Dick Harris

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member opposite about a little phrase that one of the health groups is using

now: just say no. The reason they say just say no is that doing that activity will have a harmful effect on them.

I am saying to the government just because someone asks it to soften up a bit and give a little more latitude in working out a more lenient way to deal with prisoners in the provincial system, that does not mean it has to say "of course, go ahead and do it".

The government needs some backbone. It should tell them: "I am sorry, the Canadian people do not want us to soften up the justice system. They want us to toughen up the justice system. No, we are not going to pass the bill. We are not going to give you the additional freedom to treat prisoners in a more lenient manner. I am sorry no, the people do not want it". Why do you not have the guts to say that?

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

I have had the chance to observe what has been going on here over the last couple of weeks and indeed what has been going on in this House over the last few months. What we have here is a simple case of Liberal electioneering.

I give the Liberal Party more credit than do most Canadians. The Liberal Party knows very well that the criminal justice system is a huge concern in the minds of the Canadian people. Liberals have done their polling and their homework and know that most Canadians think there is a huge void between where the criminal justice system is and where it should be.

Let me be the first to say that my colleagues in the Reform Party and I take a whole lot of credit for getting out the information to the Canadian people. It has raised their awareness to a point where they are starting to say that there is something wrong with the justice system.

The Liberals know that the Canadian people are very concerned about the justice system, the way the prisons, the parole system and the sentencing procedures are. The Liberals are trying to balance just how much it will take to make the Canadian people think that they are actually doing something about the disparities in the criminal justice system. They are trying to balance that and at the same time not offend the bleeding heart philosophy of the Liberal Party and most of its members.

If ever there was a definition of a conundrum, we have it right here between the Liberal philosophy of dealing with the criminal justice system, with people who commit murders and robberies and with people who drive impaired and kill people. There is a problem in dealing with all of those issues in the criminal justice system and balancing that against Liberal philosophy.

I do not envy the Liberals for being in that position. The fact is that when it comes to being honest with themselves, let alone with the Canadian people, when they are faced with this situation they honestly know they cannot give Canadians what they want because it throws their philosophy out of balance.

What we have here is a situation of tinkering, smoke and mirrors, deception, making believe that they are doing something but they are not. We see the government failing to take the necessary steps to restore justice to the criminal justice system.

Bill C-53 would amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act by adding a statement of purposes and principles with respect to the temporary absence programs. It also permits the provinces to create additional types of temporary absence programs for people convicted of crimes. Further, and this comes as no surprise as far as this government is concerned, Bill C-53 will extend the period of temporary absences to 60 days. Does this mean that prisoners are now going to be able to go on a Club Med holiday because they have more time out of the can?

Finally, the bill sets out the grounds for suspending, cancelling or revoking temporary absences and confers the power to apprehend and return persons to custody.

Those are the provisions contained within the bill, but a huge concern to the Reform Party and of far more importance is what is not included in the bill. What is not included in the bill is a clear statement that the protection of society must be paramount, the most important thing, of prime consideration with respect to temporary absence decisions. What is not in this bill is a statement that says the most important thing when considering temporary absences must be the protection of the Canadian people, of society, of our wives, of our husbands, of our children, of our grandchildren, of our cousins, of the Canadian law-abiding people.

Why is this not in the bill? Because this Liberal government has a philosophy which is held over from the Trudeau days. It is a philosophy that was brought to this House and this Parliament by the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Kingston and the Islands, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and the Prime Minister himself. All the holdovers from the Trudeau government. I am sorry, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was probably a little bit young then but that philosophy is still here.

The Liberal philosophy is that as a Liberal government it must place the rights of prisoners on the same plane as the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims. That is the philosophy of this government. The government may ask: "Well why do we lock them up if that is the case?" The fact that they lock them up is that the law says they have to, but this government is doing everything it can do to change that law and let them out. That is the problem and we have it right here in Bill C-53.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act which governs the behaviour of the parole board has a clear statement that the protection of society is to be the most important factor in determining whether or not a prisoner should be given parole. I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Liberals will try to amend that act to remove that statement.

Bill C-53 considers the protection of society to be of the same importance as the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Personally I find it quite appalling that this government would have the audacity to put the protection of society, of people who have never committed a crime, our children, our brothers, our sisters, our parents, the protection of law-abiding Canadians on the same plane and the same importance as the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the communities. That is the most appalling philosophy I have ever heard and this government has done it.

