John Nunziata

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak to Bill C-226, which I initially introduced in the last Parliament and reintroduced in this Parliament on March 17, 1994.

I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee on Private Members' Business, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and other members of the committee for selecting this bill as a votable item. As you know Mr. Speaker, it means this bill at some point will be put to a vote in this House, a free vote. Every member will be called upon to exercise his or her discretion in saying either yes or no to repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I am convinced, given the discussions I have had with a great number of my colleagues, that this bill will in fact become law in the not too distant future. I am convinced as well because of the overwhelming public support for the removal of this section from the Criminal Code.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code was introduced in 1976 when Parliament was debating the abolition of capital punishment. At that time there were a series of compromises and deals struck, presumably in the backrooms of the precincts of Parliament, in order for capital punishment to be abolished.

One of those deals or compromises was that in return for abolishing capital punishment there would be a law that said if you are convicted of first degree murder you have to serve a minimum of 25 years in prison before you become eligible for parole. That is not where our predecessors let it stand. A group of others decided that was cruel and unusual punishment. Before giving their support for abolishing capital punishment they argued that what became known as section 745, because they thought 25 years was too long, would give inmates faint hope that they could in effect apply for a reduction in the parole ineligibility period. They argued that it would be used very rarely, only in exceptional cases.

Most Canadians are not aware that section 745 is in the Criminal Code of Canada. It says very simply if you commit first degree murder, it is the worst possible crime in the Criminal Code. This is cold blooded, calculated, premeditated murder. These are the people who plan a murder. They buy a gun or a knife. These are not pleasant crimes, not your run-of-the-mill armed robberies. These are vicious and cruel crimes that result in the victims being mutilated and raped before or after they are murdered. We are talking about the worst crime under the Criminal Code.

Section 745 says if you are convicted of murdering somebody in those circumstances, if you kill one, two, three or more people-Clifford Olson raped and murdered 11 young children and he will be eligible under section 745-regardless of the number of people you murder or how you committed those murders, you can apply to have your parole ineligibility period reduced to 15 years.

Most Canadians believe that the penalty for murder is life in prison. We all know that is bogus. Nobody serves life for murder, or at least not that I am aware of. Most Canadians think it is 25 years, but that is not the case. Right now the going rate which I refer to as the Walmart discount in the Criminal Code is you can get 40 per cent off that 25 years by applying under section 745. These applications just started a few years ago because of the time lag from 1976 and 15 years hence. As of May 1994 there were 60 applications from convicted killers. Forty-three of those 60, or 72 per cent, were successful.

That tells you very simply that the penalty for first degree murder in Canada is fast becoming 15 years. Is that what Canadians want? Is that a fair penalty? I suggest not. In my view it demeans the value of life. It is one of the reasons why Canadians have so little respect for our criminal justice system. It is an example of how the criminal justice system in this country is totally imbalanced. The rights of convicts, the rights of criminals are considered to be first and foremost. The rights of victims and their families are shunted aside.

This Parliament now has an opportunity to create a more equitable balance in our criminal justice system. Section 745 must be removed from the Criminal Code in order for Canadians to at least have some belief in the criminal justice system that it is serving the public and not serving convicted killers.

I spoke of Clifford Olson who becomes eligible for parole on August 12, 1996. It was not that long ago. Most members in this House recall the hideous nature of Mr. Olson's crimes. I have here some comments from Mrs. Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of one of the Olson victims, Daryn Rosenfeldt, who was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered by Clifford Olson. She says and I quote: "I am so repulsed that our justice system

can circumvent a court of law decision. A court of law sentenced the killer of my child to life in prison with no eligibility for 25 years. Who then is lying to me, my family and the public?"

That is the mother of just one of the victims. I can say that in the next 12 to 15 years 600 of these applications will come forward. I have here the list of those who have committed first degree murder or those who have committed second degree murder and have been sentenced to a period of incarceration of more than 15 years. A good number of them have already been successful. Some of my colleagues might recognize some of these names.

In Ontario for example, the province I am from, there is Gerald Chase, Darryl Dollan, William Frederick, Frederick Sweet, Norman Clairmont, Rolf Droste, Allan Kinsella whose case is coming up, and Federick Radike. These cases have all been successful. There are a good number of other cases across the country that have been successful.

