Bob Ringma

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we need a legal system in Canada, but the system we have is more concerned about criminals than about victims, in my opinion. We are looking for justice, and at the same time we are trying to listen to our constituents.

If a system does not work the way people want it to work, we must listen to the people. That is why I asked the hon. member for Portneuf whether he consulted his constituents before reaching his conclusions about the justice system in Canada and what should be done with these trials.

We must consult the public, and when we do, we hear something else, and that is the point I am trying to make.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member, I do not disagree with jury consultation. The problem I have in connection with Bill C-45 and section 745 of the Criminal Code is: What information will the jury be given? Will they get all the information about the pain, the anguish inflicted on the victim? Will they get the real impact of what has happened to the victim's family and friends? The answer to that is probably no. The real thing about a jury, and it is right that the member raises it, is: What information will they get and what will they base their judgment on except all of that information?

Let us go back to another comment made by the member, that the only thing we are looking at here is life imprisonment. I had Private Members' Bill C-261 in the House on Friday. That bill, after having consulted with the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan, addressed the matter of the death penalty. Consulting with my community I found that the majority of people expressed an interest and a desire to revisit the whole business of the death penalty in Canada.

That again has been taken away from the people by the elites in this country, going back to 1976 specifically by my predecessor, an honourable and noble parliamentarian by the name of Tommy Douglas. Having heard the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan, he said that yes the majority wanted to keep the death penalty but he came to the House and said that he must vote his conscience.

This is one of the basic problems we have in the democracy of this country: Who is listening to whom and who is acting on whose behalf? Are we listening to the people or do we, you the elite, know better?

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for clarifying that point. I did get cut a little short prior to question period.

We are resuming debate on Bill C-45, which is the Liberal government's response to calls from the public for tougher parole eligibility guidelines. The main thing I have noticed so far in this debate is that there are real differences of opinion between this corner of the House and others.

One difference concerns the word retribution. There is an element of retribution in the idea of punishment that the public believes in but that is not concurred in by the other side. The other difference is the emphasis on rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a wonderful thing. By all means we should go for rehabilitation of criminals, for prevention and all of that. But once done there is an element of retribution for what has happened.

Another big difference I have noticed between ourselves and others in this House is the element of consultation or listening to the public. That is a strong point on the part of Reform. We make it a point to get out and listen to what people have to tell us. It seems that the Liberals in particular will make the decision for the public. It is an elite decision. They do not have to listen to what the public has to say. They say: "We know best. Therefore, it shall be this way".

With those differences in mind, I would like to conclude by saying that Bill C-45 may delay, but it will not prevent killers from getting a judicial review and ultimately an early parole. According to the judicial review reports of March 1994, 128 first degree murderers were eligible for judicial review. Of the 71 who applied, 43 had completed their judicial review, while 28 were outstanding. Out of the 43, 19 received immediate full parole eligibility, 13 had a partial reduction and 11 only were denied.

Bill C-45 and the review of a killer's application by a judge will do nothing but add an expensive layer of bureaucracy to a growing justice industry. Bill C-45 is nothing but the government's attempt, once again, to tinker with the justice system. In this case it is tinkering with the penalty for first degree murder.

Bill C-45 is not the first attempt by the Liberals to tinker with the issue of early release. However, with a bit of luck it will be their last before a Reform government steps into the breach and finally eliminates it altogether.

I will conclude my remarks by serving notice of my intent to vote against Bill C-45. In its present form I do not believe the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan would expect me to do anything less.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on with the debate. I apologize for that little intercession. I was hoping to get a question in.

Rising to speak to Bill C-45, the Liberal government's response to calls for tougher parole eligibility guidelines, the reasons why I will not be supporting this bill are numerous, and many of my Reform colleagues have already touched on the legislation's shortcomings in this and in previous debates.

In deciding what to speak on in relation to Bill C-45 I had to choose between the bill's merits, of which there are few, and its apparent lack of consideration for murder victims and their families. I chose the latter if only to highlight the Liberal government's total failure in this regard.

Victims rights groups in Canada like Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, CAVEAT, Victims of Violence, Crime Responsibility and Youth, CRY, and others have been calling for the elimination of Bill C-45. These are victims advocates spokespeople. It is a request, as I say, that is long overdue and appears to have been once again ignored by this government.

