GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CRIMINAL CODE

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): 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.

(1200)

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.

(1205)

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.

(1210)

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.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, the Reform members who will be speaking to this bill will not be splitting their time henceforth.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-45, the legislation which was introduced by the Minister of Justice. The effect of the legislation will modify and not repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

At the outset, it is important to inform the House that I will not and cannot support the legislation. I can also say that my Reform colleagues, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents, will not be supporting the bill.

We Reformers were given clear instructions by our membership in Vancouver last weekend at our national policy assembly. Delegates to the assembly put forward a policy resolution to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. The policy resolution to abolish and not modify section 745 of the Criminal Code carried the greatest support of any resolution passed. It was supported by 98.8 per cent of the Reform delegates. The resolution has now been adopted as official Reform Party policy.

Reformers at the Vancouver assembly were unified in the vote to repeal section 745 because we recognize, as do most Canadians, that section 745 is a symbol of all that is wrong with the criminal justice system in Canada. Section 745, a provision which allows killers the right to apply for early parole after serving only 15 years of a life sentence, symbolizes the decay of the criminal justice system in Canada. Consequently, the majority of Canadians have come to view the criminal justice system as one where justice is granted to the criminal element of our society and contempt is shown to victims. This is a sad reality.

Reflecting on the last couple of years, I note that since 1993 the Reform Party has been asking the minister to repeal section 745. A former member of the government, the member for York South-Weston, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-226 on March 17, 1994, which was reintroduced as Bill C-234.

The House of Commons voted at second reading to refer Bill C-226 to the standing committee. At that time 74 Liberals, including the transport minister, voted against the justice minister and supported the repeal of section 745. It is not just on this side of the House; those members who are reflecting the viewpoint of their constituents on the government side of the House want to see this section repealed.

Bill C-226 was buried in committee. Bill C-234 has not yet been dealt with despite a memo by one government member on the justice committee asking the committee to make this private member's bill a priority. No such effort is about to happen. It is not going to be a priority on the government side.

(1215)

The justice minister has had the opportunity to abolish section 745 and has had almost three years to do so. That does not count the eight or nine years the Liberals sat in opposition. They clearly heard the views of constituents and of their members at that time. They have no excuse. Such action would be an important first step in restoring in the eyes of Canadians credibility to the criminal justice system. Obviously the justice minister does not have the strength of character to take substantive action. He can be assured that Canadians will remember this on election day.

The justice minister claims that the prospective legislation before this House will decrease the opportunity for killers to seek early release and parole. Let us examine this claim.

The truth about Bill C-45 is that if adopted by Parliament the proposed amendment to section 745 would effectively categorize murderers as good killers or bad killers. The effect of Bill C-45 is to say to Canadians that killers who murder just one victim are okay and are therefore entitled to another chance for freedom, whereas killers who murder two or three times or more are bad and should be punished differently.

When I think about this piece of legislation I turn to the province of Quebec and reflect on what happened at École polytechnique. How would mass murderer Marc Lépine be categorized by taking that many lives? Should we not have anther section for him? Should we not say that after five murders they are even worse than bad or after 10 they are on another list downward? It is unsettling to think of taking one life or 10 lives. One is too many and they should all be categorized the same.

I hear a different perspective from Canadians. My Reform justice colleagues and I have travelled the country speaking to rank and file citizens. What we hear from Canadians is a unified message that a killer who commits first degree premeditated murder ought not ever to have the opportunity for early release. Canadians tell us that at the very least, life should mean life. This is obviously a sentiment to which the justice minister is either

unaware, or more likely a sentiment which the justice minister has a vested interest in not being aware of.

Many polls and studies have been done across this country over time. The majority of Canadians, by far 75 per cent, would like to see the death penalty back. This government has a difficult time just dealing with early release of first degree murderers let alone ever introducing legislation that would execute a murderer. I find that unacceptable. If Canadians want to see the death penalty reinstated in this country, then they should have the right to voice it loud and clear and their government should follow through with legislation.

The fact that there no longer exists truth in sentencing for killers has outraged Canadians. Consequently a particular feeling is finding its way into discussions in coffee shops and at dinner tables. The feeling is that the return of capital punishment is desirable and necessary in the case of first degree premeditated murder and it should be swift.

The Reform Party has pledged to allow Canadians to express their democratic will in a binding national referendum on the issue of capital punishment. We believe that Canadians should have the final say as to whether villains like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo deserve to live comfortable lives in prison receiving the amenities of colour TV, free education, three square meals a day and much more.

(1220 )

When I think about it, our prison system is absolutely disastrous. To cater in any way other than providing the bare necessities for existence to any of these low life individuals who have taken someone's life is reprehensible. Yet this minister and the solicitor general along with their friends support it.

Canadians know the justice minister's perspective regarding capital punishment. Indeed, the changes proposed to section 745 are a testimony to his belief that even 25 years behind bars for child killer Clifford Olson is much too severe a sentence. I have heard the minister say often in the House that to even send anyone to jail is a waste of a life. That is shared by his colleague who also introduced this bill some years back. I do not believe that is acceptable to most Canadians.