Once again the Liberals are elevating and promoting the rights of criminals. It is as simple as that. Let me just repeat that. Once again this Liberal government is attempting to elevate and promote the rights of criminals.

The Liberals may want to pat themselves on the back for that but I am sure the Canadian people will not give them a hand on that one. The bill says to Canadians that their safety as law-abiding Canadians, as families is not the primary responsibility of the correctional system.

This Liberal government has the nerve, the audacity to put forward a bill that says to Canadians their safety is not the prime responsibility of the corrections system. Congratulations. Their safety is of no more importance than a criminal's rehabilitation. Congratulations. This is absolutely ludicrous. How can this government, how can these Liberals even consider the thought?

How can they consider saying to Canadians: "I am sorry, the correctional system in this country really does not think that the safety of our families and our communities is important. Therefore, we are going to elevate the rights and the privileges and promote that criminals get out into society quicker. Do not worry, if they commit another crime, we will just pick them up, put them back in and then go through the same process again".

The Liberals opposite are saying that I am crazy. Let us listen to what the Library of Parliament has to say. These are not my words. The Library of Parliament says that this bill gives less importance to the protection of society than does the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This appears in the legislative summary prepared for all members by the Library of Parliament. It does not represent my personal opinion on the bill. This is an impartial opinion of the contents and effects of this bill.

The legislative summary also states: "The principles set out relating to temporary absences are similar to those set out in the CCRA with the significant exception"-this is the Library of Parliament-"that in the act the protection of society is to be the paramount consideration in the determination of any case". I go back to what I said before. It is not so much what is in this bill; it is what has been left out, that is, the consideration of society when it comes to releasing criminals into the community.

Members will note that the author of the Library of Parliament legislative summary uses the term "significant exception". They picked it up right away. They agree with Reformers when we say that this bill does nothing to protect society. It will in effect place the protection of society on the same plane as the rehabilitation and reintegration of criminals into our society. That is appalling. Canadians will not and cannot accept that for a moment.

That is just a symptom. That is a result of this Liberal philosophy that was born in the Trudeau era and brought forward to this Parliament by members of Parliament who were present then. We see it so much in evidence today.

The author from the Library of Parliament uses the term "significant exception" with good reason. It is very significant that the Liberals do not consider the protection of society to be their primary concern. That is significant and we have seen it.

Time after time they have presented government bills in the House that purport to toughen up the justice system, that purport to get tough on criminals, that purport to get tough on people who commit horrendous crimes in this country. In actuality they are just a smokescreen to fool the Canadian people into thinking this Liberal government actually cares about whether people who do crimes in this country pay a price for them or not.

Of equal concern to the Liberals, judging by some of the bills they have brought forth, is the criminal's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. I believe that this is wrong that they place these two things on the same plane. The protection of society must be reflected in every single part of the criminal justice system. The protection of society must be paramount.

No other part of the criminal justice system deserves to be even anywhere equal to the protection of our society. No rights of criminals, nothing to do with the parole system, nothing to do with lenient sentencing, nothing to do with temporary releases; none of that should even begin to come on the same scale as the protection of our society, of our children, of our sisters, our brothers, our parents in this country. Nothing should ever even begin to climb the scale to get to the level that protection of society is.

I read these bills and I think are they nuts over there? Where is their logic? I need to give the Liberals a simple lesson in the purpose of our justice system. I am even going to dumb it down for them so they can understand. They should listen closely. We put bad people in prison to punish them for their bad acts and protect society from their bad behaviour. Is that too complicated for this government to understand? We put bad people in prisons and we punish them.

There is no way that anyone in their right mind could even consider supporting Bill C-53. It is a bill with so much audacity, with so much trickery in it, with so much electioneering in it that it does not even deserve a place in this House. I certainly oppose it and so do my colleagues.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Or more.

The Liberals are too busy pampering criminals to have any time to deal with the concerns of victims.

The member for Fraser Valley West has put forward a victims bill of rights that has been widely accepted all over this country. No matter what the Liberals say about the Reformers when it comes to crime and punishment, we will say what the people say. Reformers will stand here and talk long, loud and clear about criminal justice. At least our party will reflect the views of the Canadian people in this House.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-45.