Yet what is it that victims rights advocates and Canadians in general find so offensive about section 745 of the Criminal Code? Pointedly, Bill C-45 still allows section 745 to remain, albeit in a somewhat watered down form. However, the fact remains that section 745 is still there and murderers will still be able to use its provisions.

I know that some of my Liberal friends across the way and their Bloc supporters will argue this bill is too harsh, but Reform's belief is that this bill does not go far enough. Our belief that this is the case is grounded at least in public support. That was to be the question I was going to ask my friend, the member for Portneuf, how much public support he feels comes from his constituents.

I have listened to some hon. members, including the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, wax eloquent in defence of section 745. After all, that member was one of the driving forces behind the repeal of capital punishment during the Trudeau reign of error. He

and his Liberal colleagues were also instrumental in establishing section 745 in its present and soon to be amended form.

If Canadians think about it for a minute they will have as good an understanding as anyone about why the present Liberal government will not repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. If the government chose to repeal section 745 in its entirety it would have to admit in front of all Canadians that it made a terrible mistake by putting it in the Criminal Code in the first place.

Imagine the media questions the poor Minister of Justice would have to answer if his government were to do the right thing and eliminate section 745. I think that is the crux of the issue here. If the government repeals and in essence admits it was wrong, it would be forced to admit that the Reform Party and every Canadian who wanted section 745 eliminated was right. It is not about to do that.

Beyond that, if Canadians accuse it of being wrong on the issue of section 745, it also leaves it vulnerable in just about every other area of criminal justice reform. By extension one would then be able to criticize every other area of Liberal policy making, which is easy enough to do already.

For example, the Liberals and their Tory predecessors have spent the country $600 billion into debt. They do not want the deficit to get to zero any time soon because to do so would mean that they would have to again admit that years of deficit spending were wrong. What do they do? Like with every other issue, they tinker around the edges but the problem remains. In essence, Liberal governments never treat the illness or underlying problem. They sort of stick band-aids on the patients in the hope they will not realize how sick they are.

I could go on about Liberal mismanagement but I have only 20 minutes and would be forced to stray from the subject at hand which is their half measure approaches to the issue of criminal justice reform. Half measures throughout.

In any event, the Liberals have decided it is in their best interests politically just to tinker with 745 rather than scrap it. It is my hope that when Canadians go to the polls the next time they will do what is in their best interests and scrap this Liberal government.

While Canadians are trying to fathom exactly why a government which claims to be responsible has a clause allowing persons convicted of first degree murder to get out of doing the full 25 years, they would be within their right to ask what opportunity do murder victims and their families have at a second chance. That is very basic to this whole argument. What about the victims and their families?

Canadians know the answer to that question just as readily as do Liberal members across the way. The answer is none. Murder victims and families do not have a second chance. Yet across the way they still insist that this bill is an enlightened approach. They call section 745 the faint hope clause. In reality they should have called it the get out of jail card.

It is not just the public calling for the elimination of section 745. A former member of the Liberal caucus has a private member's bill, Bill C-234, calling for this very repeal. Yet at every turn this bill has met with delay and obstructionist tactics by a government intent on burying the bill. Small wonder that Reform is cynical of Bill C-45 which is now before members.

I also want to touch on some of the points raised by both the justice minister and our colleagues from the Bloc. The justice minister in his previous speech addressed the business of whether section 745 was originally brought into the Criminal Code without the full knowledge of the people. Members from the Bloc have previously commented on the backroom shenanigans that occurred in 1976 when capital punishment was being removed from the Criminal Code and this section was brought it. The people of Canada knew nothing about this or its potential impact and they certainly did not give their consent to it.

All we need to do is look at the hue and cry which arose across the country as first degree murderers began to apply and receive reductions in their parole ineligibility.

There was not a great degree of awareness across Canada about what was happening in this area of the criminal justice system. I am also going to suggest that the justice minister has not adequately or successfully addressed this point.

The justice minister also spoke highly about the protection afforded the justice system as a result of juries' being able to decide on the acceptability of a section 745 application. That is fine. I believe juries are an integral part of the judicial process, but juries can act and decide only based on the information they receive. Juries have not always made decisions in the best interests of society because they have been deprived of the information they needed to make a just decision.

