Lost his last election, in 2000, with 41% of the vote.
Petitions September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the Young Offenders Act.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Young Offenders Act to provide that young offenders charged with murder be automatically tried in adult court, and that if convicted they be sentenced as adults, and that their identity not be hidden from the public.
As the House knows, Canadians are demanding changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Petitions September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions I wish to present to the House.
The first petition deals with section 745 of the Criminal Code. As members know, that provision in the code allows those convicted of first and second degree murder with parole ineligibility in excess of 15 years to apply to have their parole ineligibility reduced.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to repeal section 745 of the code so that the parole ineligibility provisions are not reduced.
Criminal Code September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today ought not to be a partisan issue. We are dealing with the question: what should be the appropriate penalty for the worst crime in the Criminal Code and that is first degree murder?
I have sat here all day listening to Liberals attack Reform members, Reform members attack Liberals as if this is a partisan
issue. It should not be a partisan issue. We should look at this issue on the basis of its merits and what is right and just.
There are those who have argued that the maximum period of incarceration should be 15 years. The author of section 745 spoke earlier today. When he was the solicitor general he brought in section 745. He believes that at the 15-year period all convicted killers should have the opportunity to apply for early release. His views are in the extreme minority. Those who suggest that section 745 can somehow be made better, can somehow be made more acceptable, are in the extreme minority if the views of Canadians are looked at.
The overwhelming majority of Canadians want the return of capital punishment. If you extrapolate from that particular poll result it is easy to conclude that an even greater number want the repeal of section 745.
I first became aware of this section of the Criminal Code when I was elected to this House and sat on the justice committee. We started reviewing the criminal justice system. It became abundantly clear to me that section 745 is an example of what is wrong with the criminal justice system when you allow those who commit the most heinous crime in the Criminal Code the opportunity to be released after serving only 15 years. There are of course other issues within the criminal justice system, whether it is the issue of consecutive sentences or the Young Offenders Act, that cause Canadians a great deal of concern.
In particular, section 745 reflects a bleeding heart attitude toward the criminal justice system that is not in keeping with what is fair, just and equitable in a criminal justice system. The Canadian criminal justice system is not just. Section 745 allows convicted killers to make a mockery out of the justice system.
Take the example of Clifford Olson. Everyone agrees that he will never be allowed to be free again yet he is using this section to revictimize, to repunish the survivors of his victims. This is the section that guarantees all convicted killers, and there will be some 600 of them that will be eligible to apply over the next 15 years, the right to apply to have their parole ineligibility reduced.
Over the last number of years I have worked very closely with families of victims, parents of victims and in particular mothers of victims. I have worked very closely with Darlene Boyd, Sharon Rosenfeldt, Debbie Mahaffy, Priscilla de Villiers and many others who have lost children, who have lost daughters to murder.
These mothers of victims make a compelling argument. I only ask members of Parliament to listen to the submissions put forward by these women and the hundreds of others who are survivors of victims as to the reasons why section 745 ought to be repealed, the reasons why section 745 is an unconscionable provision in the Criminal Code of Canada.
We are not dealing with choir boys. We are not dealing with crimes of passion. I have heard arguments put forward such as "what about the abused wife who murders an abusive husband?" We are not dealing with those situations here. Those people are not convicted of first degree murder or for that matter second degree murder.
We are dealing with those people who have characters that say it is okay within themselves to deliberately take the lives of other people, planned and deliberate murder, the worst crime in the Criminal Code.
If we are saying that a period of incarceration of 15 years is an appropriate penalty for first degree murder, what does that say about our society? What does that say about all the other awful crimes in the Criminal Code like rape, the molestation of young children, aggravated assault? All the other crimes become less significant. They become not as bad as murder. If the going rate for murder becomes 15 years, what will the going rate be for raping a child or for raping a woman? What will the penalty be? When we look at the penalty for first degree murder we should look at it in context.
We are not talking about rehabilitation. It really irks me when I hear members talk about rehabilitating a first degree killer. Tell me how. How do we rehabilitate a first degree killer?