We know this is the true feeling of the justice minister because nothing contained in the legislation he proposes in Bill C-45 will stop Olson from applying for early release under section 745 in August, two months from now. I will return to this subject in a moment.

I have served in Parliament for more than two and one-half years now and I have observed how the justice minister conducts business. It is obvious that instead of listening to victims groups, rank and file Canadians, police officers or prison guards, the justice minister bends his ear to special interests, legal aid defence lawyers and other left wing, soft on crime special interest lobbies. That is probably not a complete list when it comes to special interests. Victims groups in this country are growing and those groups that support them are growing.

I had an opportunity to listen to Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy in Hamilton on Friday. She will not give up the fight to see justice done after her experience with the death of her daughter. I intend to support her whenever and wherever I possibly can, as I know my colleague from Crowfoot will. Mrs. Mahaffy has a message to deliver which is worthwhile for all Canadians to hear and pay attention to. I am going to support her and I trust my colleagues in the House will also.

It is obvious that the justice minister has attempted to mislead Canadians into believing that his government has the broad support of victims with respect to Bill C-45. That is absolute nonsense. The opposite is true.

On Friday I participated in the Hamilton East rally, the riding vacated by the disgraced Sheila Copps. Mrs. Mahaffy spoke of her daughter Leslie who was brutally raped, tortured and murdered by Paul Bernardo. She told those in attendance that the justice minister had telephoned her shortly before announcing the changes to Bill C-45. Mrs. Mahaffy's response was to ask the justice minister how he could sleep at night knowing that his proposal in C-45 would do nothing to stop Clifford Olson and most other killers from applying for early release under section 745. She wondered, as do most Canadians, on what grounds the justice minister would argue that most first degree murderers deserve to walk our streets again as free men or women.

Many of my colleagues have spoken to the technical failures of Bill C-45. I too would like to speak at great length to the failures of the bill. However, due to the time for debate on this issue, I would like to explore another line of argument. I will share with the House two personal examples which illustrate why section 745 of the Criminal Code must be abolished and not modified, and consequently, why Bill C-45 is a half measure.

(1225 )

Prior to the election in 1993, I served for 22 years as a police officer. I was on duty on May 24, 1977 when my colleague, Constable William Shelever, was shot in the back of the head. His assailant, Roy Glaremin, also shot and injured another constable that night. Glaremin applied for judicial review under section 745 in 1993. He has initiated proceedings for another review later this year. Lawyers tell me that he will likely be successful this time around. Nothing contained in the proposals brought forward by the justice minister will stop Glaremin from seeking early release.

The bare truth about section 745 of the Criminal Code is that nearly 50 of the last 60 murderers who have applied for early parole hearings using section 745 have had their eligibility period reduced. That is an 80 per cent rate of parole success for killers seeking release under section 745. At least 18 of these murderers have had their parole eligibility reduced from 25 to 15 years. Most of these killers were imprisoned as first time murderers and therefore are all eligible for early release under section 745. Nothing contained in Bill C-45 will change this reality.

I would also note, on the point of application, that a first degree murderer will not apply directly to a jury but now has another hurdle to jump. Application has to be made to a superior court judge, but at what cost? Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation, a nice sounding term which means additional money will be expended. The appeal rights of section 745 applicants have been expanded through this bill. The applicant can appeal to a court of appeal on any determination or decision made by the superior court judge. Applicants have a right to apply for a judicial review more than once. It has created another level of bureaucracy within the judiciary, within this hearing process.

I sat as immigration critic for several months. It became obvious that the layers and layers of appeals were benefiting only one group. No insult to yourself, Mr. Speaker, or any other lawyer in this country, but it only fed that particular group, the most sophisticated of all lobbyists. Who has the ear of the justice minister? Who has the ear of the immigration minister? Who has the ear of the solicitor general? It is not the people of this country, Canada. That has to change but it will not change under this government. It is expanding that type of process, the judicial role of the courts, in the whole justice industry. It will get more burdensome as time goes on.

To claim that the justice minister's tinkering with section 745 will toughen up parole standards is false. It has been engineered to mislead Canadians into believing that real action has been taken to keep murderers in jail. The truth is that the justice minister has no intention of getting tough with criminals. His section 745 proposal is evidence of that fact.

I want to state for the record that the Reform Party will accept nothing less than the full repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. The proposals put forward by this Liberal government do not properly address the concerns of the majority of Canadians. Anything less than a true life sentence is completely unacceptable where the killer has committed premeditated first degree murder.

Section 745 is anything but a faint hope clause. Rather, it is the sure bet clause or the sure bet law for killers. It must be repealed and scrapped, not modified and not tinkered with. We will accept nothing less.

