims' families' absolute pain and slow rehabilitation to a much lesser degree of happiness for the rest of my life. This absolute pain is felt by a growing and hourly increase in the number of Canadians who feel this absolute loss of joy. Our loved ones are absolutely dead. Killers receive nothing more absolute than the guarantee of their life in custody for 25 years.
Bill C-45 does not provide the absolute guarantee of life in custody for at least 25 years. It is precisely for that reason that Bill C-45 is being opposed by Debbie Mahaffy, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Darlene Boyd, the Canadian Police Association and I would suggest a majority of Canadians.
On Tuesday of this week the justice minister stood in the company of the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police when he introduced his legislative initiatives in Bill C-55 with regard to dangerous offenders. In reference to Bill C-55, Darlene Boyd said: "The minister is trying to deflect attention from the contentious Bill C-45 by introducing dangerous offender legislation. He is trying to take the heat off himself when nothing short of a total repeal will do".
The Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police endorsed the justice minister's dangers offender legislation this week. And the justice minister capitalized on their support during his press conference. I would like to share with the House and with Canadians the view of the vice-president of the Canadian Police Association on Section 745. In doing so, I would like to point out that the Minister of Justice did not broadcast the Canadian Police Association or the chiefs of police opposition to Bill C-45.
On June 18, 1996 before the justice committee Mr. Grant Obst, the vice-president of the Canadian Police Association said:
My world entails dealing with victims who have had loved ones yanked from them through the most reprehensible crime that can be committed against mankind: murder. It's a lifetime of loss to them. It is not a 25-year loss and it is not a 15-year loss. There are no judicial reviews or section 745 hearings for victims of murderers or for their families. There are no second chances for them. There is nothing to make their life whole again. There's no section of the Criminal Code that relieves their pain.
I sat through section 745 hearings in my jurisdiction and I have become very close with the family of a murder victim. I have seen what these hearings have done to them. I have spoken with police officers, my colleagues across this country, and it is nearly unanimous that section 745 has to go. That comes from those of us who have experience with murder, murderers and victims.
Section 745 creates disgust and distrust in the criminal justice system. To a large extent, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me and my colleagues to defend the criminal justice system we work for, believe in and want to believe in. Our position has been, is and will be that section 745 has to be repealed in its entirety.
Mr. Neil Jessop of the Canadian Chiefs of Police echoed those very sentiments, as did Scott Newark, executive director of the Canadian Police Association, who on June 18 also said:
Section 745 contradicts fundamentally not only public confidence but the entire philosophy of how our criminal justice legal system has grown.
It is a bleeding heart mentality of the glimmer of hope advocates who contradict the philosophy of our justice system. It is they who have made a farce of our penal system by extending rights to murderers, rights they deliberately and viciously denied their victims.
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 hearing and humane treatment if incarcerated.
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. That is the Reform Party's fundamental justice philosophy, a philosophy which is shared by thousands if not millions of Canadians.
Bill C-45 contradicts that philosophy but, more important, Bill C-45 demeans the value of a human life. That is why I stand opposed to this bill. It is unworthy of support.