Let us examine what this bill is about. Of course the amendment which the Bloc put forward is to give the bill a rest for about six months so it can be studied in even greater depth. Quite frankly, I agree with the motion, except that it does not go far enough. We should give this bill a rest, period. We should throw out this useless bill. Let us get back to talking about a criminal justice system in which sentences fit the crime and in which the sentences are designed to protect society by not allowing criminals to get out early to commit another crime. That is what we are talking about.

We listened to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands verbally assaulting us out of the view of the cameras. I would like to talk about some of the comments which he made yesterday in his presentation.

"The point is most murders, from my limited knowledge", and I will certainly agree with that, "in this area are crimes of passion. I do not think the offender sits and thinks of the consequences of his or her acts when a murder is taking place". What a profound statement. The fact is many murders are committed in this country with premeditation. That is what we are talking about, premeditated murder, first degree murder. We are talking about cold blooded murder.

Do we accept the philosophy of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the philosophy of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the philosophy of the Minister of Justice and the philosophy of the Liberal government and a good majority of its members? Do we accept that philosophy as being how we should deal with people who commit cold blooded, vicious murders? Should the Liberal philosophy be the guiding light as to how we treat these people? Or should it be how Canadians, how our society, how law-abiding citizens feel about this? That is the question we have to ask here today.

Surely one can see from the bill that the Minister of Justice has set himself up as some sort of king who is going to decide all. This is quite astounding. He has the audacity to determine unilaterally that in this country there are good murderers and bad murderers. If someone commits one murder they are, in his mind, a good murderer and they get to apply for early parole after 15 years. If they commit more than one murder they serve a life sentence of 25 years.

There are two points I would like to make. First, how does he have the audacity to suggest that the crime of killing one victim is any less severe than someone who kills two or three people? How can he make that judgment? Could he tell the family of a victim that the killer was in fact classified as a good killer and someone who killed three or four people was a bad killer? Could he actually say that? I think not.

The other point I want to make in talking about multiple killers is that in his philosophy and in most of the Liberals' philosophy, a multiple killer should serve a life sentence of 25 years. I would hazard a guess that most Canadians would prefer that a multiple killer serve a life sentence of 25 years for every murder he or she has committed.

In other words we are talking about consecutive sentencing as most other countries have. The governments of those countries try to reflect in the criminal justice system what society wants. If we were to carry that line of thought into this debate, then certainly we should not be talking about whether or not a killer gets out early if they kill one, two or three people. If we were to truly reflect the feeling among the Canadian people when it comes to first degree premeditated murder, then we would be talking about capital punishment in this House today.

Poll after poll, survey after survey has shown that a majority of Canadians first of all would support the return of capital punishment for first degree murder in this country, but most important, an

even higher majority of the people in this country would simply like to be asked. That is what the Reform Party has been pushing for.

If this government had any intestinal fortitude, any sense, any brains, or any sense of democracy, it would take that question to the people of Canada. If the government is afraid to deal with that question, then let us let the government off the hook and take that question to the people of Canada in a national referendum. Ask them if they would like to have the return of capital punishment in this country. Just ask them. The government will not do that because it knows what the answer will be. The answer will be an overwhelming yes and that does not align with the Liberal philosophy.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce when he was justice minister was the one who put through section 745. A companion to that bill was to eliminate the death penalty and replace it with life sentences and the early parole application. That was a reflection of the philosophy of the Liberal government of that day and it is apparent in this group of Liberals sitting here today.

The minister has set the quota at one life, should at some future time the killer want the opportunity to make an application to reduce his or her parole. It is disgraceful and reprehensible that the justice minister, who really was elected only in one riding and was given a little bigger job once he got here, has set himself up as judge and jury as to how the criminal justice system is going to work without regard for the real jury out there which is the Canadian people.

Where do the Canadian people fit in this scheme of the justice minister's? Quite frankly, they do not count. That is very clear in this bill.

We talked about consecutive sentencing. If the minister is so determined that people who commit premeditated multiple murders should serve a life sentence, why do we not see something in the bill that says a life sentence for every life someone takes? Where is that in the bill? If someone kills two people, it should be two life sentences. If someone kills four people, it should be four life sentences. Consecutive sentences. That would be the thing that would keep these people in prison. Consecutive sentencing puts a value on the taking of each and every life in the case of multiple killers.