(1230 )

Another reason that illustrates why section 745 must be repealed is the case of Clifford Olson. Last April this serial child killer sent me a sneering personal note in which he boasted about his prospect for early parole under section 745. In his letter Olson wrote: ``I'm getting out, Art. Quick, get section 745 repealed. Smile, sucker''. The note was signed in type: ``Yours truly, Clifford Olson, the beast of British Columbia''.

Later this fall, Clifford Olson will have served 15 years of his multiple life sentences for mass murder and rape, sentences which are being served concurrently. He will make his application for early release under section 745 on August 12.

The case of Clifford Olson clearly illustrates that anything less than a true life sentence for killers, whether they are one-time murderers or multiple murderers, is completely unacceptable. Life should mean life.

Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the member for Calgary Northeast discuss Bill C-45. He spent considerable time talking about repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

He also mentioned a meeting in Hamilton where people had gathered to discuss crime. I sense, as does he, that a lot of Canadians are not happy with the slowness of the current government to reform the criminal justice system.

It must be confusing for Canadians. Does the member think Canadians understand the funny signals they are actually getting from this House? When we voted on a private member's bill to repeal that part of the Criminal Code several Liberal members voted in favour of it. That legislation was moving along very quickly.

Suddenly we have another piece of legislation, also from the government side, this time from the minister, which would not repeal that section of the Criminal Code, but would categorize murderers into multiple murderers versus single murderers. It almost says that some types of murder are not as reprehensible as other types of murder.

I know the hon. member is out talking to the public about justice issues. What kind of signals are Canadians getting? Do they understand what is happening here in the House? Are they confused? What are they saying about the legislation brought down by the justice minister versus the private member's bill from the government side which actually calls for the repeal of that section of the Criminal Code?

Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The debate around section 745 has been intense for the last two to three years, and definitely the last two years, since the member for York South-Weston introduced his private member's bill to repeal that section. That is the view which most people have. They would like to see section 745 gone.

Even beyond that, I will refer again to the studies and polls that have been taken for several years. People in this country would like to see the reinstatement of the death penalty for first degree, premeditated murder. That is the feeling I am picking up, not only in Hamilton, definitely in Toronto and in most large centres across the country. Everywhere people want to see some teeth and punishment put back into the system, and it is not happening.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): 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.

[English]

Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, it would absolutely be beneficial to have more opportunity to debate the bill.

Let us turn it around and put the blame on the shoulders of the people who should have the blame placed on them. That is government ministers introducing legislation 10 days before the House rises for the summer. They are the ones who are responsible for cutting short this debate. The minister, the solicitor general and the Prime Minister know full well that no time was offered to have a proper debate on this bill. They have rammed it through. They have forced an inflexible situation.

(1235)

I know the member is in favour of this bill. Be that as it may, she may not be reflecting the viewpoint of her constituents. I do not know. The majority of people to whom I talk want to see this bill scrapped. That is why we are voting against it as a party.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching on C-span and the parliamentary channel I would like to outline briefly what we are debating. This is a debate on Bill C-45. Bill C-45 has been brought into place to make some changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows for early parole for convicted murderers under certain circumstances.

In 1976, about 20 years ago, Parliament abolished capital punishment. When it did so it also said that there would be no eligibility for parole for 25 years for individuals who were convicted of first degree murder and 10 years for second degree murder. This change in how murderers were treated in 1976 is background to our debate today on Bill C-45.

Under section 745 of the Criminal Code, which was also brought in in 1976, in addition to first degree murderers not being eligible for parole for 25 years of a life sentence there were certain provisions brought in which would allow a convicted murderer to apply for early parole. The application would be heard by a 12-member jury from the community and this jury would look at things like hope for rehabilitation, protection of prison guards and the public interest in order to decide whether a convicted killer should be eligible to apply to be let out early from a life sentence or 25-year sentence.

Bill C-45 is a change to this process whereby convicted murderers can apply for early release from their sentences. This amendment is designed, according to the justice minister, to focus the operation of section 745 more narrowly. In other words, it would apply less broadly and to less convicted offenders and also, according to the justice minister, it would apply in ``only the most deserving of cases''. The justice minister so far has not explained what he means by a deserving murderer but perhaps the public can get him to do that at some point.

Bill C-45 does three things. First, no longer will convicted murderers have an automatic right to apply for early parole under section 745. A first degree murderer will only be able to apply if he or she has committed only one murder. If he or she has committed multiple murders then application would first have to be made to a superior court judge. That judge would have to decide if there is a ``reasonable chance'' of success for the application for early release before the application could be heard by the 12-member jury that I mentioned before.

The second change is that the 12-member jury, in order to approve an early release, would have to reach a unanimous decision instead of only two-thirds, as is now the case. That makes it more difficult, it is a little higher bar for the offender to jump over.

(1240)

Third, after Bill C-45 comes into effect, multiple murderers would not have a right to apply under section 745 for early release. In other words, they would serve their full sentence of 25 years. Those are the three changes proposed in Bill C-45.

I would like to like to spend the bulk of my time talking about what Bill C-45 does not do. I have talked about its history a little. I have talked about the three things it does, but there are seven things it does not do. I believe these seven things are very important to Canadians.

