GOVERNMENT ORDERS

SUPPLY

ALLOTTED DAY-VICTIMS OF CRIME

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for North Island-Powell River has four minutes in questions and comments.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in questioning the hon. member, may I say as a preface that I became acquainted with these cases 15 years ago when one of the victim's families asked for my advice on constitutional issues relating to the ability of the attorney general of B.C. to renege on the so-called ``blood money'' contract paid for information leading to solution of that case.

I have followed with great interest the development of the debate and his own valuable intervention. However, I would ask him whether he has considered the impact of section 11 of the charter of rights, particularly subsections (g), (h) and (i) on retroactivity and

in particular section 11(i). Does he not consider it creates major constitutional difficulties for the establishment retroactively and the denial to persons like Olson, already convicted, of the right to proceed under existing provisions?

Would he not be better advised to direct his feelings about the obscenity of the particular person concerned-which I think are shared-and suggest closer attention by the tribunal hearing the matter to abusive or frivolous use of a device, the existence of which on most constitutional authority cannot be retroactively taken away?

I ask that question seriously because I think there is room for representations to be made in the tribunal hearings.

Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we dance around these questions a lot. We make presumptions about whether something will be acceptable under the charter or not.

I mentioned something very basic in my earlier response about whether prisoners have the right to vote or not. My memory is that was not challenged at the federal level. When the decision was made that prisoners have the right to vote, as a federal presence we chose not to appeal the decision. Why would we do that? Is it because we agreed that prisoners should have the right to vote? I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of the population does not think so.

When it comes to the constitutional difficulties the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned, yes there will be difficulties. Does that mean we create convoluted legislation that does not address the nub of the problem or do we go for the nub of the problem and then deal with the fallout on the constitutional end? We have mechanisms such as notwithstanding clauses.

Are we ever going to deal with the problems in some of these documents, particularly the charter of rights which has its own baggage? It has been in place for some time now and we know there are inherent problems in it. Are we ever going to deal with the problems if we continue to dance around them? I do not think so. I think we have to do the right thing and hope the right answer comes out of it.

(1535 )

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burlington.

To restart this debate, members opposite from the third party have called on the government to apologize to families of murder victims. One cannot appreciate nor can one understand what sort of grief and suffering the families of those who have been murdered go through.

At the same time it is a sad commentary if this debate has been raised today simply on the basis of scoring some political points if that is the only motive. There is no reason for this government to apologize. And I do not think there is any reason why the government would want to get involved in all of this to make these people, the families, political pawns.

We know from earlier debate raised by my friend from Rosedale that criminal law is not there just to punish. Punishment is part and parcel of the criminal law but it is not the sole factor. Punishment does not bring back victims. Locking up offenders is not the sole answer and there is a cost factor attached to it. We also believe that while people are incarcerated we should look at rehabilitation with a view that some of these people may be put back into society.

The law requires that those who are convicted of first degree murder must serve a minimum of 15 years. We also know that most people convicted of first degree murder serve a full life sentence. We do know that after 15 years release is only possible after a very thorough review process. This is not just a review by the Minister of Justice or by the courts. Ordinary Canadians have a say as well.

The Criminal Code requires that offenders must serve their full 25 year sentence unless a jury decides that they should be allowed to apply for parole. First they have to serve at least 15 years of their sentence. Then they must go to the jury and if and only if that jury approves can they apply to the parole board in the same way as other inmates. This is not a green light from the beginning and this is not an easy process.

We on this side of the House believe that Canadians are best served by a complete criminal justice system, not by a system that says the only factor in sentencing is punishment. The criminal law has greater width than that and the ultimate purpose of criminal law is to make Canada a safer place.

We have talked about punishment and we have heard about deterrence but we also believe that we are here to protect Canadians from violence and by preventing violence. Every murder that we can prevent means that one less family is victimized. A criminal justice system is not just about deterrence and incarceration. Everything possible must be done to prevent crimes from happening in the first place and to deal with those who commit them so they will not reoffend again.

The safety of Canadians requires that offenders be rehabilitated if possible and if it is not possible then they will not be released. The possibility of release after 15 years instead 25 years is a part of rehabilitation. It offers a reward to those who modify their behaviour. The strict review process ensures that those who do not change will serve out their sentences.

The interests of all Canadians are better served by preventing crime than simply by punishing people. That is why we have brought in legislation to prevent murder and other violent crime.

In Canada one-third of all homicides are committed with firearms. In recent years more Canadians have been killed with a gun than any other type of weapon. We listened to the families of

young women killed at the Montreal University Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 and the families of victims of firearms violence all across Canada. We believe that the families of these victims want more than anything to see that it does not happen to someone else.

That is why the government has enacted new gun control legislation. If someone is shot the whole family is victimized but Canadians are also victimized.

(1540 )

Unfortunately the new decorum in the House means they keep talking but we have to keep the killer in jail. It also costs about $50,000 a year which is over $1 million for every offender. If murders can be prevented from happening everyone benefits. Sadly the members opposite disagree. They voted against gun control. They would rather lock up murderers than prevent people from being killed in the first place.

I ask: who voted against measures that would allow us to identify illegal firearms so that the guns could be seized and those who import and sell them to Canadian criminals could be prosecuted? Who voted against measures that would ensure that police officers could find out whether a gun is in the house before they knock on the door? Who voted against laws that would control imports to ensure that guns that enter Canada are sold only to those who have been screened and have been issued a permit for them? Who voted against measures that would make sure that only those who owned their guns legally and had them registered could go into a store and buy ammunition for them? Where do the members opposite stand?

Earlier in debate today, members talked about accountability. Earlier today they talked about how they stand in solidarity on this issue. Yet they also talked about accountability. We also heard the talk, and it is only talk, of how they are accountable and how they go out, in this infinite wisdom of theirs, and discern how people feel.

However, members opposite know that three of their members voted for the gun legislation. They spent taxpayers' money to do a poll in their ridings. They knew all along that this was a way of preventing victims, of protecting families and of preventing murder.

Does the hon. member and his colleagues opposite, with the three exceptions who spent the money to do a poll, oppose all of these things because they think it will cost too much money? It is okay if it is out of the member's budget. They want to spend money on prisons but not on preventing crime. They are not willing to spend money on saving lives. They also oppose it because it is inconvenient for their supporters. They oppose holding gun owners responsible for gun storage requirements that would help keep guns from being stolen and keep them out of the hands of children.

Some of their supporters object to registering their firearms. They object to the idea that they should have to keep their guns locked up. They think that they should all be allowed to have assault rifles and machine guns. They think they should have the right to have any kind of gun. They would like to see everyone with a loaded gun to protect themselves from criminals. They have adopted the American principle of the right to bear arms. Those are simplistic and unrealistic policies.

The hon. member and his colleagues do not seem to be very concerned that we would also have the kind of homicide rates that would inevitably result from their policies. They would like to repeal gun laws. They say they would do it all if elected. They say they care about the families of those who were shot yesterday but they do not seem to care very much about the families of tomorrow's victims.

One-third of Canadian homicides are committed with guns. That means that one-third of the families about whom the hon. members opposite are so concerned lost their loved ones to gunshot injuries. However, they do not worry about that as long as the killer spends 25 years in jail. In that way their consciences are clear and their supporters are happy. What about the families? They are still victims. Their loved ones are still dead and their lives are still devastated.

I would suggest that the shame is on that side. They should be embarrassed for calling on the government, which is trying to prevent similar killings in the future, to apologize fully to the families of the victims. If anyone should apologize it is those on the other side of the House, not here.

(1545 )

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked at length about previous legislation the House had dealt with such as gun control. He correctly pointed out that two-thirds of all homicides were caused other than by firearms. I am thankful he pointed that out.

My question for the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton concerns the subject of the debate today, the whole issue surrounding section 745 and whether or not scum like Clifford Olson should have the right to come before the public and revictimize the families of the children whom he slew. My question also concerns how his own constituents feel about the issue.

He mentioned that some of the Reform Party members in the past went to their constituents on extremely important issues. He is right. We certainly have. We have a duty to represent our constituents on very important issues.

Dealing with Clifford Olson, somebody who slew 11 children, could he tell me that his constituents support his stand to allow such people to come in front of the public again and revictimize the families of the children whom he killed?

Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, there is a really interesting philosophy going on here. They take one issue and stake their lives on it. I was elected in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton because people knew what I stood for and what I could do. People also knew what the government stood for on a whole range of issues.

Members opposite love to talk about how they have the only method known to mankind of consulting with their constituents. I will put my method of consulting with constituents against theirs any day.

In any event, let us examine the way they consulted with their constituents on gun control. Their method of consulting was to have their constituents fill out a questionnaire they received in their mailboxes and send it in to them. I am certain there were little clubs and groups who were Xeroxing these, stuffing them in envelopes and mailing them off to their local Reform member of Parliament. Of course it can be sent free, without any charge.