It would appear that a good number of these applications, unless Parliament acts decisively to repeal section 745, will be made by Olson. Do not let anyone kid you that it is impossible for Clifford Olson, the Canadian version of Charles Manson, to be released. All you have to look to is the Karla Homolka case here in Ontario. A woman who was privy and party to the murder of two innocent young women was sentenced to 12 years in prison. We are not even talking about first degree murder. She becomes eligible for full parole after serving only four years. She becomes eligible for day parole after serving only two years. Something is drastically wrong with our criminal justice system in this country.

There is the case of a family of another victim, in this case a police officer in Saskatchewan. In 1978 a 39-year old RCMP officer by the name of Constable Thomas Brian King had completed his shift on duty and was returning home to his wife and three small children. There were two men who decided that they were going to bag and murder a cop. What they did was remove the licence plates from their vehicle. They were stopped by two police officers. They wanted to get stopped. The two police officers searched the car and levied a fine I suppose. Because there were two officers and only two of them they decided not to do anything to those two officers.

They again removed the plates from their car. This time they were stopped by Constable King. They overcame Constable King, handcuffed him with his own handcuffs and then went around to boast about how they had bagged a cop. Because they could not find some of the friends they wanted to boast to, they took Constable King out and fired two shots into his skull. As he was dying, and I am reading from a synopsis of what occurred, according to the evidence in court, "as the steaming warm blood was gushing on to the two soon to be convicted killers they delivered a few more final blows to the head of their victim and began dragging his body off to the river to discard it". That was in 1978, not a long time ago.

Mrs. King, her three young children and all the other relatives thought that these two individuals would serve a minimum of 25 years in prison. Much to their horror, last year it was revealed to them that one of the killers was applying under section 745 to be released from prison or to have the parole ineligibility period reduced.

The wife of Constable King writes:

This suddenly opened a terrible new chapter in the life of the King family for which we were not prepared. If a book were to be written, it would show enough pain in this one chapter to nauseate or embarrass them into reconsidering the way in which section 745 functions and how it is so counterproductive to the very lives of those whose Canada's judicial and correctional system is intended to serve.

I relate these two cases to you, Mr. Speaker. Here is another. Let me make it three, the Kaplinski family. In January 1978 a young night desk clerk at an inn in Barrie was robbed by two men. Mr. Kaplinski was the father of a very young child. He was a law-abiding citizen, working to support himself and his young family. The inn was robbed and several months later his decomposed body was found in a snowbank north of Barrie.

They came in to rob the guy. They took the money and then drove him up north where they pumped a number of bullets into Mr. Kaplinski's skull and left him in a snowbank. This is what the sister, Joanne Kaplinski has to say about how section 745 has impacted on her family:

We the Kaplinski family received our own life sentence by being forced to look into the abyss of human cruelty and selfishness. However, last December 1993, we were once again forced to revisit that abyss by the application of one of the murderers, Allan Kinsella, for early release under section 745. We thought that after the original trial the men responsible for taking Ken's life in such a cruel and brutal fashion were being made to pay for their actions by forfeiting at least 25 years of their lives under the conditions of incarceration. We simply could not believe that release after only serving 15 years was an option.

She goes on to say:

Fifteen years is not adequate retribution or denunciation for the wanton destruction of human life and we fail to comprehend why the current legislation fails to include protection of the public as relevant criteria being only reflective of the rehabilitation principle of sentencing and ignoring-

She goes on about how this section is a miscarriage of justice.

Those are just three cases. Six hundred others are coming up. Families that were victimized 15 or more years go will be revictimized as a result of this provision in the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is an injustice. Section 745 ought to be repealed. I regret to say that it is not the official position of the Government of Canada today that it ought to be repealed. However I am pleased with the government's commitment to Private Members' Busi-

ness and I am pleased that this bill will have a free vote in the House of Commons.

As I said earlier, I am convinced that it will pass. Not only does section 745 demean the value of life and create a terrible imbalance in our criminal justice system, but it is costing Canadian taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars for these applications to come forward, an estimated $4 million a year over the next 15 years. I believe that is a low estimate, given the fact that those who will be applying will be using legal aid lawyers.

This bill is supported by CAVEAT, the Victims of Violence, the Canadian Police Association and, I would submit, the overwhelming majority of Canadians. I cannot accept the views of the bleeding hearts. I suppose we will hear from some bleeding hearts here in the House who say that 25 years is cruel and unusual punishment.

Those who argue that 15 years is a sufficient period of time for first degree murder, I suggest that they are sadly mistaken or misguided. There are those who will argue as well that those convicted of first degree murder will not reoffend.

