Dick Harris

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, all last week and this week the Minister of Justice has been skilfully trying to get himself stepped back from this whole thing. We almost have to congratulate him for his sleight of hand. While he may think he is fooling people, he certainly is not.

I would like to allow the minister one chance to clarify the situation. The minister has related to us the way he remembers the event, but just to make it clear, in the interests of transparency and clarity, I ask the minister if he would please table the letter from the RCMP in the House. Will he do that?

[Airbus, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in December the Minister of Justice told reporters he had passed on information to the RCMP about the Airbus affair. He said: "I have never had an instance occur where I passed information on and heard back from the RCMP in any way whatsoever".

Last Thursday, however, the minister told the House that the RCMP did indeed write back to him. I ask the Minister of Justice if he could simply explain this contradiction.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to give the figures to the hon. member across the way. I will also give him the figures of murders that have been committed by criminals who have been let out on parole for even lesser sentences the first time than murder. These are people who have been in jail for assault, sexual assault, rape and kidnapping and who have served part of their time, let out on parole and then went on to kill.

I will provide those figures to the member and he had better read them because the Canadian people have read them. The Canadian people are asking the government when it will do something about it. The Reform Party is standing up for Canadians all across the country. We have established the victims rights bill which we will bring into the House and which the Minister of Justice half-heartedly agrees with.

Quite frankly, we do not care much about what the Minister of Justice thinks about these things. It is the Canadian people we listen to. We will continue to listen to them because they know better than the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know there have been murders that have taken place after someone was released. I would be happy to send the member the figures.

The fact is that under section 745 if even one more murder is committed by someone who has been let out after only 15 years, that is too many. The Canadian people have been saying: "Do not let them out". The Liberal member knows that. The justice minister knows that one is too many. If a murderer savagely takes the life of a person they should spend the rest of their life behind

bars. If the Canadian people had their way they would be able to vote in a referendum on capital punishment.

The member opposite knows the mood of the Canadian people, but he is being told to sit and keep quiet by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is in charge and no one is going to upset his personal agenda.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is that it is just plain, old-fashioned political trickery.

The government knows that the DNA bill, which was introduced at the end of the last session, was badly flawed. It did not want to give the Reform Party an opportunity to point out all the weaknesses and inequities of the bill. The government did not want to hear our suggestions to make it better.

The Minister of Justice is doing exactly the same thing with this bill. He knows that this is a weak bill. He knows that the bill is totally redundant. He knows that multiple murderers do not get out of prison anyway. He knows that he is just trying to fool the Canadian people into thinking that he is actually doing something.

The reason he has introduced the bill now, with the House probably rising on Friday, is that he does not want to give Reformers any time to debate the issue appropriately. He does not want the debate to stretch out to the point that, heaven forbid, concerned Canadians might get some sort of an idea about what the minister is trying to do. He is playing make-believe that the bill will do some good.

By introducing it at the end of the session, as we are about to rise, he has taken away the time for meaningful debate, which is certainly warranted in this case.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the royal recommendation that the member has just spoken about provides additional funding to facilitate these appeals.

One of the things we have been saying throughout the debate is that if the government had the sense of what the Canadian people want, and had the backbone to deal with first degree murderers in a way that is appropriate, it not only would satisfy the concerns, the needs and the demands of the Canadian people but it could also save the taxpayers a ton of money. There would be no appeals.

That is the point that Reformers have been trying to make. That is the point that the member for York South-Weston tried to make in Bill C-226. Get rid of section 745. That way there will be no appeals. Life would mean 25 years. There would be no appeals.

Taxpayers would be saved millions and millions of dollars and murderers would be kept off the streets for at least 25 years, reducing the chance of someone getting out early and killing again. We would satisfy the demand of the Canadian people that, when a human life is taken with premeditation, justice would to be served and the sentence would be appropriate.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

On December 13, 1994 the House voted in favour of sending Bill C-226, sponsored by the member for York South-Weston to the justice committee. That member had the good sense to leave that party and sit on the other side of the House recently. We commend him for his good judgment. He knew what the government said about the GST in the last election. His integrity would not allow him to sit with the Liberals while they continued to mislead the Canadian people about the GST. What they said before the election, what they said in the red book and what they were saying verbally door to door did not always agree.

His bill called for the repeal of section 745. Some Liberals and other members in the House voted for it. Where is it? It is buried in committee because the justice minister does not have the guts to deal with it.

Actions that the majority of Canadians support do not mean much to this justice minister or the Liberals. What matters is the personal agenda of the Minister of Justice and the Liberals who are giving him advice.

CAVEAT wants the section repealed. Victims of Violence want the section repealed. Canadians want the section repealed. However, the justice minister, for some reason, does not want it repealed. Why is that?

When is the government going to govern the way Canadians want them to govern? When will they start listening to Canadians? When will they come down from their ivory towers and listen to the people? When will they repeal section 745? No one with half a brain could support this half-baked piece of legislation, which is redundant, before it even came to this House?

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-45 introduced by the Minister of Justice on June 11. I have been looking forward to speaking on this bill.