The first thing Bill C-45 does not do is respond to a clear demand of two things from Canadians. The first is a much tougher response to people who violate the rights of others, particularly to the extent

of committing premeditated murder, cold bloodedly, with malice aforethought: the deliberately planned extinction of an innocent person's life.

Canadians are fed up with the weak-kneed approach to this kind of incredible violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens. In my home town of Calgary, 35,000 readers of the Calgary Sun clipped a coupon, signed it, demanding the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, and mailed it in. That is 35,000 people in one city who responded to one opportunity to voice outrage and demand for change.

At our Reform Party assembly two weekends ago, members voted 98 per cent for the repeal of section 745. Even in this House, as other speakers have mentioned, many members voted for the repeal of section 745. Therefore, Bill C-45 has ignored the multiple and clear direction of the citizens of this country.

Justice is really the reflection of society's response to the violation of the rights of other people. Society is demanding a response that its justice minister, its elected government, is ignoring and flouting in this legislation.

The second thing this bill does not do is demonstrate society's repugnance and repudiation of murder. As most know, polls and surveys of Canadians have clearly and consistently shown that there is a feeling in society that when one of its members violates the ethics of society to the extent of deliberately taking an innocent life, the offender's life should be forfeited.

They are asking for the return of capital punishment yet we have not been able to have a debate on that important issue, although there are strong feelings and arguments on both sides. It is something Canadians are demanding in order to show their outrage against this kind of activity, and it is something they have not been given.

Society has also been awakened to the fact that since 1976 and since these applications for early release have been put into place, a life sentence does not mean a life sentence at all. Life does not mean life. Life means, at best, 25 years no matter how vicious, cold blooded and repugnant the crime might have been.

Sometimes it means only 15 years. Of the murderers who apply for early release under this provision, 80 per cent are given a reduced sentence. What we are saying, in that kind of response, is that society views murder as an innocent life being worth 15 to 25 years maximum of a murderer's life. That does not demonstrate the kind of repugnance that many Canadians are telling me about. They want that message to be sent.

(1245)

The third thing the bill does not do is ensure truth in sentencing. Paul Bernardo, for example, was given a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years, except that there is a possibility of parole. It is not a life sentence, it is a maximum of 25 years. He can apply to have that sentence shortened. There is no truth in sentencing.

Families, friends and supporters of the victims said at least the guy was put away. He will never walk the streets again. His freedom and his ability to be accepted by society have been totally cut off. They have woken up to realize that is not true. There is no truth in sentencing. Life does not mean life. Twenty-five years does not mean 25 years.

The fourth thing the legislation does not do is hold murderers responsible for their murders. It suggests some murderers are less responsible than others. It says that if there has been one murder committed the murderer will receive some consideration. Only if there are multiple cold blooded murders will the consideration be reduced. There is no justification. There is outrage that this could even be contemplated.

If Clifford Olson had killed only one young child from his community, according to this legislation he would be deserving of consideration. However, because he killed more than once, his privileges and the consideration he will be given will be reduced. If Paul Bernardo had tortured, confined and killed only one young woman he would be thought to be more deserving.

What does this say about our society? A murder is a murder. A life is valuable. The value is not predicated on the quantity. It is the quality of one life we should be protecting.

Fifth, the legislation will still allow people such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo to apply to a superior court judge to have their sentences reduced. These are individuals who have totally outraged any laws of society. They have violated the very basis on which we have government. Government is for the protection of the life and property of citizens. Here are two individuals who have totally violated the entire basis on which we organize ourselves as a society and yet they will still have the right to make their pitch to have their penalty reduced. They will be able to argue before a superior court judge.

There are two points to be noted. The superior court judge, in order to allow the application to proceed, must be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of success. What does this reasonable prospect of success mean in practice? It has not been defined. What criteria will the judge use? There are no guidelines. Does this mean the judge must examine the convicted killer's actions or attitudes in prison? Does the judge look at the killer's childhood or schooling? What role does the victim's family play in all of this, because these considerations are to be made on written criteria? Do the victim's family and friends count at all? Will they be heard? This legislation provides no answers to these questions.

Not only that, when the superior court judge makes his or her finding of a reasonable chance of success, if that finding goes against the convicted killer it can be appealed. There will be extra money allocated to cover the cost of the appeal. Once again we have a more convoluted process. More layers of judicial process will be put into place. This is for the protection and the consideration of people who have already been found to be cold blooded killers of innocent people. Shame on us for allowing that kind of thing in the House and for going along with it when there is a decisive, clear step supported in the House which could have put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

(1250)

Sixth, Bill C-45 has been introduced in such a way that it does not allow for proper debate and examination of this measure and the consideration surrounding it. The bill was introduced just last week. The House is slated to adjourn this week. In that short space of time the House must debate it at second reading, examine it in committee, complete with witnesses, propose amendments and improvements to the bill in committee and come back to the House for final reading and debate and passage.