I present this statistic for consideration. Between 1975 and 1986, there were 130 murders committed by people who were released on parole. Ninety of those were murder and 40 were manslaughter. Anyone who suggests that people who are released on parole are unlikely to reoffend and commit murder refer to these statistics which were put out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

In closing, I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the bill at second reading. In so doing, it will be referred to the justice committee which will then provide an opportunity for all Canadians, various interest groups and others to come forward and present their views.

When the bill comes back to the House I hope and I expect it will be passed, resulting in a major correction of a flaw in the criminal justice system.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Friends, which friends?

[Young Offenders Act, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

The tragedy of youth crime is a ticking time bomb in this country, yet the minister has said that he does not expect a bill to be passed by this Parliament until late this year, possibly next.

These delays are simply not acceptable. In light of the urgent need for changes to the Young Offenders Act will the minister fast-track his agenda and will he give his undertaking to this House that a bill will be passed before this House adjourns for the summer holidays?

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday 16-year old Marwan Harb was brutally murdered in Hull, just across the river. Mr. Harb was the second cousin of our colleague from Ottawa Centre.

The Harb murder is the latest in a series of violent crimes committed by young offenders. The Young Offenders Act is crying out for change. It is in desperate need of reform.

Earlier today we had the opportunity to discuss the Young Offenders Act in Parliament. Regrettably the Bloc Quebecois denied unanimous consent to have the subject matter of the bill referred to committee.

I would encourage and urge the Bloc Quebecois and all members and the government to immediately address that very serious issue. I would urge the government to immediately introduce a bill amending the Young Offenders Act and to assure Canadians that a bill is passed-

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

I rise on a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The separatists will have to explain to the rest of Canada why they do not want to debate or even discuss the bill.

I will try once again. Rather than adopting the bill at second reading I would ask that the subject matter of the Young Offenders Act, not the bill before Parliament, be referred to the committee so that all members will have an opportunity to discuss the subject matter at committee.

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, considering the comparative importance of the next bill we are supposed to debate to the people of Canada. However those who denied unanimous consent will have to account to their constituents and to the people of Canada why they think that an hour's debate on the Young Offenders Act is too much.

In view of the importance of the legislation, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the bill at second reading, in principle, and to refer the bill to the justice committee for further consideration.

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can you indicate who denied unanimous consent? I did not hear anything from this end.

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting his speech but the rules require that the debate end in about a minute's time.

I understand that a good number of members would like to take part in this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has stood. He would like to speak. I am sure the hon. member would like to conclude his remarks so I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the debate on this most important subject matter for an additional hour until one o'clock.

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and confidence in the Minister of Justice with regard to his genuine commitment to changes to the criminal justice system in Canada, but unfortunately his agenda calls for simply the introduction of a bill in June and he is not expecting passage of the bill

until later this year or sometime next year. That is just not good enough.

I would submit that it would be totally and completely and absolutely irresponsible for members of all sides of this House to rise for the summer holidays, to go back to our homes, families and cottages without passing changes to the Young Offenders Act. That would be an abdication of our responsibility as legislators. It would be an abdication of the mandate and the trust given to us by the people of Canada six short months ago.

I would urge the minister, I would urge the government, I would urge all members in the House to expedite changes. We do not need another year or two of study. I was a member of the justice committee for eight years. When I was first elected to the House in September 1984 the Young Offenders Act was only a few months old and it was clear then that the Young Offenders Act would not work. I have been calling for changes for the last 10 years.

Here we are 10 years later and just a few weeks ago the 10th anniversary of the Young Offenders Act was celebrated. The Young Offenders Act replaced the old juvenile delinquents act. Back then the bleeding hearts claimed that the juvenile delinquents act was not working and they needed a more balanced system.

We have now a piece of federal legislation that is totally unbalanced. It is a piece of legislation that shoves aside the public interest and shoves aside security for the public. Instead it protects and invites young people to break the law, to embark upon a lifetime of criminality.

The bill which I have before Parliament today addresses three of the fundamental changes necessary to the Young Offenders Act. I will speak about those changes in a few moments.

First, I want to talk about the existing law, the Young Offenders Act, section 3, which contains eight statements of policy indicating the philosophy behind the Young Offenders Act. I want to summarize the philosophy and explain why in my view that while the intention was there, the 10 years of practice that we have had have clearly established that the principles have gone haywire.

The first principle is that young persons are said not to be as accountable for their acts as are adults but even so they must bear responsibility for their contraventions-motherhood and apple pie.