Bill C-45 is of grave concern to all Canadians and to members of Parliament, considering we dealt with scrapping section 745 in the private member's bill by the hon. member for York South-Weston. The bill passed through second reading and spent about 17 months in committee. We were wondering why the Liberals did not bring that back.

The amazing thing about Bill C-45 is the sheer audacity of the Minister of Justice to think that he can sucker the Canadian people into thinking he and his government are actually doing something about section 745 of the Criminal Code. There is nothing happening and this bill was redundant even before it came before the House.

The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause. The only faint hope is that the Minister of Justice and the Liberals will ever deal with the criminal justice system, sentencing and parole in the way Canadians want. That is the faint hope. The real hope is that one day the Reform Party will replace the members over there and we will get some real changes to the Criminal Code. That is the real hope.

Section 745 as it now stands permits lifers after serving 15 years to have their parole ineligibility reviewed. These are people who have been convicted of the heinous crime of first degree murder, people who have savagely taken another human being's life, people who without hesitation and with premeditation have wiped out a human life. This section deals with lifers, those convicted to life. Life of course to the Liberals means 25 years. I think Canadians believe life should mean life. In other words, if you take a human life in a savage crime you should spend the rest of your life behind bars, get out of society because you do not belong there.

Section 745 gives an opportunity to those currently convicted of first degree murder to have their parole ineligibility period reduced after serving 15 years. In other words, they can apply for parole after 15 years if they have received a life in prison sentence for a savage crime like murder.

There is no question that something had to be done about this section of the code. Like many other justice reforms that have been undertaken by the Minister of Justice and this Liberal government, this bill does not bring about the change in any way, shape or form that Canadians have been asking for. It just does not do the job.

We have seen it time after time from this minister and the Liberal Party where they tinker with sections of the criminal justice system but nothing really ever gets done. They try to fool people in the same way they are trying to fool Canadians with regard to Bill C-45. This is a redundant piece of legislation before it even begins and I will address that a little further in my presentation.

The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government continue to ignore the cries, the demands, the pleas from the Canadian people to get tough on people, in particular, savage murderers. Get tough on the criminals through the justice system, through the Criminal Code.

The majority of Canadians want section 745 repealed. I really believe that. The majority of Canadians also believe that life should mean life. It is only soft-headed Liberals that can interpret life as 25 years or 15 years or maybe even 10 years. Where does it end? While Canadians believe life should mean life, and while Canadians believe that savage murderers should be treated appropriately in sentencing, the minister does not believe that, not this Liberal minister, not those Liberals across the way, save for a few of them.

Bill C-45 demonstrates how the minister believes that life should mean life for the bad murderers, those who would kill more than one person, but not for the good murderers, those who would stop at one. When we analyse the minister's thinking, one wonders whether in fact the Prime Minister perhaps erred in his choice when he picked him. We have seen nothing but weak-kneed bleeding heart pieces of legislation by the justice minister which do not deal at all with the concerns of Canadians.

Let us get to the redundancy. Bill C-45 would outlaw section 745 reviews for those who commit multiple murders. This provision is absolutely redundant. Multiple murderers do not get out now. Historically they never get out of jail. What on earth is the Minister of Justice trying to pull here? Is he trying to tell Canadians that in spite of the fact that multiple murderers never get out now, this clause is going to ensure that they will never get out? Big deal. They are either getting out early or they are not. The fact is that they are not. What is the use of the bill?

The use of the bill, once again, is that the Minister of Justice is trying sucker Canadians, is trying to mislead them into thinking that the Liberal government cares about what Canadians are feeling. That is the purpose of the bill. Unfortunately we have a minister who is not being honest with the Canadian people.

To talk about multiple murderers again, I introduced a private member's bill last year that would have looked after this. It called for consecutive sentencing for those who are convicted of one or more crimes. If the government had not been so afraid to deal with that bill, the minister would not have had to bring in Bill C-45 because consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers would have looked after this. It would have ensured that they never got out.

Those who kill only one person are entitled to a section 745 review. Now the minister is telling us that he has the ability, he has the vision to pigeon hole murderers into good murderer or bad murderer categories. That is an absolutely audacious way to think.

I have to ask: Is one life any less precious than three lives, than two lives, than five lives? Is one life any less precious? Does the destruction of one life have any less effect on the victim's family and friends? It seems the minister believes it is okay to allow them to go through the torture of a section 745 review: If a murderer kills just one person, then let us allow them to go through the review; let us bring in the victim's family and friends so they can relive this thing over again, so they can see and hear about this savage beast that has taken the life of one of their family members or friends.

The minister must think that is all right because that is the line he is trying to peddle us today. However, it is not okay in the minister's judgment, which is questionable at best, to allow the family and friends of a victim of a multiple murderer to go through a section 745 review. No, it is not okay to do that. If someone kills five or six people, the victims' friends and families should not have to go through the review, but according to the minister it is okay to put the victim's family and friends through it if just one person has been killed.