I also suggest that if we examine the limited role juries will now have under this amended section 745, all kinds of concerns and questions are present. For example, what kind of information will a jury receive? Will it receive information pertaining to the specific acts the individual has committed, the circumstances surrounding them, the pain and horror caused by that individual's actions not

only to the victim but to the victim's family and to society in general? Will the jury get that sort of information? If the past is any indication, I suggest it will not. Then how can it make a reasoned judgment?

Therefore when the justice minister suggests that all is well simply because a jury of common people picked from the community will be addressing the issue, I suggest there is a weakness in that argument. That weakness is clear according to the information which may be placed before a jury.

I say to the Minister of Justice that a jury cannot act on any information except that which is placed before it. In the case of section 745 hearings this leaves much to be desired in terms of the horror an applicant has caused the surviving family and friends of a victim.

I do not believe this government and its justice minister truly understand the horror inflicted on murder victims by way of their families, friends and society. I can say this because it is most certainly not reflected in the bill we are debating today.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-45 shows the justice minister has little empathy with the families of murder victims. These families are survivors. These families have endured nightmares as a result of the heinous crimes committed against their own flesh and blood. The memory of a family member or a friend who has been taken away by the cruel act of murder is insulted by this bill which contemplates a reduction in the punishment of its perpetrator.

Back in June members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs heard firsthand the horror of Sylvain Leduc's grandmother whose grandson was viciously murdered. The committee also heard from the mother of Leslie Mahaffy. Leslie was brutally murdered by Paul Bernardo.

I know my Liberal friends across the way who are chatting about other matters will bleat plaintively that Bernardo has already been declared a dangerous offender and that this bill has no force or effect where he is concerned. That is not the point. When we hear these stories we realize and understand the pain that families and friends could be forced to endure every time one of these sick, twisted animals applies for an early parole. Any avenue such as section 745 which provides killers with a chance for early release makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.

The penalty for premeditated first degree murder is life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. A life sentence is not about rehabilitation, as we have heard today, it is about punishment and retribution for the most horrible crime in society, the unlawful and deliberate taking of an innocent life.

The justice minister does not believe in punishment or retribution as necessary to the sentencing process. He seems only to focus on rehabilitation, which we have heard echoed by the Bloc speakers. That is what we have been getting from his colleagues in every aspect of the Liberal red book promise for safer streets and communities.

The same applies to their half hearted overhaul of the Young Offenders Act, which my constituents are in the process of having their say on in a tele-vote. My constituents are going to give me their input and then I will come back to the House with a private member's bill reflecting their wishes.

I know this concept of voter consultation is alien to many Liberal members, but trust me on this one. If they were to ask Canadians whether they favoured scrapping or amending section 745, Canadians would vote to scrap it in a second. Section 745 of the Criminal Code nullifies the penalty for first degree murder. It provides murderers an opportunity for a judicial review of their parole ineligibility after they have served just 15 years of a life sentence.

As I mentioned earlier, victims' groups, the Canadian Police Association and a majority of Canadians believe section 745 should be eliminated completely. Nothing except the full elimination of that section is acceptable to the Reform Party, and 98 per cent of our delegates at our national convention in June voted for its complete elimination after debating and voting on this issue.

Bill C-45 strips multiple or serial killers of the right to apply for early parole. However, this applies only to multiple murders committed after the passage of the bill. This creates categories of killers. There will be good killers and bad killers.

In true Liberal fashion, good killers are granted special status. This seems to be the hallmark of the government. Got a problem? Give some group or organization special status and that will fix everything. Want to get around being able to hire people on merit? Just give special status, preferential hiring for certain people. It goes on and on. Liberals cater to one group at the expense of another, call it a progressive policy and then criticize anyone who questions their approach.

In any event, good killers will have the right to appeal for early release from prison while bad killers will serve out their life sentence.

As of December 1995 there were 574 first degree murderers incarcerated in Canada. Of those, approximately 5 per cent were multiple killers, so-called bad killers. Multiple killers sentenced after the passage of Bill C-45 will not be eligible to apply for a reduction, but this does not appease people like Mr. and Mrs. Rosenfeldt, whose son was murdered by serial killer Clifford Olson. The Rosenfeldts, the Mahaffys, the Frenches and many other Canadians will not be satisfied until multiple killers receive

fair and just penalties, consecutive life sentences for each of the lives they took. Clifford Olson should be serving 11 consecutive life sentences.