At the same time we have other pieces of legislation that need to be cleared from the table during this session. Is the government taking its responsibilities to Canadian citizens seriously when legislation which is so fundamental to the interests of Canadians is brought in at the 11th hour with other important legislation on the table? Clearly the process is not able to deal with it adequately, have it examined by experts, commentators, the pros and cons thoroughly looked at, letting the public know why it was brought in instead of the total repeal of section 745. No, it is done almost off the cuff. That is no way for a responsible government to deal with substantive legislation in Parliament.

Finally, the bill does not satisfy the demands of justice on behalf of victims. There are people who have lost loved ones, sons, daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, in the most inhumane and horrible ways. The least these people expect from their government, their justice system and from society which is to protect them is justice, something they can point to and say this terrible thing was done but it was met with a just response.

Instead we have a bill before us which states if you kill only one person deliberately, you are entitled to quite a bit of consideration and will probably only spend 15 years in jail.

I was at a candlelight vigil a couple of weeks ago in Calgary for families of victims of violence. Many had loved ones who had been murdered, including Darlene Boyd whose daughter was murdered, and Bev Smith and others. I saw the pain, anguish and turmoil of these people whose loved ones had been deliberately and brutally taken away from them. I saw their anger and frustration with the justice system and the weak response this terrible act has called forth. It made me understand a little better why we in the House need to be much more serious in our response and treatment of the people who would violate the rights of law-abiding citizens.

It is our view that the law must be seen to be working for all Canadians, including the victims of crime and their families. There is simply no reason to maintain early release for the criminal, because there is no release for the survivors of these victims.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard Liberal members say life is life and that all we are discussing here is where the life sentence shall be served, whether it is in custody or in the community under parole supervision. Certainly if someone has been released on parole they will still serve their life sentence. They will be on parole for the balance of their life.

As a former parole officer I can talk about the limits and the difficulties of trying to enforce a useful parole supervision, especially on particularly manipulative offenders. People must understand what parole supervision is. The average parole interview is a half-hour interview in an office every month.

(1255 )

If we are to look at intensive supervision, perhaps a half-hour to an hour interview once a week in a community office with the odd check-up on someone's place of residence or where they are employed, and when we are talking about sophisticated serial killers out on parole, people have to understand what community supervision means. It means checking up to ensure the person is also going to their drug and alcohol program or seeing their psychologist.

However, it is of great concern that those who get out on parole have very intensive supervision and that they will serve their life sentence on parole. The public has to understand the nature of that supervision.

This bill proposes that the initial merits of the application to change the parole eligibility date from 25 years down to something lower will go before a judge. The judge will have to rule and give reasons for judgment. Does that mean now, because we are in a court process, the rule of law applies because it certainly brings in the element of appeal? One side or the other can appeal and if there are errors in law, we all know how lawyers can split hairs on those issues. They can always find some error in a law that makes it perhaps an avenue for appeal. Will we have nearly every one of these being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada? Of course in those kinds of situations would not the taxpayer be paying for all the court costs of the offenders?

This whole element of appeal is undefined, as far as I am concerned, and I want to know if the member has any further explanation as to the possibility of that.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 contains what is called a royal recommendation, an allocation of additional moneys toward the implementation of the measures in the bill. The money will be used to fund applications for appeal from the superior court judge who in the first instance may have turned down the original application. This can be appealed to a ruling by a higher court, and those appeals have to be funded.

The costs and the process will be expanded under this provision. It is difficult at this point to say how it will work in practice because it is a matter of legislation at the present time. However, these things do have a habit of having consequences that were probably not intended, to be fair to the legislators, and certainly that sometimes cannot be foreseen. The consequences definitely do cause expanded costs and expanded court time.

Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the proposals being put forward by hon. members opposite are in the interest of the national good or in their view of the national good.

My concern is whether there are any data available on extent that section 745 is actually used on an incidental basis. How many times it has been used, how many people have had their sentences shortened and, if so, what has been the outcome of that shortened sentenced?

Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, there are data on the use of section 745. I mentioned in my speech that 80 per cent of individuals who apply under section 745 for a review of their sentence have been granted some reduction in their sentence.

The question we have to ask ourselves as legislators is that in the cases where someone has deliberately taken the life of an innocent, law-abiding citizen, is it right, is it something we should countenance and is it something we should allow and promote to give these people an opportunity to have the penalty they have been given for that kind of action reduced and have all of the mechanisms in place to allow that. That is really the question before us. I think the Canadian public says no. Many of our members say no. The government is saying yes and that is what we are objecting to.

(1300)

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): 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.

(1305)

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.

(1310)

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.

(1315)

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.

Mr. Hanger: No free votes either.

Mr. Harris: 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?

(1320)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have some follow-up for my colleague about the matter of multiple murderers and others applying, in the first instance, to a superior court judge for a reduction in their parole ineligibility.

As I understand it, a royal recommendation has been attached to this bill to cover the additional administrative costs to be occasioned by the provisions of the legislation. I also understand that there will be avenues of appeal open to convicted murderers that are not open presently.

