John Nunziata

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that a balanced approach is necessary. We have to deal with those people who commit criminal offences. That is a must. We have to deal with them effectively, taking into account the public interest and the rehabilitation of the offender.

I agree with those persons who say the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. We have to seek that equilibrium or that balance. On the other hand we have to do what we can to ensure that people do not embark on a life of criminality. We have to deal with and address root causes of crime such as unemployment. I am convinced the government will deal with the question of unemployment. If people are working they are less likely to commit crime.

Also we have to deal with the question of poverty and the fact that so many Canadians go to bed hungry at night. If we deal with poverty we will deal at the same time with crime. We will reduce criminality. A multifaceted approach is necessary. I agree with the hon. member that we must deal with the root

causes of crime because in the long run that would be a more effective way of dealing with crime in our country.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us by the Reform Party is a mischievous motion.

The Reform Party was elected in part based on a platform that said that rather than being mischievous in the House, its members would be constructive and work with the government in order to achieve changes for the common good of the country. Therefore when the Reform Party puts forward a motion condemning the government for its inaction, given the early mandate of this government I would suggest that it is mischievous.

I would have expected more from the Reform Party. I would have expected its members to provide some constructive alternatives or suggestions in order to assist this government in its changes to the criminal justice system.

The Liberal Party in the last election campaign made it very clear in its red book that it would deal effectively, unlike the previous administration, with changes to the criminal justice system.

All I need do is refer the hon. member and the Reform Party to page 84 of the red book where the Liberal Party set out its commitment in advance of the election campaign with regard to the criminal justice system.

We said on page 84 that dealing with the growing incidents of violent crime will be a priority for a Liberal government. I can assure the member that members on this side of the House are dedicated and committed to changing and correcting the criminal justice system.

I have every confidence that the Minister of Justice will bring about significant change. He will ensure that in due course Canadians will once again have respect for and confidence in the criminal justice system.

The minister earlier today indicated a number of initiatives that he has taken. All I can ask of the Reform Party is to work co-operatively with the minister and other members on this side to ensure that the changes take place.

I have but a few short minutes to discuss some of the matters I wanted to discuss with regard to the criminal justice system. There is no question we agree that the justice system is in desperate need of reform.

I have before me the Criminal Code of Canada which is the basis of our criminal justice system. It tells us how we deal with criminals in this country and yes, this thick book needs a lot of reform. There are two areas that I have addressed through the private members' process in the last several weeks.

Today I introduced a bill that would eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 as I indicated to the House earlier today allows individuals convicted of first or second degree murder to apply to a court to have their parole eligibility dates brought forward. In effect it means that a first degree murderer, for example, someone who commits a deliberate murder, premeditated, can apply to the court after 15 years to be released from prison. I do not believe that that provision has the support of the public.

It means that life does not mean life. Most Canadians realize that when you commit a first degree murder it does not mean you are going to serve the rest of your life in prison. Most Canadians believe that life means 25 years. It does not even mean that. Under section 745 it could mean 15 years.

The likes of Clifford Olson will be eligible to apply in less than three years. Helmut Buxbaum who had his wife murdered would be eligible in the next five years. Colin Thatcher, in several more years, after 15 years will be able to apply for a reduction. That particular provision is a significant error in our criminal justice system in the Criminal Code and it ought to be eliminated.

The next subject I want to touch upon briefly is the Young Offenders Act. We all know that the Young Offenders Act is not working.

On February 17 I introduced in this House a private member's bill that would address three areas, and there are a number of other areas that must be addressed, that I believe must be addressed at the earliest opportunity.

The first is to change the age limits under the act. At present the Young Offenders Act defines a young offender as a child, if you will, between the ages of 12 and 17. The bill I introduced would redefine a young offender as being a child between 10 and 15. In effect 16 and 17-year olds would be dealt with as adults in criminal court. They would be prosecuted just like any other adult would be prosecuted.

In my view a 16 or 17-year old understands and knows the difference between right and wrong and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

With regard to the second aspect of my bill, the minister has already indicated that in the amendments that he will bring forward he will increase the maximum penalty for first degree murder to 10 years. I applaud the minister for that initiative.