Clifford Olson should have received 11 life sentences. He killed 11 people. Premeditated and pre-calculated, he killed 11 people. As a matter of fact one of the victims was the daughter of the man who gave me my first job. That has no relevance to this except to point out that I have some personal knowledge of the savage acts Clifford Olson committed and he should never ever even have the opportunity to apply for early parole.

The U.S. uses consecutive sentencing. Some states have abolished their parole boards which would be a good idea given the record of our parole boards in this country. They have abolished them to ensure that criminals serve their entire sentences. However that is not in the philosophy of the Liberal Party, the Minister of Justice and cohorts from governments past, the cohorts in this bill. It is not in their philosophy.

The Liberals are too busy looking after criminals and placing them on the same plane as their victims. This government believes that the rehabilitation of criminals should have as much attention and as much respect as the victims of crime themselves.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Protection of society.

[Liberal Party, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night the Liberal Party unveiled a new party poster in Quebec City depicting their opposition parties on an evolutionary scale with Reform at the bottom of the chain.

It is curious that these posters were unveiled at a time when the Prime Minister was delivering a speech on tolerance and respect.

It seems the Liberals have little tolerance for opposing viewpoints and no respect for the two million Canadians who voted Reform in the last election.

During the 1993 federal election the Tory party ran a disgusting TV ad which made a personal attack on the appearance of the Prime Minister. Reformers joined millions of Canadians in denouncing this sleazy Tory tactic. Now it appears that the Liberals are stooping to the very same sleazy Tory tactics.

Are the Liberals afraid that Reform will become the voters' natural selection come the next election? Or does the Liberal Party's notion of tolerance and respect apply only to those Canadians who vote Liberal?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.

Prior to the election in 1993 when we were going through the exercise of getting to know everyone, there was one thing I made sure I did. There was a certain number of issues which could be considered moral issues or personal issues. I felt the obligation as a candidate to ensure there was no doubt where I stood on things.

One of the issues was the issue of capital punishment. I made it very clear to my constituents that I, as a candidate for the Reform Party, personally favoured the return of capital punishment. I told everyone who asked. I even made an effort to publicize it so there would be no confusion as to where I stood. I was elected. I was not elected on that issue, but on the excellent platform which was put forward by the Reform Party.

At the end of the day, it is not what the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley believes in which should be the main determining factor of how I vote in Parliament or how I debate, it should be that of the people who elected me.

I have done poll after poll in my riding on various things. One of the polls asked the question: Would you favour a binding national referendum on the issue of capital punishment? In my riding 71 per cent said yes, 17 per cent said no and the balance was unsure. Seventy-one per cent said yes. It gave me a good indication that my constituents for the most part, a huge majority, agreed with my personal opinion on the subject.

It is interesting to note that just recently I gave an interview in my riding. We were talking about Clifford Olson and his being able to apply for early parole, something the Liberals have allowed to happen. Let that be clear to Canadians watching today. Clifford Olson, this mass murderer is eligible to have a hearing on early parole. He is able to do this because of the Liberal government and the Liberal governments that preceded this government, whose philosophies are supported by this government and the Minister of Justice, and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was the Minister of Justice back in the government that allowed Olson to have this opportunity.

Let us never forget where this Liberal government and its predecessors stand on the issue of crime and punishment. No matter what the Minister of Justice is putting through in this House with bill after bill that tinkers with the justice system, the Canadian people will not be fooled as to the philosophy of this Liberal government.

Getting back to what I wanted to say, we were talking about Clifford Olson and the fact that he can apply for a hearing. I made the comment that if I had my way, Clifford Olson should possibly get a suspended sentence, like at the end of a rope. My assistant in my riding office said: "You can't say that". I said: "Why not? The vast majority in my riding thinks the same way I do". He asked how I knew that and I told him we would do a little test.

A person that I knew came in and I said: "I think you are capable of doing a straw poll for me this afternoon, would you do it? Just go out and ask people, and do it demographically-young people, middle aged people, older people, men, women-this question: If you had the opportunity to pull the lever on Clifford Olson would you do it? Ask it in as unbiased, non-influencing manner as you can". He asked 37 people just strolling up the street. Of those 37, 31 said yes without hesitation; four said they agreed he should be put to death but they did not think they could do it; and two said they were not too sure about that. That is consistent with the thinking not only in my riding but in ridings all across the country.