From the mailbag they said they learned how their constituents felt. A bunch of anonymous people had mailed in forms. It was like clipping coupons from a newspaper. This was supposed to be a very scientific process. It was the way the Reform Party discerns how their constituents feel.

Out of that came a policy they said represented the views of their constituents. Yet, three of their members dared to go into the communities and say they wanted to engage a professional polling firm. They wanted to find out exactly what the people in their ridings were saying. They did not want a bunch of anonymous people mailing in clippings and flyers. They wanted to know what the people in their ridings truly felt. They were willing to spend 2,000 or 3,000 bucks of Government of Canada money to find out the people of Canada supported Bill C-68.

They are using the same kind of logic in the most wondrous fashion to tell us that Canadians are opposed to section 745 and therefore it must be repealed. Let us have a little clipping service. Let us have a discount. Let us find out what those nameless people who are responding to the Reform polls are saying.

It is nonsense to discern or gauge public opinion that way. They do not have a stand. They are like willow trees. They blow with the prevailing wind, and the prevailing wind comes from the little coupons people clip and mail to them.

That indicates why they are sitting where they are in the polls. They are devoid of any opinion other than what is in their mailbags. It is an indication of how special interest groups seize such minds and propel what they discern to be public opinion. I do not agree.

(1550)

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, judging by the wording of the motion I get the impression the Reform Party is accusing the government of being insensitive to the concerns of victims regarding section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Let me assure hon. members of the House that nothing could be further from the truth.

In developing the amendments to section 745.6 which were recently passed by the House the government had the concerns and perspective of victims squarely in mind. I am referring to the amendments introduced in the House on June 11, 1996 as Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act, now S.C. 1996, chapter 34. These amendments received royal assent on December 18, 1996 and were brought into force on January 9, 1997.

Turning to the substance of those amendments I note for hon. members that as of January 9, 1997 any person who commits multiple murders will no longer be entitled to bring an application under section 745.6. Judicial review of the parole ineligibility period will simply not be an option for anyone who commits more than one murder. This would include those offenders, fortunately few in number, who have become known in the popular media as serial killers.

In these cases the offender will be required to serve the full 25 years with no eligibility for parole and no chance under section 745.6 to review that ineligibility period. This means that for future cases of this nature victims' families will not be forced to face the prospect of a section 745.6 review.

The second point I note about the amendment is the introduction of a mechanism to screen out applications that have no merit. As of January 9, 1997 any application brought under the section regardless of when the offence was committed will be submitted to a superior court judge for a paper review of the case to see if the case has a reasonable prospect of success.

During the paper review the judge will consider written materials presented by the crown and by the offender. If the offender cannot show that his or her application has a reasonable chance of success-and the legislation places the onus on the offender to prove this point-the application will be stopped there. It will not be permitted to proceed to a hearing before the jury.

The amendment will prevent the type of revictimization the Reform Party motion refers to in any case where the application has no reasonable prospect of success. These applications will be screened out at any early stage. They will not be allowed to proceed to a full and public hearing before a judge and jury.

The third point to note about the amendments is that a significant change has been made concerning the number of jury members that must be convinced before an offender can obtain a reduction in the parole ineligibility period. Before these amendments were passed an offender only had to convince two-thirds of the jury or eight members out of twelve. As a result of Bill C-45 an offender will now have to convince each and every member of the jury to get any reduction at all in the parole ineligibility period.

To recap the effect of these important changes to this section and to the review process, as of January 9, 1997 no person who commits multiple murders will be allowed to apply for a review under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. All applications brought after this date, whether the crimes were committed before or after January 9, 1997, will be subjected to a paper review by a superior court judge and may well be screened out if the offender cannot show a reasonable chance of success. For those applications that do not get screened out, the offender will have to convince all 12 members of the jury to get any reduction in the parole ineligibility period, not merely eight members of the jury as was previously legislated.

(1555)

The government listened. It listened long and hard to the concerns of victims before and during the development of these amendments and during their passage through both Houses of Parliament.

During this process it became apparent that one of the reasons for the concern about section 745.6 was that until recently many people were unaware of the existence of this provision. For example, the families of murder victims often find out about section 745.6 through the media many years after the trial and conviction of the offender. This late discovery leads to a sense of surprise and betrayal. It reopens old wounds.

The sense of surprise and betrayal was evident in the testimony of many of the victims who appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when these committees considered Bill C-45.

As a result of listening to this concern, on February 27, 1997 the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada announced that he had written to his colleagues, the provincial attorneys general, to ask them to issue instructions to their crown attorneys that the families of victims were to be advised of the existence and the effect of section 745.6 at the time of sentencing in all appropriate murder cases.

By implementing this simple and practical procedure we can ensure the families of victims are never caught by surprise by the existence of section 745.6 again.

Sadly there are people sitting in the House who would rather muddy the waters with half-truths than come out with what exactly happened in the amendment of the legislation.

I am delighted the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton was here at the beginning of this afternoon's debate to set the record straight.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the brief comments of the member opposite. She referred to the reasonable prospect of success. That is rather an ambiguous term which has not be defined.

It reminds me a little of the relativity of medical and other information as contained in Bill C-46 wherein sexual assault victims will now be protected. Any information they might have granted or given to a doctor, a counsellor or whomever will be protected and will be denied to defence counsel unless the relativity of the evidence is established in the mind of the court.

Professional witnesses appeared and told us that the courts, without any question, were considering the relativity of information. They are not willing to leave out any information so relativity is a matter of speculation from their point of view.

We are faced with the same thing. What judge would say whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of success? All the applicant has to do is create a doubt in the mind of the judge as to whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of success. We will have as many different definitions of that as we have judges sitting on the cases.

Does Clifford Olson have a reasonable prospect of success? I do not know. There are some judges who might say yes to that. He would not have in my mind. He would not have in the mind of the victims. He very well may find judges who will not take the onus of responsibility but will leave it to a judge and jury to hear the whole of the evidence and view it from stem to stern.

By relying on the second level or another level of appeal in Bill C-45 is unproven. It is untested.

(1600 )

Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment on that, bearing in mind the evidence that was submitted before the standing committee on Bill C-46 with respect to the judges simply saying any evidence might be relative to the defence.

Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am of course to delighted comment on the hon. member's comment.

I would first like to say that I was slightly confused by his comments at the beginning with respect to the theory of relativity, but realizing that the hon. member is not Einstein I was soon reassured. I suspect he meant relevance, but we will see.

As to his worry about the judges of the various courts across this land being loath to make decisions, I can only say that certainly has not been my experience. I would go to my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, and suggest that probably is not his experience either. Judges, when they are put on the bench, wish to make decisions based upon their considerable knowledge and ability, which is the reason they were put on the bench in the first place.

If the hon. member has no faith in judges, if he clearly has no faith in governments, if he has no faith in anyone, why is he here? Why bother to take part in a process that he thinks is totally irrelevant, or should I say irrelative?

I have come forward to attempt to allay some of the wilder theories about this legislation. I think I have done so. I know that the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has done so. I would suggest that comments such as the ones we have just been subjected to come more under the heading of sour grapes than they do the theory of relativity.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also speak to an issue that has been dealt with widely and at length during the 35th Parliament, that is section 745 of the Criminal Code, and I would say, the Criminal Code in general, because this Parliament will go down in history as one of those that legislated the most with regard to criminal law.

We may have opposite views on section 745, as did my honourable friend from Charlevoix, who voted in favour of Bill C-234 that was introduced by our colleague from York-South-Weston and that called for the repeal of section 745, while others voted against it. I will come back later to the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-South-Weston.

I must first give some historical background to show how section 745 is neither fish nor fowl. These things sometimes happen in the Criminal Code. As we pointed out when Bill C-45 was introduced, this provision is somewhat peculiar.

Let us go back to 1967, 30 years ago. Since you were a young attorney at the time, you probably recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Criminal Code of Canada provided that capital murder was punishable by death. As a matter of fact, there had been no execution in Canada since December 6, 1962.

Using the royal prerogative, the government had systematically commuted the death sentences, the hanging sentences, one of the most infamous being that of Wilbert Coffin, in Quebec, who had been sentenced to death for murders committed in the Murdochville area, in the Gaspé region, after a trial that had left people with a bitter taste. At the time, people were not quite sure if Wilbert Coffin was really guilty.

I would say that Wilbert Coffin's execution in 1956 triggered the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, since it was one of the last times a person was sentenced to death and executed in Canada after a superior court trial that was never reviewed on its own merits by a court of appeal or by the Supreme Court of Canada.

(1605)

It is somewhat disquieting to see a man deprived of the most basic right he possesses, the right to live, by the judgment of a single court, under circumstances that are a matter of concern, to say the very least.

In 1967, the federal lawmakers intervened in order to temporarily abolish the death penalty, for five years. There was no longer any need to use the royal prerogative, which had already been used an nauseam, to commute sentences.