If a convicted murderer appears before a jury asking for a reduction in their parole ineligibility and the jury finds against them, there is no appeal from that. There now will be an appeal from the superior court judge. The appeal could presumably be carried all the way up to the Supreme Court. These avenues of appeal must be publicly funded.

A royal recommendation has been attached to this bill. I wonder if the member has given any consideration to the linkage between this royal recommendation and the new avenues of appeal that were not previously available to convicted killers. Can he give us some idea of what the linkage might be?

Mr. Harris: 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.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the timing of the introduction of this bill.

Reflecting back to just prior to the rising of the House last summer, the government presented legislation that dealt with DNA. It gave police departments another tool to track and determine the guilt or innocence of rapists and murderers. It certainly was an advantage for law enforcement.

At the time the bill came forward, it was rushed through during the dying days of the session before the summer. It fell short of doing a complete job. Police departments could not bank any of the evidence. To this day, they still cannot and it has been a year since the legislation came in. The justice minister never consulted with the solicitors general and justice ministers of the provinces. As a result of that, the considerable costs were downloaded on to the shoulders of municipal police departments as well as provincial attorneys general and solicitors general.

(1325)

I would like to ask the member, given the process as it was last year with the DNA bill, how he views this legislation which again is being introduced in the dying days of Parliament. Was there justice done in debate? What is the feeling he is getting from his constituents? It is important that members of the House, and members of the Liberal government, in particular, hear what is going on out there. They seem to have their heads buried in the sand so that these bills can be rushed through all their stages.

Mr. Harris: 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.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he knows how many of those who were released under section 745 went on to commit murder again.

Mr. Harris: 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.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, according to my information, no murders have ever been committed by anyone released under section 745.

(1330 )

Mr. Harris: 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.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to participate in second reading debate of government Bill C-45, an act to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This is an important debate for Canadians. It is very close to the heart of members of my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. Like perhaps every member in the House, I have received many letters, phone calls and communications from people not only in my constituency but from across the country talking about the justice system. They have told me of their dissatisfaction, of the fear they experience and of the difficulties the police forces are having not simply in enforcing the law but in getting convictions in the justice system after people who have committed offences are apprehended.

People tell me the justice system is broken and has to be fixed. The Canadian people deserve, have a need and indeed a right to certain securities and safety in their communities. They tell me this system needs change and it needs to be reformed. That has been one of the major planks of the Reform Party's platform since its inception. The Canadian people deserve safety. They need the security and certainty that they can walk down the street, any street in any Canadian city, without being concerned whether they will be mauled, threatened, injured or murdered.

Why do Canadians feel this way? The answer is a simple one. Canadians do not feel safe in their homes or on the streets. They are concerned about their children's safety in their own neighbourhoods. In some cities like Vancouver, parents have to clean up the mess on the streets before their children can go to school because of the danger of coming into contact with harmful substances, objects or people. They also see the justice system as one protecting the rights of criminals over the needs, the suffering and the loss of victims.

This bill merely perpetuates this reality. Bill C-45 does not do anything to protect victims and their need to recover from horrible suffering, pain and loss.

As my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley stated, Bill C-45 is totally redundant. There are two major reasons why this is case. Before I discuss these reasons, let me describe who the victims of crime are. How does section 745 of the Criminal Code ignore their legitimate needs?

(1335)

The victims of crime I am talking about are the friends and families of those who have been callously murdered in our society. Victims are sentenced by a killer. Their sentences are true life sentences because they carry the pain and the loss of a loved one forever.

This brings to mind the sentencing of first degree murderers which we call a life sentence at 25 years. In my mind 25 years does not represent the life of a person. The son or the friend or the spouse who has been stolen from a victim with no regard for their loss, let alone no compensation, is gone forever. There is no time limit on that.

Many victims of crime view section 745 of the Criminal Code as one way the justice system protects the rights of murderers over the needs of victims. Section 745 dates back to 1976 when Parliament abolished capital punishment with the passing of then Bill C-84.

Included in Bill C-84 was the mandatory sentencing clause which gives anyone convicted of first degree murder a minimum 25 year sentence before parole eligibility. The mandatory sentencing clause also included section 745, the so-called faint hope clause, which more and more victims are calling the sure bet clause. It gives every first and second degree murderer the right to apply for a reduction in parole eligibility after they serve 15 years of a 25 year so-called life sentence.

This is the absolute right of the convicted murderer, but 79 per cent of those who have applied for a reduced sentence under section 745 have received a reduced sentence. That means only 21

per cent of murderers who apply under section 745 are denied and must continue to serve their full 25 years life sentence.

Section 745 was included because the government of the day felt that in some situations the interests of the criminals should come before the interests of the public. This was expressed very clearly by a minister of the day. Jean-Pierre Goyer, a former solicitor general of Canada said in response to Prime Minister Trudeau's attempt at reforms of the justice system in the 1970s: ``We have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society''.