Second, society must be afforded protection from illegal behaviour although it does have a responsibility to take measures to prevent criminal conduct by youth. That was the second principle, but experience has shown that the protection of society does not even appear to register in the consideration of those involved in the system, particularly judges who have to bear some of the responsibility for some of the outrageous sentences that are handed down today.

The third statement recognizes the need for supervision, discipline and control of young offenders, but also that they have special needs and require guidance and assistance. We will not find any dispute about the need for special guidance and assistance for young people. We all recognize that there is a need for a system that will deal with young offenders. We do not want to treat 12 and 13 year olds, genuine children, like adults. We do not want to throw them in the slammer, send them down to Kingston to serve a life sentence or to serve lengthy prison terms. There has to be a balanced system. We all recognize that.

However, when we look at the experience today we recognize that the system is doing a disservice to the public and to young people because it is telling young people today that they have to carry knives. One cannot help but wonder that if there were a different psychology out there with our young people today the young person who was murdered in Hull yesterday would be alive today. Why was it necessary for the person who committed the murder to be carrying a knife? It is not uncommon for young people today to carry knives and loaded guns to school every morning. That is the atmosphere that our young people are faced with today. They carry guns and knives and other deadly weapons not simply to do harm to other people but for protection.

Mr. Speaker, when you and I were in high school, public school and university if there was a score to settle you used your fists. You would go out back and have a fist fight, a little wrestle and you would settle your scores. Today scores are settled with deadly force. Scores are settled with knives and bullets and guns. People are killed and maimed right across the country as a result of this unfortunate and tragic situation that our young people are faced with today.

The philosophy also says, the fourth consideration, that the taking of measures other than judicial proceedings should be considered where not inconsistent with the protection of society.

The fifth statement recognizes the legal and constitutional rights of youth. Therein lies one of the major problems with the Young Offenders Act. On the one hand it says we should treat young offenders as children. On the other hand it says we should afford them all the rights and privileges afforded other criminals under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is fine and dandy, but then young people recognize that they have the right to a lawyer; let's go get legal aid. They have the right to all the protection that adults have, such as the right to remain silent and all the other rights. Young people recognize

that those rights exist and they are using them as protection from criminal responsibility.

The sixth principle is that a young person has the right-and this is a real kicker-to the least possible interference with freedom as is consistent with public safety. It is built right into the Young Offenders Act. It says we cannot interfere with their freedom.

Seventh, young offenders have the right to be informed of their rights and freedoms in any situation where those rights and freedoms may be infringed.

Finally, parents are said to have a responsibility for the care and supervision of their children, and children are to be removed from parents only in compelling circumstances.

That is the philosophy behind the Young Offenders Act. Some of it is apple pie and motherhood, but the rest of it unfortunately has led to a system that is a contributing factor to the decay of the moral fibre and the integrity of our youth.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am not calling for sending young children to jail and throwing away the keys, or whipping them and hanging them. What I am calling for is a more balanced approach. The significant majority of young people are law-abiding citizens. They do not need a law to tell them the difference between right and wrong. We are dealing with the exceptions, the small percentage of young hoods, young incorrigibles in our society, who are using the law in order to further their criminality.

We need a balanced system. Somehow the principles outlined in the Young Offenders Act have not been translated into action and the pendulum has swung in favour of the rights and protection of the youth. Public security has become a secondary consideration at best and all too often has been neglected entirely.

My bill addresses three specific areas. First, I would change the age limits provided in the Young Offenders Act. Today a young offender, a child, these people who are in need of protection and caring guidance, is defined as a young person between the ages of 12 and 17. We have the situation of a 17-year-old, one day shy of his or her 18th birthday, old enough to drive, old enough to enter into contracts in some jurisdictions, yet treated as a child and defined as a child.

Statistics show that half of the youth court case load involves 16 and 17 year olds. My bill would treat 16 and 17 year olds as adults. They would be charged and prosecuted in adult court, and in my submission that would act as a very serious deterrent to other 16 and 17 year olds from breaking the law.

As well my bill would lower the age limit to the age of 10. Some people are suggesting that there should not be any lower end to the definition of a young offender. We all know of the case in Great Britain, for example, where two 10-year-olds were convicted of murder. In Canada children under the age of 12 are used by adults to commit criminal offences. Second, some of them are committing in their own right serious offences. By lowering the age limit it allows the police to bring these children into the system so they can be dealt with and treated properly.