Most first degree killers will not kill again. That is fact. Some will, most will not. It is not a question of the protection of society. It is a question of what the appropriate penalty should be for first degree murder.
How does society reflect its abhorrence of this awful crime? We read about them every day. We see them on television. We watch the families of the victims grieve. For them it becomes an unending funeral. To them the pain and suffering never ends.
Section 745 revictimizes them. It retraumatizes them. As one mother told me, it brings back all the awful feeling, the feeling of complete devastation when you are told by a police officer at your doorstep that your child or your husband or your wife has been murdered.
I ask hon. members not to detach themselves from the emotion of what this is all about because it is about emotion. It is about morality. It is about what is right and wrong. Look at this through the eyes of the parents who have lost children to convicted killers.
Is it right, is it just, to drag these families back through the courts after 15 years? Is it right and just and equitable for them to continue to suffer and to allow, whether it be a faint hope or any other hope, for those who have committed these awful crimes?
In my respectful submission, a 25-year prison term is reasonable. A minimum of 25 years is a reasonable period of incarceration in order to reflect society's abhorrence at this type of crime. It
is the moral thing to do. It is right to take away someone's freedom for having denied someone's right to live and for having destroyed not only the life of the victim but the lives of the family and friends those people have killed.
Millions of Canadians support the repeal of section 745: The Canadian Police Association, police officers across the country, correctional workers across the country, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. An overwhelming majority of Canadians want section 745 repealed so that the minimum period of incarceration becomes 25 years. To whom is the government listening when it tinkers with section 745?
We have been elected to the House of Commons to represent our constituents. We are here to represent the best interest of Canadians and what is right and just for the majority of Canadians. To continue to support the inclusion of section 745 in the Criminal Code, in my view, is a breach of the trust that Canadians put in each and every one of us three years ago when they elected us to the House of Commons.
I have tried as an individual member to have section 745 repealed. In fact the House voted to repeal section 745 in principle in December 1994. What has happened to all those members, including over 80 government members, who supported the repeal of section 745 who now will be supporting a bill which merely tinkers with section 745? They will have to reconcile with their constituents their change in vote.
In closing, let me urge the Prime Minister, who has committed himself to parliamentary reform, to allow a free vote on this matter, to allow a free vote on a bill that would repeal section 745. In my view that would go a long way to restoring the trust and confidence that Canadians ought to have in their elected members.
Employment September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, all members of Parliament have had an opportunity to spend a lengthy period of time in their ridings. One thing is abundantly clear: Canadians want jobs. There is still an unacceptable number of Canadians without employment and small businesses are hurting. While much progress has been made in terms of creating employment in this country, there is still a longer distance to go.
The Liberal Party in the last election campaign made a major commitment to create jobs. The job of creating jobs has still to be accomplished. I call on the Prime Minister and the government of the day to do everything within their power to bring in specific measures to create jobs so that the hurt that exists right across the country with the unemployed and those on welfare, and the hurt that exists with respect to small business can be alleviated.
Criminal Code September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am not denying unanimous consent to dispensing with the reading, and yes it would get rather boring for the Speaker to have to read all the amendments. But there appears to be some form of agreement between the House leaders as to which motions are agreed to. The government whip is shaking his head. Perhaps he could provide me with an explanation. In the meantime I have no difficulty with not reading each motion.
Criminal Code September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. We are dealing with Bill C-45. While I understand the House leaders of the parties may have had an opportunity to meet, to discuss and to agree on the way of proceeding with Bill C-45, I can tell you that I was not consulted as to the procedure that would be followed today.
You are seeking unanimous consent. Perhaps for the time being I will refrain from giving unanimous consent until someone from the traditional parties provides me with an explanation as to what is happening with respect to these amendments.
Broadcasting Act September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will take every opportunity to speak and I appreciate being given this opportunity.
I would like to commend the member for Sarnia-Lambton for bringing this bill forward. It is important that the House pass the bill. In my respectful submission, the bill does not go far enough; nonetheless, it is deserving of support.
