We have been listening to that for nine years.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
Supply October 25th, 1994
We have been listening to that for nine years.
Criminal Code October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I believe as well the hon. member for York South-Weston may even have the support of many of his own colleagues in the Liberal caucus if they are allowed a true free vote on this private member's bill. I shall wait and see. I am sure millions of Canadians who are demanding the return of the death penalty are also waiting to see how many in this House consider the taking of the life of an innocent human being to be worth less than 25 years imprisonment.
We will see if the twice removed from reality mentality still controls the agenda in the Liberal caucus. If it does, then the only real hope for the people of Canada who want change to legislation like section 745 of the Criminal Code is to wait until the next federal election. They can then remove the Liberals from power as decisively as they removed the Tories from office in the election one year ago.
Criminal Code October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for York South-Weston for this bill. I stand in support of it.
Today there is a cry across the land for the return to capital punishment. Why is this? It is clear this cry for the return of the death penalty is a recognition of the complete and utter failure of the bleeding heart approach to criminal justice. The philosophy underlying our present criminal law is not protecting members of society. Our sons and daughters are being assaulted and murdered without end.
The most horrific sign of failure of this underlying mentality of our criminal law is the murderer who kills again after being paroled. I thank my hon. colleague from York South-Weston who told us today that 130 innocent people have been murdered by people who have been released on parole.
These politicians who have set the agenda for the administration of Canada's justice system for the past 20 years are responsible for paroling into society criminals who have raped, assaulted and killed again. The custodians of our justice system, these very same people, want to continue to release these people into society. Section 745 of the Criminal Code is the most pathetic example of this bleeding heart mentality.
In 1976 the death penalty for murderers was abolished. At that time the politicians assured us that society would be protected because murderers would be sentenced to life imprisonment and would have to serve a minimum of 25 years before release. However, the people of Canada were betrayed by these politicians.
Bill C-84 which eliminated capital punishment contained a little known clause which allowed for the creation of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 nullifies the term life imprisonment and grants murderers the right to apply for parole eligibility after serving only 15 years of their so-called life sentence.
The bleeding hearts assured us that in exchange for the abolition of the death penalty, society would be protected by a 25-year minimum sentence. Then they deliberately betrayed us. They provided the murderers with the right based in law to be released back into society after serving only 15 years.
I ask these people who support section 745 and the early release of killers into society: What is a human life worth to them? I ask these politicians: What penalty should Larry Sheldon pay for having raped and murdered a little, innocent 9-year old girl? What penalty should Norman Clairmont serve for brutally and savagely murdering the 19-year old Potts girl? What penalty would the bleeding hearts have Charles Simard pay for murdering two innocent teenagers in the province of Quebec? I ask again: What is the value of an innocent life to these politicians?
On April 28, 1994 Judge Demetrick of the Alberta provincial court declared that portions of the definition of firearm contained in the Criminal Code of Canada were so convoluted as to be legal fiction and twice removed from reality. It seems incredible that the Government of Canada is producing legislation that is being declared by our courts to be fictitious and twice removed from reality.
The only explanation for this type of legislation is that the political thinking and reasoning that is producing this type of legislation is fictitious itself and is itself twice removed from reality. Can the families of victims murdered by criminals who have been released on parole come to any other conclusion than the politicians responsible for this are twice removed from reality and do not know what they are doing?
When we look at our national debt, our Young Offenders Act, the horrendous mess our immigration policy is in and the betrayal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, is it any wonder that our courts are pointing out that some of this stuff is twice removed from reality. And by so doing are they not clearly implying that our politicians do not know what they are doing?
The hon. member for York South-Weston has my support for this bill. I believe he has the support of the entire Reform caucus and I believe he also has the support of millions of Canadians who back in 1976 were conned into believing that the abolition of the death penalty was to be substituted for a term of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
At least we do not put our helmet on backwards, Roger.
Justice October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I was outraged after reading an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen written by a victim of violence.
While we stand in this House asking the Minister of Justice day after day when he plans to get tough with criminals in this country, a convicted offender is freely wandering the streets of Ottawa just blocks from here stalking the man upon whom he launched not one but two unprovoked, vicious attacks.
While Bill Glaister still suffers from pain and humiliation and fears for his safety, his assailant is free to attack again. Why? Because an Ottawa judge thought a stern lecture and five weeks in jail was a sufficient sentence for one count of assault, three counts of theft, one charge of fleeing a court commitment and one charge of misleading a police officer with false identity.
This criminal did not even serve his lenient sentence of five weeks. Our bleeding heart justice system turned him loose in three and a half weeks. That same system has left Mr. Glaister living in fear of this man and it will be responsible for the next victim who falls prey to this criminal.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, certainly the conviction ought to be based upon the evidence. In every courtroom that I have ever appeared in the guilt was determined by the evidence, not by way of proceedings, whether it was summary conviction or indictable. This is the point I am making. I do not want to hang the proceedings up on this point, but the hon. member is saying this clearly. He said three times that it is going to matter to the judge in terms of determining guilt whether it is by way in which the court is proceeding, by summary or by indictment.
What I am pointing out is that the courts in this land have always determined guilt based upon the evidence, not based upon procedure.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, am I correct in assuming that what the member has said is that judges are not going to determine guilt based upon the evidence? They are going to determine guilt based upon whether it is a summary conviction or proceeding by way of indictment. I need to have that clarified. If I heard him right that is exactly what he said.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to comment on that. If my understanding is incorrect, and I hope it is, the reason the courts are not convicting is because they do not want to convict a person charged with theft for an indictable offence.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994 October 4th, 1994
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this is going to reduce the offence. It is going to reduce the offence for what now amounts to theft over $1,000.
The summary conviction provides for a maximum sentence of 18 months. If we move up to $5,000, offences that today are punishable by indictment with as I understand it a maximum 10 years imprisonment are now going to be subject to an 18 month prison term if they get the maximum under the provincial court system.
There is no question that this is softening the law. I would object to a softening of the law. We are now moving into an area where we are going to be subjecting people convicted of theft to a lesser penalty potentially. It is simply there. It is in the writing. What alarms me is what I heard my hon. colleague say before we entered committee of the whole, that one of the reasons we are
moving to this situation is because the courts were not convicting because it was an indictable offence.
Now, if that is wrong-
Firearms October 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in a judgment rendered on April 28, Judge Demetrick of the Alberta Provincial Court declared that portions of the definition of a firearm contained in the Criminal Code are so convoluted as to be legal fiction and twice removed from reality.
I ask the Minister of Justice to comment on Judge Demetrick's declaration and to tell us how such convoluted legislation can have any impact upon the criminal use of firearms.