That is exactly the point where we differ. That is exactly where we believe the government at that time made a wrong turn and sacrificed the safety of our citizens for the rights and the rehabilitation of convicted felons.

This is exactly what victims of crime are upset about. Section 745 violates the needs for fundamental justice. The victims are the ones who have to go home every night to an empty house or sleep in an empty bed. Then they live out every day with the grief, the sorrow and the suffering of knowing the one they love is never coming home again. The only solace they have is being sure the one who murdered their loved one is behind bars, unable to inflict such violence on anyone again.

(1340)

After 15 years of this kind of pain many victims discover for the first time that section 745 even exists and that those who murdered their loved ones have the automatic right to a section 745 hearing to determine their suitability for early parole. The felon gets another opportunity to state why he deserves freedom while the victims continue to bear the life sentence inflicted on them by this same applicant. Even though the murderer may not be granted early release, victims must still relive the horror, anxiety and pain of their loved ones' death.

Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was murdered 14 years ago, says she did not think her family members could go through another judicial hearing. It would be traumatic for them.

Victims also feel cheated by section 745. They often ask: ``Why should the person who killed someone I loved and who has been convicted of murder and given a 25 year life sentence be released early or even be given the right to apply for early parole? I have no parole or judicial review or faint hope clause to shorten my sentence''.

Mrs. Rose Onofrey, whose son Dennis was murdered, said: ``Is that all my son's life is worth, fifteen years? Why do I have to be victimized again and again?'' Dorothy Mallet, a convicted murderer who received early parole under section 745, wants to visit her children. ``I have to go to the cemetery to visit my son'', Mrs. Onofrey said.

The problem with section 745 is that it respects murderers' rights over the rights and the needs of victims. The bill is a weak attempt to correct this imbalance. Indeed it is not an attempt, it is totally redundant. Bill C-45 does not go anywhere near protecting victims and their needs.

There are two major reasons why this is so. Bill C-45 removes the right of only multiple and serial murderers to apply under section 745. If this legislation is passed before the House adjourns, and it is expected that it will, serial killers like Clifford Olson can still request to apply for early parole because the restrictions against serial killers are not retroactive.

It is true that killers like Olson would be unlikely to win an appeal to apply for early parole in any case, but this is not the point. The point is Clifford Olson and people like him should not be allowed to even make the request. Allowing a criminal like Olson any right to ask for a hearing to determine his suitability for early parole degrades and undervalues the rights of Olson's victims.

Gary Rosenfeldt, the father of one of Olson's 11 victims, said last week this entire section is an insult to victims. I agree. Mr. Rosenfeldt is correct. The families Olson has hurt and traumatized have suffered for years with the memories of his heinous crimes. Bill C-45 still gives him the right to request a hearing for early parole. It is insulting. Victims deserve more respect than that and the public deserves a greater degree of certain safety.

The second reason Bill C-45 does not go far enough is that those who have killed one person still have the right to appeal their parole ineligibility. Multiple or serial killers are denied this right. This creates categories of killers in society, first degree killers that is.

Those who killed one victim will have access to the process for early release but those who killed more than one victim will not have the access to the early release process. Canadians believe that murder is murder and that one murder is as bad as the next. Why then does the justice minister consider the killing of one person less serious than the killing of two or more people?

(1345)

I can hardly believe he would do that. I can hardly believe he would tell the friends and family of Lisa Clausen of British Columbia who was murdered by Paul Kocurek in 1980 that Mr. Kocurek can enter into the early release process on August 2, 1996 because Lisa was the only person he killed.

How about the family of Kenneth Kaplinski? Kenneth was abducted in 1977, taken into the woods and executed by Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella. Kinsella obtained an early parole hearing and was turned down, while Sales has applied and awaits a response. How can the justice minister tell Ken's family that Sales and Kinsella will be allowed to request a hearing for early release because they have only committed one murder?

I can hardly believe that the justice minister would tell Janet Shelever of Calgary that her husband's killer can still request early parole because her husband was his only victim. That is exactly what the justice minister is saying to these victims and many others if Bill C-45 passes.

Victims of single murderers grieve, mourn and suffer as much as the victims of multiple and serial killers. If Bill C-45 passes, they will continue to suffer and the person who killed their loved one will be eligible to apply for early parole and could obtain an early release.

Does Bill C-45 respect and place a high value on the suffering of victims? I say no and so do many Canadians. All that is valued in this bill is the status quo.

There have been a couple of questions about how many people have been killed by people let out of jail on section 745. In fact, section 745 which was passed in 1976, has only allowed convicted killers the opportunity to appeal for the last five years. That is a very small window by which to test anything. In the past five years one killer has been out under section 745 and has killed again. More important, of all those who have been let out on parole, there have been 15 murders committed by them. That is the true story. That is what we need to look at.

I challenge the justice minister to do two things. First, treat first degree murderers equally. Second, have some regard for the survivors of victims and their everlasting loss and the pain they suffer.