The bill is an amendment to the Broadcasting Act which clearly only applies in this particular case to cable companies. It seems to me what is needed is a bill that would ban this type of marketing or billing across the board at the federal level. Whatever is within federal jurisdiction, this type of billing or marketing should be prohibited.
It is clear that Canadians were very upset about what happened with the cable companies. The whole debate begs the question: should consumers have to pay for something they do not want or need?
The cable companies were arrogant and presumptuous in thinking they could foist upon consumers something consumers did not want. They would bill the consumers for it and if the consumers did not want it, they would take away something the consumers already had with respect to cable television.
I hope in the very near future that this whole debate will be rendered academic. It seems to me that with the pace of modern technology at some point in the very near future Canadians will be able to actually pay for the channels they want. If the technology exists today for pay TV, why should consumers have to buy a basket of channels as opposed to simply paying for the channels they want?
I will resume my comments when the bill is brought forward again.
Privilege September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention this morning to make submissions with regard to the point of privilege I raised with you prior to the adjournment of the House on June 19, 1996. As the sponsor of Bill C-234, I feel compelled to make submissions with respect to this point of privilege.
It seems the matter before the House this morning is not one that is partisan in nature but one that deserves the very careful consideration of the Chair.
I am not about to impute any motives to the Justice committee or to any other committee as to the reasons why it may or may not have decided to report my bill back to the House.
Mr. Speaker is the custodian of the rights and privileges of all members of Parliament in the House. That is why I request that you not deal with this matter summarily and render a decision today, but rather that you reserve judgment on this matter and give careful consideration not simply to the precedents because, as you know, the precedents could be interpreted in many different ways, but that you look at this issue from the point of reference of today.
Given the commitment of various committees of the House and the government for parliamentary reform, it is important to look at the private members' process. In my respectful submission, if there is to be any integrity at all to the private members' process it should not be left up to the majority of government members of any given committee, whether it be the present government or any other government, to undermine the process or the integrity of the process in any way.
All members of this House have committed themselves to parliamentary reform. When the supreme body on Parliament Hill, the House of Commons, makes a decision with respect to a bill, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not up to a committee of this House, even a standing committee of this House, to thwart the wishes of the House of Commons itself.
The House of Commons passed Bill C-234 dealing with the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, a provision which allows first degree killers to apply for early release. This House in its wisdom decided at second reading to support the bill in principle and to refer it to the committee. That was the decision of the House. If you allow the decision of the justice committee to stand, in effect you are allowing the justice committee to thwart the wishes of this House.
What did this House want to happen to that particular bill? It wanted the bill to be sent to committee for consideration. Presumably everyone in this House expected at some point after due consideration and recommendation from the committee that it would be brought back to this House for further consideration and for a final vote.
This is an important matter. If we as members of the House of Commons are truly committed to parliamentary reform and to the whole private members' process, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule that the committee was not within its jurisdiction to do as it did.
In conclusion I should also point out that my office has been advised that this is a practice which is developing as of late, the practice of standing committees of this House deciding not to refer back to the House of Commons matters that have been referred to them by the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, I think you should take note of that fact as well.
Privilege June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to a decision of the justice and legal affairs committee yesterday.
As you know, Bill C-234 was passed at second reading in this House on December 13, 1994. At yesterday's meeting of the justice and legal affairs committee, the committee voted not to report that bill back to the House.
I wish to give notice to the House, to the government and to any other interested members that I intend to prepare submissions and raise that question of privilege presumably sometime in September when the House reconvenes.
Criminal Code March 12th, 1996
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kamloops for seconding the reintroduction of this bill.
This is the identical bill I introduced on March 17, 1994. Pursuant to special order of the House passed on March 4, I am requesting this bill be reinstated to the position it was in prior to or at prorogation. It was being considered by the justice committee. The effect of this reintroduction will be that the justice committee will once again be seized with this bill.
This bill would repeal section 745 of the code, which allows convicted killers to apply to have their parole ineligibility reduced.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)