People of my generation will recall the Léopold Dion case in the early 1960s. He was found guilty of the murder of a young child, and was apparently guilty of three other child murders as well, but the death penalty was not applied. It thus became unthinkable for that penalty to be applied to lesser cases in future.

The government of the day introduced a bill to suspend the death penalty for five years. Theoretically, it was revived briefly for a few months after that, until the House passed another bill, again for a five year moratorium, if I can use that word in this context.

This brings us up to the spring of 1976. The Trudeau government did promote certain human values. On constitutional issues, there is nearly universal agreement that his administration was a failure and a similar argument could be made in other areas as well, but in criminal matters or matters of criminal law, it certainly did promote such values. That must be said, all partisan considerations aside. Let us think, for example, of the reforms that abolished whipping, the reforms that enabled people taken into custody who were without assets to be released without having to post a cash bond, as they had had to in the past. Between 1970 and 1980, persons under the jurisdiction of the courts-in other words, all of us-saw their rights improved as far as criminal law was concerned.

Another Liberal government, the one we have during this 35th Parliament, has succeeded in virtually undoing everything the previous government had accomplished. We have seen the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, a former Liberal cabinet member, vote against this legislation, as very few others did. I believe that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands also did, a few times, even on section 745, the object of today's motion before the House.

To put ourselves back in context, here we are in the spring of 1976, and the government is introducing a bill to definitively-I nearly said sine die-abolish the death penalty in Canada. Howev-

er, the government realized it did not have the majority it needed in the House to pass the bill. It was supposedly a free vote, although members of cabinet were expected to toe the government line, but it seems they were short five or six votes. Not all historians agree, but it was less than ten votes.

That is when the Trudeau government, which had not included section 745 in its initial bill, negotiated an unlikely compromise. To buy, or should I say obtain, the consent of some reluctant members, who with a little arm twisting could be persuaded to adjust their consciences accordingly, the government moved an amendment.

The amendment provided a minimum prison sentence of 25 years for a person sentenced to the maximum for first degree murder-in other words, life-before becoming eligible for parole. For second degree murder, the offender had to serve a minimum of ten years, depending on the court's decision.

However, since this was a concession to the hard liners, the government added a sweetener elsewhere for in the bill. The sweetener was section 745, which allowed offenders sentenced to more than 15 years imprisonment-which means all those who are convicted of first degree murder and second degree murder and have to serve a minimum of 15 years-to apply, after 15 years, to a judge of the Superior Court of a province, not just any judge but the chief justice, asking him to empanel a jury.

(1610)

The judge has no choice, he has to empanel a jury, two thirds of which make a recommendation. No decision is even made. Before being amended by Bill C-45 in this legislature, section 745 provided that two thirds of the jury made a recommendation.

If the jury recommended parole, the inmate was not automatically freed, he could simply apply to the Parole Board. It was a stage allowing him to go to another door, and, with the time it takes in our legal system, the inmate could spend several months behind bars before being denied parole.

And then we had in this legislature Bill C-234, introduced by the hon. member for York-South-Weston, which proposed the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Everyone in opposition supported a review of section 745, given the circumstances of its creation and the fact that it had been in effect for 20 years. This is why we agreed to its review.

We did not agree to much else. Bill C-234, however, was clear at least; section 745 would be removed from the Criminal Code. You could agree or disagree. It was a free vote, because it was a private member's bill. In our party, most of the members were opposed. As I mentioned earlier, our colleague from Charlevoix voted for Bill C-234. Whether we agree with it or not, Bill C-234 takes an honest approach in that it is unequivocal: either section 745 goes or it stays.

At second reading, the government let the House vote overwhelmingly for Bill C-234 to go forward, only to let it get buried and die in committee as most private member's bills do. The government itself came back with Bill C-45.

To all intents and purposes, Bill C-45 repeals section 745 of the Criminal Code. Why? Because the criteria set in 1976 would now be much more difficult to meet, because they have been changed and the mark is definitely set much higher.

From now on, any inmate who wants to apply for early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code after serving 15 years, inasmuch as 15 years can be considered as early, will be required to first apply to a superior court judge, a modern day judge as appointed under the Constitution, and satisfy the judge that, at least on the face of it, there is a reasonable chance for his application to successfully be submitted to a jury.

Before, all inmates had to do was to apply to the chief justice of the province's superior court or supreme court and a jury had to be empanelled. Now, a judge designated by the superior court must at least consider written evidence. Because the common law is quite liberal in that regard, the judge may decide to hold a hearing if the court so pleases.

How much of an onus of proof will be borne by inmates? We cannot tell yet, because this particular provision has not really been challenged in court. We do not have jurisprudence to guide us in this matter; time will tell how much evidence our courts will require.

As I pointed out repeatedly at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I fear this legislation might be applied differently in different regions of this country, depending on whether, where the judge is from, people do not put much faith in rehab or whether the circumstances of the crime for which the inmate is doing time are particularly aggravating, the judge could be tempted not to allow the case to proceed in the first instance.

(1615)

It is also more difficult to get a recommendation under section 745, since each and every member of the jury must now be convinced, as opposed to only two thirds of them. This unanimity rule works well, for the purpose of determining guilt, when it is used in conjunction with the notion of reasonable doubt. Under our legal system, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why a jury's guilty verdict must be unanimous.

In our provincial courts, which deal with civil matters, it is not necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There must merely be a preponderance of evidence, and a jury is not required to make a unanimous decision. Generally speaking, civil courts use the two thirds rule, as it was applied in Quebec until 1976, when civil trials by jury were abolished. Under that rule, it is enough to get four out of six jury members to agree. In a civil trial, it is

money, not the life or the freedom of a person, that is at stake, and the burden of proof is different.

But here the more strict criterion is used, the one that usually applies to the determination of guilt, and only for the purpose of a recommendation. This is wrong. Using the two thirds rule seemed quite appropriate and did not appear to pose any problems. We made a strong plea in committee to allow the victims, or those who represent them, to be heard when an application is made either before the jury, or before the National Parole Board, so that the board or jury members can have all the available information, including the views of the victims and their families and how they were affected.

The hon. member for Crowfoot explained on several occasions in this House that he has confidence in the jury system, provided members of the jury have all the facts. I agree with him. Jury members must have all the facts so they can render a fair and logical decision.

The bill that was passed, C-45, does not, in my opinion, allow enough information to be made available to the jury making the decision, to the judge authorizing procedures, or to the National Parole Board.

Finally, an additional condition Bill C-45 imposed that did not exist before is that, in the case of multiple murders, an offender is not eligible to apply under section 745.

At first blush, one might say this was a good change, because section 745 is not for serial killers. But someone who has committed more than one murder is not necessarily a serial killer, someone who enjoys killing for money or some other form of remuneration. It could be someone who has held up a bank and killed two people while doing so. Such an individual is no longer eligible for parole; he must serve his 25 years.

I think that Bill C-45 was an awkward attempt by the government to keep everyone happy by telling hardliners: ``You see, we have, to all intents and purposes, repealed the provisions regarding release after 15 years'', while saying to those who are more liberal, with a capital L: ``Look, we believe in rehabilitating offenders, because we are still letting them apply after 15 years, if their behaviour has been good''.

(1620)

What I say is that a law that does not apply in the same way in Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec City and Halifax is a bad law. For once, we have the jurisdiction to take action; nobody is questioning the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over criminal law. It would be interesting not to have to speak about the Constitution today, because it is clear in our law, in section 91 of the Canadian Constitution, 1867, that criminal law is a federal responsibility. I say that the federal Parliament should have given more thought to the equality of application of the new section 745 as amended by Bill C-45.

There may be recourse under the equality provisions of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if someone is treated differently, if statistics show that people in Quebec are systematically released after 15 years, while those in Edmonton are not. Is there inequality? I think they have opened a Pandora's box of challenges, constitutional challenges.

But I would rather have seen them go with the vote on Bill C-234. That bill was clear and we would not have been in the convoluted situation we are in now.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his thoughtful comments on the motion. It demonstrates how there are real issues to be discussed and dimensions and complexities which have to be looked at very carefully.

Clearly the position of the law prior to the amendments under 745, which only required two-thirds of a review panel to provide for consideration for early parole, was dealt with in the revisions. Now, as the member well knows, there is a provision for the judge to stop the process even before it gets to that review panel. Now it requires the unanimous consent of the 12 member panel before an application can be made to the parole board.

I just want to thank the member, although I do not agree with all of his points, for being thoughtful and constructive and not pulling the same kind of approach that others might have chosen.

The question I have for the member has to do with the description and insinuation the member made that somehow at the end of 15 years the prisoner can get out. I think the member will know, as he has probably done his homework, that 15 years is the point at which one can apply but the reality is that the time at which a person might get out under the provisions could be as late as in the 22nd or 23rd year of their sentence.

Would the member please confirm and not leave the impression that it is 15 years and a person is out and that there really is a period during which consideration might be given to some measure of control.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South has touched on an important point.

