House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.
Airbus June 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice repeated in this House that he was not aware of the negotiations between the lawyers representing the government and those representing former Prime Minister Mulroney.
How then does the minister explain that, yesterday, he indicated negotiations had stopped when he said that it is difficult to negotiate with someone when, 24 hours after an informal meeting takes place between lawyers, all the details are on the national news?
Airbus June 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The minister said on a number of occasions that he had informed the RCMP about allegations concerning the Airbus issue a few days after being appointed Minister of Justice.
Can the minister tell us if the allegations made by journalists and to which he is referring are the ones he was informed about at the beginning of 1993, when he met with two journalists, as the Toronto Sun was told by one of his political advisors, Cyrus Reporter?
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask the justice minister if he will rise in his place and tell us that he in no way made personal inquiries with anybody at all concerning the Airbus affair when he was a Liberal candidate in 1993?
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, can the justice minister rise in his place and tell us on his honour that in no way-
Airbus June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is using lofty principles to hide his improvisation in the Airbus affair. The minister must move beyond discourse and explain the facts.
Does the Minister of Justice confirm that he looked into the Airbus affair, in a personal and partisan manner, when he was a Liberal candidate in the 1993 general election?
Criminal Code June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke if he could explain the reason why the members of the Reform Party will vote against the amendments put forward by the Minister of Justice-that is what we are led to believe, given that they are in favour of repealing all section 745-while at the same time wanting this House to pass this bill as quickly as possible.
I would like to know what the reasoning is behind the Reformers opposing the bill, when at the same time being prepared to help the Minister of Justice ram this bill through.
Criminal Code June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this government bill proposes to amend a single section of the Code- section 745. This section has been in effect since 1976, but was not first applied until 1987.
It allows a convicted murderer to present an application for parole after serving 15 years in prison. This recourse will be used increasingly as inmates likely to make use of it complete 15 years of their sentence.
At the moment, only 175 of the 2,085 persons convicted of murder have completed the 15 years of prison requisite to the presentation of the application. Of these, only 74 have actually exercised the right, and 63 have had a hearing before a jury. In 13 cases, the jury rejected the application to reduce the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In 50 cases, the jury reduced the number of years.
What happens when the jury allows an application and reduces the number of years? The inmate may then apply to the National Parole Board, which will hold a hearing, hear witnesses, including the victim, and allow or deny parole. Of the 50 allowed to apply to the board, only 17 were granted full parole, six were denied parole altogether, eight were granted partial freedom and six are entitled to temporary absences.
As we can see, section 745 simply gives inmates the opportunity to seek a jury's approval to apply for parole earlier than scheduled. The period is usually 25 years in the case of first degree murder and 10 years in the case of second degree murder, which may be extended to 25 years by the trial judge on the recommendation of the jury.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code is an exceptional measure. However, the National Parole Board has final say. Therefore, section 745 is not, as some would have us believe, a wide open back door out. It is a glimmer of hope for those who redeem themselves. This measure is an incentive to inmates to behave responsibly during their incarceration.
In the opinion of the associate chief justice of the Ontario Supreme Court, this review process establishes a happy medium between the need to show clemency with respect to an offender whose conduct while serving his sentence is good, which may be conducive to rehabilitation, and the interests of the community, which demands that the act that led to the inmate's incarceration be condemned.
It is the only provision of the Criminal Code that gives citizens responsibility for a decision as to the just and equitable nature of a sentence. The Criminal Code as it now stands therefore provides for a judicial review mechanism that seems appropriate.
In 1994, the Liberal member for York South-Weston presented a bill aimed purely and simply at repealing this section. We in the Bloc Quebecois argued to keep section 745, but his bill was passed anyway at second reading by a vote of 136 to 103. However, the session ended before it went to third reading. On March 12, 1996,
the same bill was reintroduced in the House and is now before the justice committee.
Today the Minister of Justice is at it again with a proposal to keep this review procedure, but with a few changes. We are in favour of the proposed amendments because they maintain this recourse, with the addition of a few justifiable changes. It must be remembered that this section has not been amended at all since it was first introduced, in 1976.
First of all, the Minister of Justice is proposing that this recourse be dropped in the case of those found guilty of more than one murder. We support this measure, which creates a difference in treatment between someone who has killed one person and a serial killer. This is obviously entirely logical, at least in our view. Section 745 is intended as an exceptional measure, and it is understandable that a serial killer would be excluded from its application, as would anyone still posing a threat to society.