As well, if the jury denies them a reduction in their application for early parole, the provisions of section 745 will allow them to appeal again and again. The same process will be applicable to all first degree murderers.

Let me finish by saying that Bill C-45 and a review of the killer's application by a judge will do nothing but add an expensive layer of bureaucracy to a growing justice industry. Bill C-45 is nothing but the government's-

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking my friend, the member for Portneuf, if by any chance he has been discussing this issue with his constituents, because our views are so different that-

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the last speaker. Do we have time?

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Do you have any doubts about Bernardo?

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the nays from the Liberal side of the House indicate the problem we have with democracy in Canada in 1996. It is a problem we have had for a number of years. The Liberals are afraid of allowing the public to express its opinion. They are afraid of members of Parliament expressing their own opinions rather than the opinion handed down by their elite, by their whip, by those who know best within the Liberal Party who say: "That is not party line. Do not vote that way". They are afraid of open votes.

I will conclude on that note. Let us leave it open. We still have a few more minutes for debate. I hope that those on the other side of the House are listening and that they open their minds a bit. It is an important bill for Canada and for Canadians. We know pretty much where the majority opinion is on this issue.

[Restoration Of Death Penalty Act, September 20th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-261, an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

Let us start on this bill by being very clear about Bill C-261 is about and what it is not about. It does not propose directly to reinstate capital punishment in Canada, nor does it propose that the death penalty be the only penalty for first degree murder. Let us be really clear about that.

It does propose that the Canadian public be asked for its opinion on the subject of capital punishment. Let us ask the public what it thinks. Canada is our country. It belongs to the people, not to a political elite who know better than ordinary people.

This bill simply says "refer this matter to the electorate", ask the public what it wants. I hope that is not asking too much of our parliamentary system. Ask the public what it feels.

Bill C-261 says put the question to the public in a referendum. So that it is not too costly it proposes that this referendum question be put to the public at the time of the next federal election. In this way at the same time that a voter casts his ballot for a member of Parliament the voter can also express an opinion on the capital punishment question. What could be easier and what could be less costly? Referendums themselves can be costly but this way not so.

Let us look at the question that would be asked in such a referendum. It would ask simply: "Do you agree that if a person is found guilty of first degree murder the judge or jury should have the option of sentencing the person to life imprisonment or the death penalty?" It is important to understand that an option is available.

Obviously if there were any doubt whatsoever about guilt, even after a finding of guilty, the sentencing authority would err on the side of caution. On the other hand, in extreme cases and where there is no question whatsoever of guilt, for example in the Clifford Olson and Bernardo cases, the sentencing authority would have the death penalty option available.

Who should decide this question, our leaders, our elites or the people? The resistance out there to even asking the question tells me two things. First, our leaders and our elites in this country do not trust the judgment of ordinary people. Second, the elites think they know best. More than that, they are absolutely convinced they know best.

During the 1993 election I had many constituents in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan discuss this subject with me on their doorsteps. They were concerned that if elected I might go to Ottawa and vote my opinion on this, as other subjects, rather than representing them and their opinions. These constituents cited the case of Tommy Douglas, a distinguished parliamentarian and one of my predecessors as the member of Parliament for my riding.

Apparently a survey in Nanaimo-Cowichan and the islands found that over 80 per cent of the electorate favoured keeping the death penalty. Tommy Douglas, a respected man though he was, returned to Ottawa and voted for the bill which eliminated the death penalty because it went against his conscience. Understandable, perhaps, but it raises the question of an MP's first obligation.

That is why the Reform Party has a policy on matters of morality or personal conscience. Our policy is that when such questions of morality arise our MPs should do three things. First, whenever asked, advise constituents of his or her personal beliefs. Second, ascertain the will of the majority of the constituents on that issue. Third, vote to represent that majority.

It is because of this policy that I have taken concrete measures to find out what the majority of my constituents wanted in this case. Using a tele-vote system in this last year which allowed all constituents to register their opinion in a secret ballot, I found that the majority of my constituents, and I suspect this is reflected by the majority across Canada, favoured the return of capital punishment. That expression of opinion directly to me from my constituents is what has led to the preparation of today's private member's Bill C-261. That, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy in action. It takes us a step closer to some direct democracy.