He will allow me to point out that in 1976, when section 745 was adopted, the average length of detention for capital murder in Canada was 13.2 years. The penalty for what was later to be called first degree murder had, therefore, been made far more severe.

In my opinion, then, those trying to prove that sentences have got lighter are barking up the wrong tree, or else I have a poor understanding of the history of our Criminal Code. Perhaps I need someone else to explain it to me, but since 1976 sentences have

become harsher, given that there has been no death penalty since 1962.

From 1962 to 1976, however, the length of time a person was imprisoned for capital murder, premeditated murder, or murder in the first degree, was barely over 13 years.

(1625)

We now have a formal guarantee that the minimum is 15 years. I am convinced that, with the present wording of section 745, it will be much more, in the order of 20 or 25 years. So people must stop circulating this false idea that sentences are getting lighter.

Personally, I am an abolitionist, having assumed in my own life, as well as in the lives of those I have had a hand in educating, that killing someone to teach him that murder was unacceptable was no way to teach anyone anything. A second execution, even in the name of the state, makes no positive contribution. More people are left to mourn, more wounds are opened, and I cannot morally support the way things were done in the past.

Times have changed, and fortunately things are different today. But we are still faced with the problem of section 745, because this is what today's motion is about. It is not settled. This debate will probably turn into an endless one, to be started up again every time it is necessary.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from the Bloc for his comments. He is a member of the justice committee and I have always appreciated his participation on that committee.

Very quickly, the question for the hon. member is when will the families of the victims ever have peace of mind? The first shock comes when they lose a child. The second shock comes during the lengthy court hearing. And 15 years later all that is reawakened with the third shock.

Following that, if the application is not successful, the shocks can come in rapid succession every two or three years or whenever. When are the families entitled to peace of mind?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot asked a perfectly legitimate question which, to all intents and purposes, I answered in my 20-minute speech just now when I said victims must be heard.

The problem today is, when are the victims included in the process? At the trial, when the evidence is heard and they are asked to testify, but afterwards they are dropped, just when they need the support of society. They have suffered the loss of a dear one who is irreplaceable.

Of course, just attending the hearing provided under section 745 may be stressful. I realize that, and you may rest assured I have every sympathy for the victims.

However, after hearing the victims and giving them the broadest possible hearing and every facility for making themselves heard, both by the jury and the National Parole Board-that is where the problem is, in my opinion-when the process is finished, we must rely on an impartial body, in my opinion the jury, and ultimately the National Parole Board, to determine whether or not the offender should be released.

Notwithstanding the grief and pain of the victims and their right to show that pain and to be heard, the decision is not up to them. They cannot distance themselves. They are too involved emotionally. But as long as we do not give victims and their families a better chance to be heard and to explain their personal grief and that of their family and their friends, and how this has affected their lives, to be heard by the National Parole Board and the juries empanelled under section 745, we will not be on the right track, because these people will be frustrated, and rightly so, because of what can happen to them under the present rule of law.

That is why I say the Bill C-45 has solved nothing and we must keep fighting for victims' right to be heard.

(1630)

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, very quickly so that the hon. member from the Bloc will have a chance to respond, the point that we are trying to make here today is that we are dealing here with first degree, premeditated, cold blooded, planned murder. That is what we are dealing with.

We are saying that those types of criminals do not deserve to have any hope of getting out of jail before 25 years. If we look at Olson's crimes, they were certainly first degree murder. I would question anybody who could dispute that.

In light of that, why is section 745 still in place to give those types of criminals the hope of early parole?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Prince George-Peace River is asking the right question. Our answers would be different. I say that there will always be an exception. If the law does not provide for an exception, there should be recourse to royal prerogative to allow people to go free, as had to be done in Quebec City.

A 62-year-old was sentenced for first degree murder-a crime of passion obviously. The jury, however, felt that there was enough

vidence for a sentence of first degree murder, with the individual having to remain in prison until the age of 89, before release. The individual was released through royal prerogative.

There will always be an exception. If there were only to be a few exceptions, our laws should provide for certain release mechanisms.

Obviously, in cases like those cited by the hon. member, where the evidence speaks for itself, there would simply be no parole. And I have every confidence in the jury system and in the procedure in place to ensure this never happens.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a fine tradition that usually when members rise on a bill they say it is their pleasure to rise. It is with great sadness that I rise today to respond to this motion urging the government to apologize to the families of murder victims for not repealing section 745.

Mr. Ramsay: Why?

Ms. Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. My sadness is-

The Deputy Speaker: Will all hon. members please refer to each other by the names of their ridings rather than by their last names, first names or middle names.

Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, duly chastised. To the member for Crowfoot I was going to explain why I have sadness. It is actually on three points. It is with great sadness for the victims, for the families of the victims who have experienced pain in the past. It is with great sadness that the Reform Party has given a media platform to Mr. Olson, which is something I am sure he is very happy to have.

I speak with great sadness because the opposition parties are exploiting the pain and suffering, knowing full well that legislation could not have stopped this hearing from happening this week, that no one can go back in time and change the rules under which somebody was convicted. I have great sympathy for the families of the murder victims. No one in our society should suffer such violent and tragic loss.

It is interesting that today we are debating a piece of legislation that only affects those who are victims of murder and yet when the Reform Party is called on to enact other legislation it votes against it, legislation which would be hate crimes prosecuted with a heavier length of sentence, measures like gun control, something that was asked for by victims.

Section 745, unfortunately one of the members opposite misunderstood, also affects those who are convicted of second degree murder and had a lengthier sentence imposed on them.

Section 745 will not address the loss that the victims are feeling. We have taken appropriate measures to address the issue. In all our considerations we have been made aware that victims must be included in the process, that we cannot exacerbate the pain and indeed our awareness of victims' concerns has prompted action on many concerns. As I have already mentioned, Bill C-45 affects not just the victims of that crime but all the people who are victims around that crime.

This government has done a great deal to address the concerns of victims of crime and to facilitate their participation in the criminal justice system. Government has responded and will continue to respond to a trend to be more responsive to victims. It did not start with the Reform Party's coming to this House. It has come up many times before. Almost a year ago the government and all its members responded with overwhelming support to a motion to ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to consider the issues of national legislation to provide for victims' rights.

(1635)

In lending support to a national bill, which I assume suggests some federal legislation, we must be careful not to prescribe rights which the federal government has no jurisdiction over and no authority to enforce. Our actions speak louder than words. Setting out principles and calling them rights which could not be effectively enforced would be pointless and likely more frustrating than beneficial for victims. Rather, we should direct our energy at addressing specific issues we have the power to address.

Colleagues and viewers should know that recommendations for a victims bill of rights are not novel. This debate has been ongoing since the mid-1980s. Ever since the American Congress passed a federal victims bill of rights, many Canadians have advocated that we follow suit. It is difficult to disagree with a victims bill of rights, but we should ensure the victims of crime will benefit from such a bill before we enact it.

We have had this discussion at the federal level and at the provincial level. In a report to the ministers of justice of the federal-provincial task force on justice for victims of crime in 1983, the federal government, the provinces and the territories engaged in ongoing consultation. They have continued consult with regard to improvements to the criminal justice system that would benefit victims of crime within their respective areas of responsibility. These consultations have squarely addressed the enactment of a victims bill of rights. However, the time has come to revisit the issue.

Much has happened in the last 10 years to improve the victim's role in the criminal justice system. In 1985, as many will know, Canada co-sponsored the United Nations statement on basic principles of justice for victims of crime. Canadian listeners can be

proud that Canada's justice system already reflected those principles in 1985 and will continue to do so into the 21st century.

In any event, the UN declaration prompted the federal and provincial governments to re-examine the issue of a victims bill of rights. While all the provinces and the federal government were sincerely committed to making changes to the justice system, it was recognized that certain concerns could only be addressed by provincial legislation and that other concerns could be addressed by federal legislation. The majority of the concerns cannot be addressed in legislation at all but by changing attitudes about the role of the victim in the process and about the basic human values of dignity and respect.

When we consider the role of victims in the justice system we also have to think about a meaningful mechanism to enforce their rights. Rights without remedies cannot truly be said to be rights. For instance, if a bill of rights states that victims have the right to receive timely information about the status of an investigation or about the prosecution of an offender, what is the remedy if they feel they have not received timely information? Who is responsible? Likely the police and/or the crown, but is it reasonable to expect that a single piece of legislation can assign obligations to different participants in the justice system that play distinct roles and are employed by separate ministries? Moreover, what is the remedy? Should the prosecution be called off because the victim did not get their information?

What we can do is prescribe in our justice system a set of principles to guide the players. We can continue to encourage them to adhere to those principles of our criminal justice system that deserve the utmost consideration at all stages of the process.

The federal government is responsible for the enacting of criminal law while the provinces are generally responsible for the enforcement of the law, the prosecution of the offences and the administration of justice in the province. We opted among ourselves for a statement of principles to recognize the need for joint action and co-operation.