The only way to achieve these objectives is by repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code, not by amending it. Those who commit any murder, single or multiple, would have no right to apply for or receive early parole. Their parole privileges would be the same and survivors of victims would not have to relive the horror, the anxiety and the pain of their loved one's death. Nor would they feel cheated because the one who killed their son, brother, sister or mother is only serving a fraction of the life sentence they deserve for causing so much harm and such irreplaceable loss.

This brings me to another point. Why does the Liberal government almost always deal with serious issues by bringing forward bills which at best are only half measures? Bill C-45 is redundant. It is not going to change anything. There is a pattern to this and it goes beyond Bill C-45.

(1350)

Think of the pain, the anguish and the horror caused to many Canadians with the way Bill C-33 was rushed through the House. After saying this was going to be a more open government, the Liberals gave no opportunity to Canadians to have input on the human rights bill. It was dealt with in 10 days.

Consider also the GST. What a way to deal with the promise that was made in the red book. Because the Liberals could not reach an agreement with the provinces, they singled out some of the smaller ones and gave them a better or different deal and left the others to haggle and bargain with the government.

What about the unemployment insurance bill, a bill that affects millions of Canadians? Without input, without even knowing where they are going, there is a proposal to change the whole policy, to ram it through, to let the sufferers fall where they may.

This is not an appropriate way to bring legislation before the House. Legislation should reflect the consensus of the values, the will and the desires of the Canadian people. That is not what the government is doing with Bill C-45 in amending section 745.

This bill will do nothing to change the facts about how unsafe it is for Canadians to walk on their streets and sleep in their beds knowing they are absolutely secure. This bill does nothing to give the police forces the tools and the measures they need to bring criminals to conviction.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate this morning on Bill C-45. Of course, my attention was drawn to the report by Willie Gibbs who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He informed us that last year 15 people were murdered in this country after their murderers had been released on either early release or parole. That is a horrible statistic.

Fifteen people have been murdered as a result of a mistake made by our officials which has to do with the early release or parole of people who have committed offences, lesser offences than first degree murder. Nevertheless the officials released them. My concern is that is the very parole board that will have to make a decision on the first degree murderers if they jump through the hoops the justice minister is allowing them to jump through and end up before the parole board. It is the same parole board that allowed the release of those people which resulted at least in part in 15 innocent people being murdered. Does the member have any comments on that?

Not only were 15 people murdered, which is more than one per month, but there were 15 attempted murders, 22 sexual assaults, 21 major assaults, 71 armed robberies, in all 165 serious crimes. Since 1987 criminals out on some form of early release killed 206 people and tried to kill another 162 people. In all, 2,097 very serious crimes were committed by them in that period of time.

Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely typical of my colleague, a former policeman, to have dug into the facts, to have brought the issues to light and to have demonstrated them to the House in such a manner.

(1355 )

The member raises the whole issue of public safety that I was attempting to get at. The whole issue of public safety revolves around the need for people to be certain about who is in the community and can cause them harm. How can we know who and where these people? If we do not know these dangerous people are locked up, then we still live under the threat of their reoffending.

This relates to the whole attitude of government. I suppose it is based upon the philosophy that a person is not really responsible for what he does: if a person's mother is a prostitute and their father an alcoholic, how can anyone blame them for anything? However, we all have known since we have been conscious that there is a difference between right and wrong. We all know what a bad conscience is. We all know the inner voice that speaks to us. Yet there has been a deliberate attempt to move the inner conscience away, to tell people that they are not responsible: ``Poor little you. How could you possibly be responsible when you have had such a miserable past?''

I am not suggesting that people who had a difficult childhood should not be given consideration. It is our intention that all Canadians should have the opportunity to come to their full potential and do what they truly choose to do. However, when someone chooses to commit murder, there must be some means of saying that it is not acceptable and we will not allow them to continue to do that. They must realize that they are responsible for their actions no matter what happened to them as a child or what circumstances brought them to that point.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member commented on the lack of due process given to important legislation that comes before this House. He talked about the persistent use of time allocation, closure and the fact that legislation like this comes up at the end of the session when very little time is allowed for debate. The hon. member is absolutely accurate in presenting this information. Why does he think this happens? Why does the government use time allocation so often and prevents important issues from being discussed and properly debated, not only in this House but right across the country?

Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, without being cynical, that is a serious question. It relates very much to the political aspirations and the desire of the government to be re-elected. Liberals will doing anything they can to put before them anything they think the public might accept to re-elect them. It is no secret that we are going into the last year of the government's mandate and it will be going before the public in an election.

It is no secret that Bill C-45 will do nothing. How else can one explain its coming before the House and before the Canadian people at this time unless one looks at it through the political lens. The Liberals see this as being a way for them to talk about amending the justice system without really doing anything. They have not thought it through. They do not know where they are going. They have no plan. This is the result of a do nothing attitude that simply caters to public opinion with no real goal in mind.

The Speaker: My colleague, I do not know if it was your intention to continue, but I imagine you will have a few minutes to go after question period. It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members.

_____________________________________________