The third aspect of this bill would allow for the publication of the name of the young offender after the second indictable offence.

In effect the young offender would be given two chances. The third time around, in my view, the public interest would dictate that the public should know the identity of the young offender and the circumstances of his or her crime.

There are other areas that have to be addressed. The minister indicated a number of the areas that he will be dealing with in the months ahead. I have taken the position in the past for example that the parole system is in desperate need of reform again. Mandatory supervision, the automatic release of inmates after serving two-thirds of the sentence, in my view ought to be eliminated. Sentencing reform is a package that the minister said he would bring forward. Parole reform again is very important. In the area of prostitution changes are necessary because of the effect of prostitution on communities right across the country.

In the few moments that remain I want to indicate to the Reform members that they certainly do not have a monopoly as far as having concern about the criminal justice system and reform of the criminal justice system.

Members of the cabinet and backbench members of the government are all dedicated and committed to making changes. I would ask members of the Reform Party to come forward with their ideas because I know that the minister and others will listen. In a years time or two years time I would ask them to look back and I think they will be proud of the work of this government in the area of criminal law reform.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it your intention to have two members from the same party speak in a row?

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again on the question of section 745, as members know I have introduced in this House a significant number of petitions from Canadians requesting that the government delete section 745. I would like to introduce another with several hundred signatures today.

The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: If those individuals convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 25 years, that those convicted of second degree murder can be sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 15 years or more; that section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law; that those individuals convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison can become eligible for parole after serving only 15 years by virtue of section 745 of the Criminal Code; that convicted murderers can be released after serving only 15 years in prison; therefore your petitioners request that Parliament pass legislation that would remove section 745 from the Canadian Criminal Code.

I should point out that as a result of this provision in the Criminal Code notorious killers such as Clifford Olson, for example, would become eligible to apply to be released from prison in less than two years.

[Criminal Code, March 17th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this Private Members' Bill. Members will know that those convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years and those sentenced or convicted of second degree murder can be sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 15 years or more.

Under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, these individuals can apply to have their parole ineligibility dates reduced to 15 years.

The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to delete section 745 of the Criminal Code. The net effect of this would mean that those convicted of first degree murder in Canada would be required by law to serve a minimum of 25 years and those convicted of second degree murder would be required to serve whatever the sentence of the court is.

I am pleased that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber today. I would urge the Minister of Justice to take into serious consideration the bill I am introducing today. He knows that there have been a significant number of these applications over the last several years. Seventy-five percent of these applications have been successful. In effect, if someone commits first degree murder in Canada today it no longer means that person has to serve a minimum of 25 years.

I urge all hon. members to support this initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Committees Of The House, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was delayed in coming to the House today. It was my intention to introduce a Private Members' Bill. I would seek unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of Private Members' Bills.

[Supply, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure other members besides myself and indeed Canadians are somewhat amused at what the Leader of the Official Opposition is doing.

He just said a few moments ago that he wants to protect our identity. We have to protect what we are. I find it passing strange that someone who is dedicated to separating from the rest of Canada would want to protect what we are.

I was wondering if the Leader of the Opposition, a dedicated separatist, can explain exactly why he is standing up today defending Canadian culture. Can it be interpreted as a change in his basic philosophy? Can he explain to Canadians and indeed to Canadians in the province of Quebec what he is doing fighting for Canadian sovereignty, Canadian identity?

[Privilege, March 10th, 1994]

I did not realize, Mr. Speaker, that when presenting questions of privilege we were required to make them brief. One would expect we would be given the opportunity to explain fully our questions of privilege.

I will conclude. I would ask you, as the Speaker of the House and the person responsible, to ensure fairness and to ensure that private members have the opportunity to be meaningful in the House. I ask you to review the process.

To ask a group of individuals who have already made these patently unfair decisions to rule again on the same question is inappropriate.

I would ask you, Sir, as Speaker of the House, to rule on the matter.

[Privilege, March 10th, 1994]

No, I have not.

[Privilege, March 10th, 1994]

May I finish my submission, Mr. Speaker?