In 1988 the federal and provincial governments at a meeting of justice ministers endorsed the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. The notion of a statement rather than a bill of rights addressed both the jurisdictional and practical concerns. All jurisdictions would ensure that whatever initiatives they pursued would reflect these principles, whether in policy or in legislation.

Since 1988, all provinces and both territories have enacted victim legislation which does refer to these principles. I will not go through all the principles as I am sharing my time with the member for Simcoe North. It is important today for us to reflect on the changes to section 745 and how victims will be brought into that process.

(1640)

It is important to know that Bill C-45 has changed the judicial review process. It established a judicial review so that it will eliminate frivolous cases. It also went further. If you do go before a judge and jury there must be a unanimous jury decision and if more than one individual has been killed there will be no process for you.

The provincial attorneys general have been communicated with and have been instructed to ensure that upon application, a notice will go out to all the victims and they will be called on to attend so that they are not surprised, as some members opposite have suggested. These are exceptional cases and I think we need to be aware of the issues.

It was raised earlier that the faint hope clause was a sure thing and that everybody gets out in 15 years. I thought it might be helpful to have some information from one of the practitioners in our criminal law system, someone who has been on both sides, the crown and defence, my constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Manishen, with the firm of Ross, McBride and Hamilton.

When he came to committee he said: ``Practically speaking, you cannot start the process until the criminal has done 15 years. In most jurisdictions by the time he goes through his application there is a judge appointed, they have the preliminary inquiry, they have the day scheduled for the hearing and they have a hearing with the parole eligibility report prepared along the way. It is not 15 years but now that whole process is 16 years. Even if the parole eligibility was reduced right to 16 years, and it is not, we would go through at least 2 to 3 years of graduated release from unescorted temporary absences to day parole before ultimately getting full parole''.

It is also important that when the people came before our committee to testify on Bill C-45 they described another factor which the party opposite has refused to discuss. It is selective in its choice of victims. The victims who want this section repealed, it is willing to talk about; the victims who want gun control, for some reason it was not able to address their concerns. Maybe there needs to be some reminder about the other victims who are out there.

Mr. Partington, who has worked in correctional services for a number of years and has done section 745 applications, said: ``When you sit in a courtroom trial, on one side you have the victim's family, the deceased's family, and on the other side you have the offender's family who has spent 15 or 16 years as victims of the same offence, I suppose the forgotten victims. Their perspective is somewhat different. They still have a son or a daughter to visit with, to celebrate birthdays and so on. Yes, they still have him alive but they are as victimized in some ways as the deceased. I think it is important to keep the balance''.

To members opposite, we have to make some changes that go forward. We now have victim impact statements in our legislation for sentencing and those are considered. Members need to realize that if that is what victims want, to stop at that process and not come back to a hearing 15 or 20 years later, and in some cases like the Olson case that would not occur, those statements will serve in the consideration and that if the victims do not want to testify, they do not have to come forward. Their statements will stand.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the energy my hon. colleague across the way always devotes to her efforts. I find that she does not support our proposal or our position that we want to eliminate section 745 completely from the Criminal Code and yet she stood in this House and voted to do that very thing when the private member's bill submitted by the member for York South-Weston was voted on.

Over 70 members of the Liberal Party joined Reformers in support of that bill. She has made a turnabout and she is quite satisfied now with something that is much less, something that is watered down and something that has allowed and will continue to allow the families to suffer and have their agony relived over and over again. She might want to comment on that turnabout.

I was surprised and pleased when I saw her and her colleagues standing and voting for what I think they know the vast majority of Canadians support and would like to see brought forward. I am sure that the discipline within her party has simply caused her to vote along party lines and reject the private member's bill that she originally supported. She might want to comment on that and give the people of her riding and the people of Canada an explanation why she did that.

(1645)

She criticized the Reform Party for bringing the Olson disgrace to a public forum. I suppose she would have the same criticism for Mike Duffy of CTV television who devoted almost his program yesterday airing this very issue, the absurdity of the Olson application. People like Michael Harris appeared on that program to express their dismay and outrage over this kind of an application being allowed to proceed under the law. She might like to consider that as well.

We are providing a platform for public debate, representing the views and concerns of the victims and their families. The Liberals have provided a platform for Clifford Olson. They have provided the platform based in law where he can bring those families back into court, cross-examine them and put them through the hell they suffered when their children were kidnapped, raped and murdered one more time. I would like her to comment on that.

Ms. Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comment on that.

As the member for Crowfoot has quite rightly recognized, I did vote for a bill to go to committee and be heard at committee because there has been so much misinformation on this section of the Criminal Code that I thought it needed to be properly aired.

It was not to give Clifford Olson more publicity, not to give the multiple killer more publicity as the Reform Party has done by choosing today, of all days, to debate this. I did it to make sure that the facts get on the record so that people will recognize it is not a sure thing and that it is a faint hope and the facts about what time people get out of our jails do get out of our jails.

It is absolutely paramount that all of the legislation I have been involved with has been trying to ensure that more people are not victimized. We must work on high risk offender legislation. We must work to prevent more people from being victimized in our communities. That is my number one goal.

I was not here 15 years ago when this legislation was enacted. I am not responsible for it. I have worked to change it by voting for Bill C-45 and by making sure that when this issue came to committee it had a full and fair hearing and a reasonable approach was found.

I am trying to ensure, in those cases where somebody does not need to be in a maximum penitentiary, we can devote those resources to crime prevention rather than waste them needlessly.

I am concerned that there remains an opportunity for people like Leo Rocha. His family had a victim and the family members said: ``No, we think he should get out at this point''. It was their sister who was killed by their father. It is important that we recognize they are victims too.

If there is a potential for someone to be rehabilitated we should not waste resources when those resources could be working to ensure crime prevention. We must ensure there are not more victims in our communities. That is what I am trying to do.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party motion implies that the government has not paid attention to the needs of victims of crime and that it has been generally so negligent and insensitive that it should formally apologize to the families of victims, presumably for its inaction. This criticism is unjustified.

There are two kinds of actions a government can take to help unfortunate victims of crime and their families. First, it can implement laws, policies and programs which are directly focused on the needs of the families and the victims themselves, for example, by giving them information, by allowing them to partici-

pate in the prosecution of offenders through victim impact statements, et cetera.

The second way a government can show solidarity for crime victims is by enacting laws that prevent crimes in the first place, that deter criminality and, when crimes do occur, impose tough sentences of imprisonment that will keep chronic offenders away from potential future victims.

(1650)

[Translation]

Some colleagues talked about murderers, their eligibility for parole and the legislation recently passed by this Parliament, but it seems to me that today's motion gives us an opportunity to address another government bill, which is before us, since it recently came back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am referring to Bill C-55, concerning high risk offenders, and the tools it provides to fight the most serious and violent crimes provided for in the Criminal Code after murder.

[English]

Bill C-55 is responsive to the demands of victims' rights organizations for tough measures. Let me briefly touch on the highlights of the bill because it is proof that there is no need for the government to apologize to anyone for its anti-crime strategies.

The legislation will create a new sentencing category to be called the long term offender. This measure targets sex offenders. It will allow courts to impose a regular penitentiary sentence on those sex offenders. Then if the judge decides to designate the offender as a long term offender, he can add up to 10 years of supervision to the sentence.

I ask colleagues to think about this. Someone who commits the offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm might normally receive a sentence of say 10 years, but under Bill C-55 the court could find him to a long term offender and add 10 more years of intensive supervision, thus effectively doubling the period of control over the offender by the correctional system.

This period of supervision will only begin when the offender has completed his full prison sentence. This long term supervision period has teeth. It will have conditions attached to it similar to parole conditions. These could include, for example, staying away from specific past victims and staying away from potential victims such as children. They can include a range of reporting and treatment requirements, all of which will allow authorities to keep very close tabs on the long term offender while hopefully encouraging his rehabilitation.

Moreover, Bill C-55 creates a new offence of breach of a long term supervision order. If the offender breaches one of the conditions, the supervisor can bring him into custody and bring charges for the new offence.

[Translation]

Some may argue that criminals should be locked up indefinitely. In some cases, this can be done. There has been a dangerous offender provision in Canadian law since 1976.

Since then, this provision was used approximately 186 times and it still is successfully used to deal with about 15 new cases every year, where offenders are found to be dangerous offenders. Dangerous offenders are covered by part XXIV of the Criminal Code, which contains a special procedure whereby individuals sentenced for a serious personal injury offence, who have previously committed similar offences and are likely to reoffend, may be locked up indefinitely.

This extremely severe sentence is justified not only by the past actions of the offender, but also by an observation made at a special hearing that the offender poses a constant threat to the community.