There are some in the House and some in the country and some in my constituency who do not like the concept of direct democracy. Perhaps some of these do not like democracy, period. But I think the majority of people do.

Let us look at the educational benefits of having a question such as this decided in a referendum advertised well in advance. Unlike the United States we do not know the date of our election. That is another Reform matter that we should correct. Nevertheless, we do know there will be an election in Canada within the next two years. Passage of my bill in the House would mean that the public would

have an indeterminate, because of our system, but nevertheless substantial period of time in which to debate the merits and drawbacks of capital punishment.

I address this comment to the so-called elites. Passage of my bill would allow them ample time to put forth their point of view. There is no reason for them to fear the public. Get out and tell it your thoughts then listen to what it has to say. They might learn something and the public might learn something and I think all would profit. The more facts or even the more opinions we have, the better the quality of our decisions is likely to be. Education is a beneficial byproduct of all referenda and specifically a benefit of this bill.

The public should be heard. Let us hear the views of those totally opposed to capital punishment and the views of those who would use it too freely. The public is not stupid; it is possessed of much common sense. The public can hear extreme arguments and find a middle road position with which it is comfortable.

It is important that this matter get to a vote. I would like at this point to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have this bill made votable.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first on a question of timing, I am going to try very hard to leave a little time for my colleague the member for Skeena to say a few words. However if we fail, we would like to receive a one-minute warning from you, Sir, at five minutes after the hour so that there are five minutes left for the sponsor of this bill, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code in the case of impaired driving causing death. This is a bill that Canada really needs. It is long overdue and it deserves the support of members from both sides of the House.

I respectfully ask that all members dispense with partisan beliefs in order to pass this bill. With this in mind for the remainder of my intervention in this matter, I will refrain from any political implications of any type. All I ask in return is for hon. colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same so that we can avoid the usual political sniping that seems to plague our deliberations.

I firmly believe that the subject before us now transcends political differences and should unite us in a common cause. This is not a bill reflective of any given political party. It is a bill that seeks only to protect Canadians. Nothing more and certainly nothing less is asked for.

We have all heard the horror stories associated with driving while impaired accidents. They are called DWI. The yearly carnage which is altogether senseless and tragic must end. I do not delude myself into believing that the passage of this bill will entirely stop people from dying in DWI accidents. However, it will go a long way to giving the family and friends of victims some semblance of closure and the idea that justice was served.

This bill's greatest value may also be in its deterrent value to new drivers. They are the ones who can be educated on the perils of driving while impaired whereas those who are repeat offenders would only be stopped by the punitive sanction of a minimum seven-year sentence.

Organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving will say that the status quo in sentencing can no longer be tolerated. They have seen too many tragedies and buried too many loved ones.

We have all heard the stories. Each member in this House has one and I will share yet another. His name was David Peters, a local boy, 25 years of age who was somebody's son, brother and friend. On June 24, 1989 he drove his motorcycle down Albion Road, south from where we are. A car travelling at a high rate of speed crossed the dividing line and hit him head on. He was killed instantly and the driver, as well as the passengers in the other vehicle, were taken to hospital with various injuries.

The driver was subsequently charged with impaired driving causing death. In the end, however, he walked free and received no custodial sentence. David Peters family and friends were crushed. A life had been extinguished and they deserved at the very least to see the perpetrator punished. Still, they resigned themselves to the fact that this cruel scenario plays itself out time and time again every single year.

It has been said before by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley but it deserves to be said again. Victims should not pay the penalty for impaired driving. Here are some government statistics that members heard a little of already to show how much of a problem this has been.

A 1992 Ottawa Sun editorial pointed out that over 13,000 people in that one year were killed or injured because someone drove while impaired. In 1994, 1,414 people were killed as a result of impaired driving. This is roughly three times the number of people murdered in Canada but one could argue that it is essentially the same thing. It is murder. Think about that number, 1,414 people.

If this Chamber were made four times larger, it still would not hold all those people. In 1993, of the 1,315 people who died on Ontario roads, 565 were alcohol related deaths. Sentencing for this crime, especially if it involves a fatality, is too lenient. That is the rationale behind this bill.

There is no ulterior motive save to bring justice to the families of victims and the sentencing of offenders.

I would like to close on that note and again urge members to put aside politics and vote, please, in support of this bill.