That is the justice minister's logic. There is no rationale to it. Is the family of one victim somehow better to handle the rigours of reliving its worst nightmare during a section 745 review? Is that what the minister thinks? Only the Minister of Justice can answer these questions. Think about it. Only this minister would have the audacity to create categories of murderers, some deserving of leniency and some not. Only from this Liberal justice minister. If defies all imagination.

This is only part of Bill C-45. There are two other amendments to section 745. One of the other amendments would assure that those entitled to a hearing would first have to be screened by a superior court judge. The judge would look at all the facts and determine if the applicant had a chance of success before allowing the hearing to proceed.

Under the present system murderers are automatically entitled to a section 745 review. Considering that over 72 per cent of section 745 applicants are successful in having their parole ineligibility period reduced, it is highly unlikely that judges will be rejecting a great deal of the applications. The history has been set for these reviews.

Let us remember that judges are appointed in this country. Generally speaking, but almost 100 per cent of the time, the judges who are appointed tend to reflect the philosophy of the government of the day. We can be sure the Liberal government has its own judges out there reflecting its philosophy. We have seen the sentencing.

Referring to Bill C-201, in this country people can drive and people can drink. They can kill one, two or three people and receive about three years for that crime, that 100 per cent preventable crime. This is because the judges are reflective of this Liberal government's philosophy. When I brought the bill before the House, the Minister of Justice instructed his parliamentary secretary not to allow any members of the Liberal Party to speak in favour of it. Why? Because the Liberals do not want public

awareness raised to the point that they will have to make some meaningful changes. That is why.

That is why the Minister of Justice will not let his members speak in favour of bills that reflect the thinking of the Canadian people. That is why the Minister of Justice is hog tying his fellow members who support stiffer sentencing and stiffer methods of dealing with criminals. It is because it is not in their philosophy.

It goes back to the Pierre Trudeau days. When Mr. Trudeau and his government came to power all of a sudden individuals were not responsible for their actions; it was society that made them that way. That philosophy is still embedded deeply in every one of those Liberals who are sitting across the way, save for a few of them who have their heads screwed on straight.

The minister constantly inserts cosmetic changes in an attempt to make it appear as if he is toughening up the section. The insertion of these new procedural hurdles is not the kind of change Canadians are looking for. It simply does not and will not do the job. They do not want a system where murderers simply have to jump through a few more hoops to get out of prison, when just a few cosmetic changes will make it okay for them to be released. They do not want a system that deals appropriately with criminals. The Liberals do not want a system that reflects the feelings of Canadians toward criminals. Canadian want them put in jail forever when they savagely take the life of someone. But not this minister and most of the Liberals across the way.

Canadians want killers incarcerated for a minimum of 25 years. As a matter of fact, if the government had the guts to hold a national referendum on the death penalty for first degree murder, it would find that an overwhelming number of Canadian would vote in favour of it. But not these Liberals and not this Liberal Minister of Justice. They simply do not have the guts to deal with reality because it conflicts with their Trudeau-like philosophy.

Canadians want section 745 abolished, killed, scrapped just like they wanted done with the GST. They want section 745 taken out of the Criminal Code. If someone is sentenced to prison for savagely taking the life of another person, Canadians want them put in jail forever. Liberals cannot deny that. They know it but they are afraid to act on it because they have no backbone.

The last amendment offered in the bill ensures that juries hearing a section 745 application would have to be unanimous in their decision to reduce an applicant's parole ineligibility period. The present system only requires agreement among two-thirds of the jurors for an application to be successful.

We currently have an unbelievable condition which was established in 1976 by, guess who? A bleeding heart Liberal government. Many of those members from 1976 are still dictating this bleeding heart philosophy about criminals.

The new requirement is an improvement over the current system, but the fact remains that section 745 should not exist. It should be out of there. At second reading of a private member's bill the House voted overwhelmingly for the bill to go forward. The Liberals voted for it. Where is it now? It is stuck in committee and it will probably get buried there because the government has no guts.

[Airbus Aircraft, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice continues to tell the House that he really is out of the picture on this whole thing. This is a not a two-bit case. This is a case of such magnitude that it is on the front page of the press every day.

The RCMP started this case before the Liberals came to power. They closed the case. When this government came to power and this minister was appointed, he initiated the opening of the case again, even though he may deny it. He talked to the reporter and he got the case going again.

At this time he is telling us that he is now out of it. One wonders, whether there is a case or not, how much money is at stake because of the incompetence of this minister and his government. Why is the minister telling Canadians on a daily basis that he really knows nothing about what is going on in this case and anything about a

settlement, when anyone and everyone with any kind of position on that government is talking about settlements on a daily basis?

[Airbus Aircraft, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of an investigation by the justice minister's department, it now appears that Canadians could be on the hook for millions of dollars. Now the justice minister is saying he is leaving it to the lawyers to negotiate a possible settlement in this case.

Is the minister seriously telling us that he is giving nameless departmental lawyers the authority to pay millions of dollars to Brian Mulroney in a possible settlement which he says he knows nothing about, or is he really aware of everything that is going on and he is just trying to hide it?