[English]

I would also point out that a recent study revealed that 90 per cent of the successful dangerous offender applications involve sex offenders, those who prey on women and children. The dangerous offender law certainly is severe but the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld it as a well crafted, legitimate form of sentencing. Bill C-55 does not tamper with the core concepts of the dangerous offender procedure but it does strengthen it with a few strategic amendments.

As the law presently stands, a judge who finds the offender to be a dangerous offender would normally hand down an indeterminate sentence, in effect indefinite confinement, but he can in exceptional circumstances impose a sentence for a definite term. A federal-provincial task force which reviewed the law concluded that it makes little sense for the crown and the court to go through the special lengthy dangerous offender process only to obtain the same kind of sentence that would have resulted from a normal prosecution.

Bill C-55 will require the court to impose an indeterminate sentence in every instance. This will ensure that these very serious, high risk offenders are detained indefinitely.

(1655)

Although these offenders fall into a high risk category, it is still important that they receive periodic parole reviews. The current law provides for the initial parole review of a dangerous offender to occur at the three year point of the sentence with subsequent reviews every two years thereafter.

Bill C-55 will change that initial period review to the seventh year. An offender who is sentenced to indeterminate detention because of his ongoing dangerousness is unlikely to achieve parole after only three years. In fact, the average parole release date for dangerous offenders is closer to 14 years.

[Translation]

The new provision regarding long term offenders and the improvements to the dangerous offenders legislation will provide invaluable tools against violent offenders. We also introduced a provision dealing with sexual offenders, as victims rights groups had been demanding for a long time.

I should point out that the expression ``dangerous or violent offender'' includes those who commit crimes of a sexual nature. Indeed, sexual crimes are among the crimes for which someone may be designated as a violent or dangerous offender. Bill C-55 provides not only that a person convicted of a sexual crime may be designated as a dangerous or violent offender, but also that, if there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender, the court may still designate that person as a long term offender.

What do victims rights groups have to say about Bill C-55? During consideration of Bill C-55 by the Standing Committee on Justice, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime commended the government for its initiatives.

As for Victims of Violence, it was pleased by the proposed amendments to the legislation on dangerous offenders. This group also commended the minister and the government for their proposed changes.

Jim and Anna Stephenson, whose son was murdered, are well aware of the needs of victims' families. They stated that the amendments to the existing provisions on dangerous offenders and the creation of a long term offender category, as proposed in Bill C-55, are major government initiatives. According to them, these initiatives will fill significant gaps in the current legislation, thus reducing the potential threat posed by violent sexual offenders.

[English]

These are examples of what the government has been doing. I reiterate that there is certainly no reason for the government to apologize for its crime policies.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to our colleague across the way. When the families of victims appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-45 none of them agreed in testimony with the position of the government. I am sure my hon. colleague who just spoke knows that.

When the member makes statements such as those he has made today, that the government is doing a good job in this area, the question is for whom? Certainly none of the mothers, who lost their children and grandchildren to murderers and who appeared before the committee, thought the government was doing a good job. None of the hundreds of thousands of people who have written and signed petitions opposed to section 745, think the government is doing a good job.

(1700 )

Inasmuch as my hon. colleagues have attacked the Reform Party for exploiting emotional issues surrounding the issue they are mocking, scorning and insulting the victims, the family members, the mothers, grandmothers, fathers, aunts and uncles. They are not represented by the government side. I have not hear a speaker from the government side represent the victims, the families.

In view of the concerns and in the view of the opposition, those who were able to appear before the justice committee and the people of Canada who wrote to us and signed petitions that were tabled in the House, how could the member honestly state the government is doing a good job in this area?

Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, it is very clear the government has made the proper amendments to section 745 by the screening process and by making it not apply to multiple murders such as Mr. Olson who has caused the debate today and by requiring unanimity of the jury.

Up until now under section 745 it only took two-thirds of the jury to allow a reduction in the ineligibility of parole. The amendments deal with those three items. They would cover each and every one of the situations the Reform Party is complaining about today.

Reform members complain about a lack of respect. I have a great deal of respect for our judicial system. Even more important, I have respect for the Canadians who sit on juries and hear the full evidence in those cases. As has been pointed out, approximately 78 per cent of the cases before the court on 745 application receive some reduction-they are not all released on to the streets-in their ineligibility for parole.

I have faith in the Canadian people, something I do not think my friends in the Reform Party share.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, why did the solicitor general, earlier in response to a question from me, say that he would have made the changes we were pushing for except the Bloc prevented it from happening? The solicitor general said he was in favour of the changes we are talking about.

Does the hon. member opposite support the position of the solicitor general on this issue?

Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I am at a disadvantage. I did not hear the comments of the solicitor general. I doubt very strongly that he said he agreed with the position of the Reform Party.

He was likely indicating the amendments to section 745 would have been through the House to preclude Mr. Olson from making

the application that will be dealt with shortly except that we did not receive the co-operation of the Bloc.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, at the outset I would like to say I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.

I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for bringing forward the motion. Unlike the Liberals opposite, I do not believe this is a sad day or that the Reform Party is somehow a villain for bringing forward the motion. Rather, I believe tomorrow will be a sad day, a day of national disgrace for which the Liberal government will be held accountable in the next election.

(1705)

We are debating the following motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot:

That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a consequence, this House urge the Liberal Government to formally apologize to those families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I quote from an article in yesterday's Vancouver Province. I do not think it can be said any better than an unnamed staff reporter wrote in yesterday's paper:

Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt cannot celebrate their wedding anniversary. Christmas dinner with the family ends in tears. Their life is a quiet struggle with no nights out for movies or dinners. They go to bed thinking how it would be if their son, Daryn, was around. Daryn was only 16 when Canada's worst mass murderer claimed him as a victim 15 years ago.

On Tuesday, from the recesses of Canada's most secure prison in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Clifford Olson will begin a process to say he is a changed man and deserves the right of parole.

The Rosenfeldt's know that he will be lying. On their wedding anniversary several years ago the mailman delivered a letter to them from their son's killer. It detailed the killing and Daryn's last words snuffing out what little joy the Rosenfeldt's had left in their lives.

``We go to bed at night every night thinking about Tuesday's hearing'', says Gary Rosenfeldt. ``It takes us back 15 years. It is as simple as that''.

Olson, sentenced to life in jail with no hope of parole for 25 years for his killing spree, has exercised his right to move his parole hearing forward by 10 years. The murderer is owed his early hearing under section 745 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the faint hope clause.

The Rosenfeldts, along with those families who have chosen to bear witness for their children at this week's hearing, will appear at a painful press conference tomorrow to remind the world there is not a faint hope in hell that their lives will ever be the same.

To have those families relive that horror tomorrow is a national disgrace. This psychopath is a man that rehabilitation cannot even touch. He cannot be salvaged. He can never live in the community again.

The chance of Olson getting early parole is about as good as the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. In my opinion that is where this man belongs. The point is that there is something very wrong with the Canadian justice system when a man like Clifford Olson is allowed to waste Canadian taxpayers' money strutting his stuff in the courtroom.

Make no mistake, that is what will happen if he is successful tomorrow and is granted a hearing later this summer. The very thought of it is an offence to the memory of his victims. They did not even get the opportunity to really live. Clifford Olson took that away from them.

We are talking about a cold-blooded killer who is living in a federal institution with more perks than many Canadians have in their homes, including 24-hour access to cable TV in his cell.

(1710)

Section 745 has a shady past. It was quietly slipped by Canadians in 1976 without any real discussion. The existence of the provision is linked to what I would describe as one of the greatest political scams of all time. In July 1976, in a fit of political correctness, the Liberal government of the day abolished capital punishment despite the fact that the majority of Canadians supported the death penalty.

It was abolished by a margin of only six votes. The trade-off offered to Canadians was so-called life in prison. Canadians were told that even though murderers would now be allowed to live they would at least be put away for 25 years. Then section 745 was quietly slipped in and the effect of section 745 gave a new meaning to the word life: 15 years. It is a mere drop in the bucket in terms of an average person's life. All this was done quietly in the hopes that Canadians would not notice that convicted killers were being let out of jail after only 15 years.

There is more than just a moral issue here. Tied to that is the financial issue. The procedure involved in applying for early parole

is a costly three-stage process. First a judge screens the application. Then a jury hears the application. If a jury decides that early parole is appropriate the offender can apply to the National Parole Board for early release.

The jury is not even given the whole story about the crime. All it hears is an agreed upon statement of facts. To top it all off, the jury makes its decisions based on a lower burden proof than is used in criminal trials. There is no need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender is not a risk to the community.

It is truly disturbing to think of all the financial and human resources that go into this joke of a process. Section 745 is called the faint hope clause, but when we look at the figures it is not such a faint hope after all. As of March 1996 figures show that 78 per cent of murderers applying under section 745 had success in either getting early parole or having their sentences reduced. That is quite a success rate. Even if it is truly only a faint hope provision it is a lot more than Clifford Olson ever gave any of his victims.