This Liberal government and the Liberal and Tory governments before it, despite the widespread call from Canadians to give us a vote on this subject, have refused to allow a referendum on it. How can a political party that forms a government, whether it be Liberals or Tories, sit in this House, meet in caucus knowing that Canadians want an opportunity to vote on this issue and arbitrarily and unilaterally make the decision not to allow the vote? That is not democracy. That is not what this House is all about.

I understood, and maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when he speaks will correct me on this, but I always thought that we came here to represent the people of Canada. I ask him if he will address the question: Do we come here as members of Parliament to represent the people of Canada? I hope he will answer that question. If that is true, if that is why we are here, then why do we not have a national binding referendum on the issue of capital punishment?

The Canadian people over the years have responded an average of 68 per cent. Polls consistently taken since the 1960s show that Canadians favour the death penalty. Sixty-eight per cent of the population on average since the 1960s have clearly indicated that they favour the return to capital punishment.

A much higher percentage of the Canadian people want at least the opportunity to vote on it. The Liberals will not give them that opportunity; they will speak against this. The Tories would not give them that opportunity. The Liberal government before them would not give them that opportunity.

We get back to the question of why they came here. Did they come here to support some Liberal philosophy that they have created on how to deal with first degree murderers who commit horrendous crimes? Are they here to support Liberal philosophy on

people who kill people, on premeditated, savage murderers? Is it Liberal philosophy that should determine how they should be punished? I do not think so. This government, as previous governments did, has an opportunity to support this bill and see what the Canadian people want to do.

In closing, I ask for unanimous consent that this bill be sent to the justice committee.

[Department Of National Defence, September 20th, 1996]

Cover up, cover up.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-201.

I close the debate on Bill C-201 on behalf of all the victims of drunk drivers and on behalf of the families of victims who have died at the hands of a drunk driver and, unfortunately, on behalf of people who will in the future become the victims of drunk drivers.

Impaired driving is an issue which touches every single region of our society. I would hazard to say that there is no one in the House tonight who does not know of someone, a family, a relative who has not been a victim of impaired driving. This issue touches everyone.

Many provinces in Canada have taken positive steps to deal with drunk driving. They have taken some very positive steps and we are happy to see that. But there have been no steps made at the federal level, no changes in the Criminal Code that would send a message out to the people of Canada that the Parliament of Canada takes impaired driving seriously, that reflects a zero tolerance toward impaired driving. The time to take that step is now with the passing of this bill.

Since introducing Bill C-201 in excess of 25,000 signatures have come into this Parliament and to the office of the Minister of Justice supporting this bill.

I did a walkabout on Sparks Street yesterday and talked to over 20 people. The media was there. We wanted to see what the person in the street had to say about it. There was 100 per cent support for this bill.

The Liberals know that this bill is supported by millions of Canadians who are fed up with the weak manner in which drunk drivers who kill are treated in the courts in this country.

This bill is also supported by numerous anti-drunk driving associations across the country, most notably MADD Canada, Canadian Students Against Impaired Driving, Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, the Nepean Association Against Drunk Driving. This bill deserves the attention of the Liberal government.

As was pointed out earlier, and I am really saddened by the action on behalf of the government, but yesterday, purposely in this House, there was an attempt at circulating disinformation among the Liberal members. That was talked about by those who spoke earlier. The disinformation attempted to convey the message to Liberal members that MADD Canada did not support this bill.

I am absolutely ashamed of the people responsible over there who sent out this letter in a deliberate attempt to misinform the members and sabotage this bill on the very eve of the vote. They clearly knew, because we dealt with this in the spring, that MADD Canada's association with 110,000 members across this country, were 100 per cent in favour of supporting this bill. However, because they knew that this bill has broad support among the Liberal members, they attempted, through a disinformation program, to sabotage this bill. I am ashamed of that and ashamed for them.

Bill C-201 is not the magic bullet to eliminate impaired driving but it is an important first step. Other measures need to be pursued in order to stop this crime. Let us get this bill to the justice committee so that witnesses can be called and this bill can be discussed and receive the attention it deserves.

In closing, I would say to every Liberal member who is thinking about voting against this bill, if there are any, to ask yourself the question: Can you face the family of a victim of an impaired driver and tell them why you will not support this bill? I ask them to ask themselves that question.

[Petitions, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition containing over 500 names from the riding of Simcoe North.

The petitioners state that there are profound inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges and that Canada must embrace a philosophy of zero tolerance to people who drink and drive.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum of 14 years as outlined in the private member's bill C-201, sponsored by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.