This amendment will make it possible in future to exclude the Fabrikants, Olsons and Bernardos. They will have to serve the sentence handed down by the court before being able to apply for parole. Furthermore, it is very difficult to see how a repeat offender or a serial killer could be successful in a request for judicial review.
It is appropriate to amend section 745 in this regard. This amendment will make it possible, and rightly so, to exclude from the application process those with very few chances of being paroled in any case. This measure will increase public safety and sends the message that murder is unacceptable.
The purpose of the second proposed amendment is to require that decisions of juries to reduce parole ineligibility periods be unanimous. At the present time, the application must be approved by two thirds of the jury. This will increase public safety and reduce the number of approved applications.
If there is unanimous agreement to reduce this period, a two thirds majority is enough to substitute a lesser number of years or to immediately terminate the ineligibility for parole. The two thirds rule is maintained when it comes to setting the number of years by which the ineligibility period is being reduced, which strikes a certain balance.
We support this measure because section 745 is an exceptional provision. The unanimity requirement highlights the fact that it is exceptional. Furthermore, should the application be turned down, the jury may, by a two thirds majority, set the time at or after which another application may be made by the applicant.
This bill requires that the jury be unanimous, but still allows the inmate to make another application after two years. Again, a certain balance is struck between protecting society and recognizing the inmate's efforts.
Finally, the last proposed amendment is that any review application be subject to judicial screening. This provision is obviously aimed at eliminating unfounded applications that have no reasonable chance of being approved. To do so, the judge reviews the application, the report from Correctional Services, and any other document submitted by the attorney general or the applicant.
The judge makes a decision based on the applicant's character and behaviour and the nature of the offence of which he was convicted. Although this additional step may initially appear to make the procedure more cumbersome, its purpose is obviously to avoid having to train a jury and to communicate with the victim to ask for information.
Should the judge decide that the applicant has shown there is a real possibility the application will be approved, the chief justice designates a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction to empanel a jury to hear the application.
If the judge rules that the applicant has not shown there is a real possibility the application will be approved, he can set the period at or after which another application may again be made or decide that no new application may be made. The applicant or the attorney general may appeal to the appeal court any ruling made by the judge.
These three amendments will reduce the number of applications. With the exclusion of multiple murderers and the introduction of judicial screening, it is likely that only serious applications will be referred to a jury. And, by requiring that applications be approved by the whole jury, we can expect a more thoughtful decision. It will be up to the National Parole Board to make the ultimate decision.
In short, this bill gets our support because it maintains an appropriate recourse while trying to prevent any possible cases of abuse. In our view, however, there was no reason to disrupt House procedure to rush this bill through. This is pure improvisation. I must also tell you in closing that, as an exception, the justice committee will be sitting this evening to hear the justice minister, senior justice officials and another witness. The committee will also have to resume its hearings tomorrow, going into overdrive because time is running out.
I must say these hearings look like a travesty, the whole idea being to pass Bill C-45 as quickly as possible. Let us say it is really not standard procedure. That is the most appropriate term I can use in this place.
To say it as it is, the Minister of Justice left it to the last minute. We could certainly have started discussing this bill a few months back. The Standing Committee on Justice could have summoned witnesses. But no, instead the Minister of Justice chose to wait till the very last minute and to improvise.
Why? Could it be that he wanted to boost his image, an image recently tarnished by certain matters currently before the courts, in short, the Airbus affair? Perhaps. At any rate, we will let the public be the judge of that. I just wanted to point out that this is not standard practice. As far as I am concerned, a travesty of hearings is not standard practice for a Minister of Justice.
Airbus Aircraft June 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that the department's counsels heard the minister say that a settlement out of court was the best solution. I do not think they are deaf.
Would the minister not agree that his own poor judgment put the government in a very bad legal situation, that will cost a lot of money to the Canadian taxpayers and undermine the credibility of the whole government?
Airbus Aircraft June 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Justice denied the report by the CBC to the effect that the libel suit brought against the government in the Airbus deal might be settled out of court.
However, by indicating that an out of court settlement is always the best solution, the Minister of Justice admitted that the government was trying to get that kind of settlement in the Airbus case.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us if, in the Airbus case, the main objective of the government is to settle out of court and if the department's counsels have made a proposal to that end?
Justice June 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if it is a possibility that his department sends letters containing unproven charges merely to ensure that the foreign authorities will accept the inquiry being submitted to them?