It terrifies Canadians to realize that in the next five years between 500 and 600 murderers could get early release and be out and about in their communities even with the new changes. If the minister really wanted to send a message to multiple murderers maybe he should have proposed consecutive sentencing instead of the minor changes he made in Bill C-45. At least this would have put a value on each and every human life that has been taken.

To make matters even more offensive Bill C-45 only applies to applications made after September 1996. It is ironic that these amendments were only two days late in stopping Clifford Olson from applying for early parole. I see my time is up. I could go on and on.

Let me close by saying that most Canadians, myself included, believe that breathing is too good for the likes of Clifford Olson, let alone the chance to get out after 15 years.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the Reform motion which proposes:

That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a consequence, this House urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to those families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

(1715)

This week section 745 will be seen in action when the Vancouver courthouse initiates the process of Olson's application for early release from his life sentence in prison. This is the Liberals' idea of justice. It is an absolute travesty. Murderers like Clifford Olson and others who have committed horrendous crimes should not be allowed to make a mockery of justice.

Let me describe Clifford Olson. He is a predatory vulture, a slime bag, a scum bag of the lowest order. Look at what he is getting through the system. The system is allowing him to come forward and have his parole heard.

The Liberals have accused us of using this as a media platform. We are responding to the platform. That platform was given to Olson by the Liberals and the social workers in the system. They are defending Clifford Olson. Who is defending the victims, the parents of the sons and daughters?

Just imagine, Madam Speaker, that you are in a court house. You have got Olson standing in front of you and he is cross-examining you. What is wrong with that picture? It is absolutely wrong.

The majority of Canadians, supported by the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence all support the elimination of section 745. Do not massage it, as the Liberals have done. Get rid of it.

However, this has fallen on deaf ears. The only change that the government has made is to deny multiple murderers section 745. What does that say? That means it is okay to kill once. That is just sort of a trial. Is this what it is? Give us a break. What has happened to our justice system?

First degree murderers can still appeal their parole ineligibility and apply for parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence with no parole for 25 years. Under the absurd law of our land Olson, convicted in 1981, still has the government guaranteed right to apply for early parole. This is absolutely beyond reason.

Why should Olson be given this platform? It is absolutely ludicrous. Why should taxpayers have to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to get him from Saskatchewan to Vancouver, to pay for the process? Why should the families of the victims be forced to relive their pain?

The noon news today had some of those families. The anguish and the agony that they have to go through is absolutely wrong. What is wrong with our system? That is what we are talking about. Olson is the trigger, but the system is what is at fault here. That is what has to be addressed. It is not being addressed by the Liberals across the way. They tinker with it but they are not addressing the actual problem. It is an absolute public outrage. It it is a public disgrace.

When Clifford Olson was convicted of the murder of 11 children he received only one life sentence of 25 years. What happened to concurrent sentencing? Eleven victims at 25 years is 275 years. What it means, Madam Speaker, is whether you kill one or eleven it makes no difference in our system. This is absolute lunacy. Yet this is what is going on.

Clifford Olson will receive, if he gets out, 1.1 years for each life he took. I ask the members across the way, is 1.1 years for every child he killed justice? That is a disgrace.

(1720)

The previous speaker said that section 745 was brought in 15 years ago and it was not her responsibility. Whose responsibility is it? She is a member of the government. It was brought in by a Liberal government. For God's sake, fix it.

The Liberal members, as part of the government, are here to change the law of the land. They are not changing it and yet the member stood up and said that it was not her responsibility. I ask again: Whose is it?

First and foremost the goal of sentencing should be the protection of the public. That is not happening. It goes back to the bill of rights. In this case it could be called the bill of wrongs. That is what the bill of rights has done to us. The rights of the criminals are addressed but not the rights of the victims, the parents, the grandparents, the brothers or the sisters who have to go through the anguish time and time again. What is wrong with the laws of this land?

At present there are about 2,100 killers serving life sentences in Canada, which is about 15 per cent of the nation's prison population. As of September 1996, 63 cases were heard to reduce the term of the sentence. Fifty of the 63 were successful. Fifty of the 63 killers had their sentences reduced. What is wrong with this picture? Of those 50, two reoffended within a mere nine months.

What are we looking at? Is Olson going to be out on the streets? Can you imagine that?

Some hon. members: He won't.

Mr. Gilmour: Members opposite are saying that he will not get out. That is what the solicitor general said. That is what the Minister of Justice said. He should not get out. There should not even be an opportunity for him to get out.

Mr. Cannis: Nobody believes you any more. Be honest.

Mr. Gilmour: They are sitting there whining and moaning. They are trying to defend a law that is not defendable. Fix it. That is why we are here today. Tomorrow this whole platform will move forward. It will be an absolute disgrace to Liberals and to Canadians.

My final words to the Liberals are: Fix it or the Reform Party will fix it during the next election.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as this debate winds down things are becoming very clear. I do not think anybody in this place does not share the grief and the sorrow of the families of victims.

I want to tell the truth about a couple of issues which people should understand.

Number one, under section 745 Clifford Olson could not apply today. Members opposite know that, but in the speeches we have heard they continue to talk about Clifford Olson. They are cloaking themselves in the grief of the victims.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ramsay: Tomorrow he is applying. Tell that to the people of Canada.

Mr. Harvard: Order. There are a bunch of animals in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Can we have a little bit of order?

Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, you can see that when we tell the truth it tends to upset the Reform Party.

I want to quote from the speech made by the hon. member. He wanted to know why we are ``forcing the families of victims to relive their pain''.

(1725 )

I do not think anybody here honestly believes the grief and the pain that one feels for the loss of the family member is something that can be turned on and off. It cannot be turned on and off. There is no way that grief can be legislated away. The Reform Party is saying to Canadians, here is simple solution to the grief of families of victims.

I ask the member to be honest with Canadians and to say whether he believes that Parliament can legislate away the grief of families or whether he would not agree that we have to work to make sure we have a strong and safe society, safe homes and safe streets, so this grief will not occur in the first instance.

Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, we are talking about honesty and grief. The member says that grief cannot be turned on and off. That is exactly what this legislation has done. It has dragged the whole thing forward 15 years for these families. They are trying to put it behind them. They cannot do that because the legislation the Liberals now have in place allows for this animal to come forward 15 years later to make them relive the whole situation. Not only that, but Olson gets to cross-examine these people. He gets to question them. This is absolute lunacy and it is just inhuman.

The member said that under the new legislation Olson could not apply, which is fine. We asked the members during consideration of the legislation to make it retroactive. They knew Olson was coming up. The justice minister knew that Olson was coming up within a year yet he would not make it retroactive. The Liberals are saying that they cannot do it. These are the people who make the laws and now they are saying that they cannot do it. It is a very selective set of laws.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to honesty. I want to know when it is the correct and predominant view with respect to the law that you cannot change section 745 to give it retroactive, retrospective effect. After somebody is already in prison you cannot take away the right to apply for a section 745 review. Even if we were to repeal section 745 today, anybody who is now be in prison at the date of the repeal could apply for a hearing. Why does the Reform Party not tell this to the victims of crime instead of letting them think that if we were to repeal it, it would stop the hearing process today?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn.

Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is a subject that is rather sensitive for members of the Reform Party who are so concerned about victims. I find it rather interesting that the last member to speak, the member for Comox-Alberni, said that section 745-

Mr. Gilmour: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of the rules is that when I am asked a question I should have the opportunity to respond.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The time for questions and answers had expired. We now continue on to debate.

(1730 )

Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I would like a clarification from the Chair. Previously, Speakers have indicated how much time the questioner has to make his questions or comments and has indicated that the time must be shared evenly between the person who has questions or comments and the person who has made the speech so that they have equal time to answer the question. That did not occur in the case of my colleague from Comox-Alberni. I would like to understand why the rules were not followed in this instance.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The rules of this House are always followed by the Chair. The rules have been followed and there is no written rule concerning what you have just raised. We are now resuming debate.

Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, as I was saying when I began speaking, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had indicated that section 745 allows Clifford Olson to apply for early parole. He said that a few times in his speech but it is absolutely not true. That is the misrepresentation that we are getting from the Reform Party. It is absolutely not true. It allows him to apply so that he can become eligible to apply. There is a big difference. It is not a parole application.

However, that is too much for the members of the Reform Party to comprehend. They have never decided to deal with reason. Of course Reform Party members claim to act on behalf of victims. They claim they deal with the victims. Do they not realize that Clifford Olson after 25 years can still apply for parole? They do not seem to realize that.

There is room to manoeuvre in this whole area of dealing with section 745. Unfortunately it is quite difficult for the members of the Reform Party to deal with this area.

Let me suggest a solution to this whole matter. Unfortunately it appears that many of them will not be listening. That is fine, they can read it in Hansard some other day. Section 745 perhaps should be abolished in the future. It is something we should look at. I suggest that we take a serious look at abolishing section 745. The amendments that were made by the hon. Minister of Justice were good amendments and a good first step that we had to take.