My bill would define children as those young people between the ages of 12 and 15. Sixteen and seventeen year olds know the difference between right and wrong, understand the nature and consequences of their acts and therefore, in my view, ought to be prosecuted in adult court. As members know, age is always a mitigating circumstance at sentencing in adult court.

The second aspect of my bill-it is something that the minister has already indicated he supports-is the increase in the maximum penalty for first degree murder from five to ten years. I applaud the minister for confirming his position in that regard not too long ago. Just a few years ago the maximum penalty was three years for first degree murder.

We had the situation in Scarborough, for example, where a young offender committed a triple murder, first degree murder, and served three years. He then was released. Now the sentence has been bumped up to five years but in my respectful submission it ought to be ten years for first degree murder.

The third aspect of my bill would allow for the publication of the details and the identity of a young offender after the second serious conviction. Right now there is a blanket prohibition on the publication of details.

The case in British Columbia-there are dozens of other similar cases-underlined the need for the public, the neighbours, the school system to know of some of the serious offences. The young person had been convicted of molesting young children. If the public knew, if the police knew, if neighbours knew, they could have taken the necessary precautions. He murdered and raped a six-year old child.

My bill would allow the young offender two chances. Once they have committed two serious offences, then the public would be entitled to know the details and the identity of the young offender. I submit that would serve as a deterrent for young offenders.

Let me end where I began. The system is in desperate need of repair. We have to move with dispatch. For those people who suggest this concern is a knee-jerk reaction to the murder in Hull or the murder here in Ottawa or the dozens of other murders and rapes and violent assaults, let me tell members that they are sadly mistaken. Their heads are in the sand and it is time that they woke up and smelled the coffee.

This is not something that happened overnight. It is a concern. The problem has been here for the last 10 years. I would urge my colleagues to expedite changing passages in the Young Offenders Act.

I would ask that at the conclusion of this debate at 12 noon today we have the unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill and its subject matter to the justice committee so that we can begin immediate deliberations with regard to this component of the criminal justice system.

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

moved that Bill C-217, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Contraventions Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound regret that I lead off the debate on changes to the Young Offenders Act today. Press reports indicate that a 16-year old man, Marwan Harb, was murdered yesterday in Hull, just blocks away from the Parliament Buildings.

The person allegedly responsible for that death apparently is a young offender and according to press reports the victim, Marwan Harb, is the second cousin of one of our colleagues, the member for Ottawa Centre.

We do not need this latest incident to remind us of the necessity for changes to the Young Offenders Act, which is in desperate need for reform. Just a few weeks ago there was another senseless killing, again committed by a young offender. Nicholas Battersby met his death as a result of a drive-by shooting in Ottawa. These murders, these incidents, are happening right across the country.

My colleague from Kent who has been instrumental in calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act will be speaking about a particularly vicious murder in his community.

In the province of Alberta a woman trying to protect her children was stabbed to death, again by a young offender.

A six-year-old in British Columbia was raped and murdered by a young offender who had a number of convictions for molesting young children. The public did not know because the Young Offenders Act has a total ban on the publication of details.

The beat goes on and on. While these incidents are taking place, while these murders, rapes, robberies and assaults are taking place, we in Parliament are sitting on our hands. We did not need these incidents to tell us that the Young Offenders Act is in desperate need of reform.

We have been back for six months and there still is not any concrete action. This is the first bill before Parliament to address the Young Offenders Act, which is just one small component of the criminal justice system, one small component of a system that simply does not work, a system that is unbalanced, a system that cares more about suspects and criminals, a system that is more concerned about those who perpetrate crimes than those who are victims of crime in the country.

One thing was made perfectly clear by my constituents in the riding of York South-Weston, and I am sure by all Canadians, and that is that the criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform.

Canadians want leadership. They want changes not only to the Young Offenders Act but to other pieces of federal legislation, including the Criminal Code, the parole laws, the bail laws, the prostitution laws. We cannot simply sit back and say what a wonderful country we live in, look at how safe our country is. Let us look to the United States as an example of what it is really like to be bad as far as criminal activity is concerned.

This debate is timely. At the conclusion of the debate this morning I will be seeking the unanimous consent of the House to have this matter referred to the justice committee so that the justice committee can begin work. I will be listening very carefully to the person or persons in the House who will deny unanimous consent to send this matter to committee, and that person or those MPs who deny unanimous consent will have to explain their reasons why they want to continue to sit on their hands.

I have to say as well that I am not at all happy with the government's agenda with regard to changes to the Young Offenders Act. The government's agenda is on a slow boat to China when we ought to have changes here in the House immediately.