However, getting rid of 745 does not end the whole matter. There has to be a step that takes place at the same time with the abolition of 745, returning discretion to the judges. We have to return discretion to the judges in the sentencing process. If we do not return discretion injustices occur. I will use a couple of examples to illustrate the problems that result.

Most recently there was a case in Saskatchewan, which I am sure hon. members are all aware of, in which a person was convicted of murder for having put his daughter to death because of his belief in her suffering as a result of illness. The judge in the case should have had the discretion to determine whether that individual would be eligible for parole on a second degree charge in 10 years time, for a first degree murder charge in 25 years, or whether he should reduce it. Maybe he should reduce it to two years, three years or four years, but he should have the discretion to vary from those numbers because we could have an injustice occur. All fact situations are not the same in murder cases.

Heaven forbid that they reoccur, but they seem to, in cases like Olson and Bernardo, the judge should have been able to say ``I sentence you to life imprisonment with no parole for life''. There

is no application for parole and no parole application can ever be made.

Reform members never suggest this. They simply tell us to get rid of section 745. They never mention this second step. That is what we need. We need this second step. They will probably leave the House and try to take credit for such an idea. Unfortunately some of the ideas that come from the other side of the House are only rehashed ideas they get from this side of the House.

(1735)

Someone like Bernardo should have been dealt with at the trial process by the trial judge. He should have had the discretion to say no parole or no parole for 250 years. Outlive that, Bernardo. Or no parole for 500 years or whatever figure. He should have had that discretion. Unfortunately the Criminal Code does not allow him that discretion.

Another situation similar to this occurred well in excess of 20 years ago in the city of Saskatoon where an individual was convicted of killing four children, David Threinen. He had killed four children and plead guilty to second degree murder. The very well respected judge in the system in Saskatchewan, Justice Ian Hughes, who had to sentence him, subsequently left Saskatchewan and went to British Columbia.

At the sentencing he increased the parole eligibility to the maximum he could at that time which was 20 years for second degree murder. He made a recommendation that this individual never be paroled. That should not have been something he had to do. He should not have been obliged to do this. He should have had the discretion to be able to make that order at the time of sentencing, not left to the parole board, 20 years plus to be dealt with again. He should have been able to deal with it then.

These are the types of cases where there are injustices, when the judges should go lower in ordering parole eligibility or go substantially higher in ordering non-eligibility for parole. It deals with the whole matter. However, the amendments that have been proposed to Bill C-45 are good amendments. They have changed matters. It has been made such that an initial step has to be taken.

Why would the Reform Party ever vote against such a requirement when it makes it tougher for someone who is serving time for first degree murder in excess of 15 years to get parole eligibility? Why would Reform members, who claim to represent victims, vote against the bill? They claim to represent victims and yet they vote against anything that helps victims. That seems strange. Favour victims, vote against victims; favour victims, vote against victims. That is the Reform policy.

Recently I received a document from the Church council on justice and corrections, a coalition of 11 churches, Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Batiste, Evangelical, Lutheran, Salvation Army, the Quaker, Mennonite, Christian Reform and Disciplines of Christ. In that document they indicated they favour judicial reviews. They indicate judicial reviews are working reasonably well in the country. More than half the offenders eligible for a judicial review are not even applying for one, they indicated, often because they either know they do not stand a chance or feel they are not ready.

Then they come out with this statement: ``None who has been released into the community has murdered again''. None. We are getting a lot of fearmongering from the Reform Party, saying that Canadians are terrified that murders will be released into their community. Of those who have been successful in their application under section 745, none released into the community has murdered again. So why this fearmongering by the Reform Party if not to make this a political issue when it is not a political issue?

With that we proceed to other matters. The Reform Party claims that this a joke of the judicial process.

(1740)

The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River indicated it is a joke of the process. Where is the joke? We have people charged with murder. There is evidence. They are convicted of murder. They are sent to jail for life. The question is one of parole eligibility. Where is the joke in this system?

People are consistently convicted in courts for the offence of murder. Is this a joke? If this is a joke, I cannot understand what the Reform Party would want in its place. Would it prefer trial by ordeal? Would it prefer-

An hon. member: What about cross-examination of victims?

Mr. Bodnar: There are no victims who can be cross-examined on a murder trial, and that is what I am discussing now. It is unfortunate but that is the position. There are victims in cases but they had better realize what is being talked about in the speech. This is how the Reform Party deals with this matter. It treats it as a complete political matter. It is not concerned about victims of any sort in the process.

It is important to get rid of section 745 at some time in the future and replace it with what I have suggested. Prisoners want finality in sentencing as well. When they have been convicted, they want to know exactly where they stand. There is no reason for them to put on false pretences to prison guards in wanting to be treated better or have a favourable report in 15 years.

They should have finality planned for that period of time and deal with rehabilitation rather than trying to impress authorities.

The comment by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that it is 1.1 years for every child he has killed in referring to Olson is absolutely ludicrous. His suggesting that Olson will only serve 1.1 years for every child he has killed is simply trying to inflame the public when what is being said is completely and absolutely inaccurate because he has not been granted parole.

Everybody knows he will not be granted parole, yet a comment like that is made. It is inflammatory to the ultimate degree. That is Reform policy. Its members not only deal with inconsistencies, what is inaccurate, but they show their extremist qualities throughout and continuously. Desperation is written all over the Reform Party.

On Bill C-45 the Reform Party, in its fresh start campaign platform, should realize that most of us did not need a fresh start part way through this Parliament because we had a good start when we started in 1993. We do not have to restart.

In their fresh start Reformers say that section 745 should be repealed and they do not deal with a situation like another Olson applying for parole after 25 years. Give the judges the discretion. Let them deal with situations like this. Unfortunately it is never dealt with.

Of course, they try to show how crime is increasing, it is really bad. It is not true. Crime is falling. The national crime rate has been falling for the fourth year in a row.

All we have to do is look at the Reform documentation. One can see what Reformers are saying, fearmongering with respect to the public. They are trying to show to the public that the justice system does not work. Everything is getting worse. It is absolutely not true.

The crime rate is dropping.

(1745 )

The crime rate has decreased for a fourth year in a row. Violent crime also fell last year. Does it not hurt their policy when the facts do not support them? How do they back out of it? They cannot. They cannot back out of it. They are stuck with fearmongering and alteration of the facts in matters such as this one. That is what we have seen in debates and written articles about crime control by Reform members.

I simply ask Reformers to take a look at my suggestion today. It is not a new one. It made it to the Police Association of Canada. Section 745 should be abolished, giving back discretion to judges to deviate from the mandatory sentences in exceptional cases upon giving reasons. I have indicated that to the association. It is very interested in looking at that suggestion to see whether or not to support it. I am waiting to hear what it has to say.

I am not about to say that we should not parole people forever or if a criminal is convicted put him away for 25 years with no discretion for judges. I have a lot more faith in the judicial system than I do in the wisdom of the party across from me, the third party. Its ability to deal with section 745 has been most lacking.

We must have constructive debate rather than the Reformers continuously trying to insinuate that we are not dealing with the rights of victims. We cannot have good debate with them. I am putting out a suggestion for them to consider. Perhaps there are problems in my suggestion but I would like to hear what those problems may be.

I do not want to be called names. I heard one from the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I do not want to hear that. I prefer getting into constructive debate rather than being called names. It is irresponsible. They will pay the price in the next election. In the province of Saskatchewan there will be no Reformers re-elected, none. We will see to it.

This is not the time for name calling in such a discussion. This is a time to deal with alternatives. Unfortunately that is not on the agenda of the Reform Party. Alternatives are not on its agenda because it deals with alternatives on a different fact basis, facts that are not there.

We cannot deal with alternatives like those. I simply ask that all members to consider the alternatives I have put before the House today.

Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I just heard a disappointing speech from the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. He epitomizes-and he was very pitiful in doing it-everything we find wrong with the justice system.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Hermanson: They are heckling and jeering after their member talked about name calling. To hear all the names they have been calling us all day puts him in a very tenuous position, to say the least.

The member for Saskatoon-Dundurn talked about crime rates going down. Actually, if we look at the long term trend over the last 20 years, crime rates in Canada have been on a steady increase. Like all charts they bump up and down but overall they are on an increase.

(1750)

I was talking to some social workers in the member's riding, people the work at the Friendship Inn. He knows very well where it is. They are the experts in this field. It is one of the most difficult areas in the province of Saskatchewan. It happens to be Premier Romanow's riding as a matter of fact and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn is the Liberal representative for that riding.

I asked them about the crime situation there. I asked if it was as bad as a lot of people thought and if it was getting better or worse. I am sure they were honest. They work there every day. They care for

these people. They are concerned about their well-being. They said that without a doubt things were getting worse in Saskatoon.

Crime is increasing. There is solvent and substance abuse, break and enter, robbery and prostitution. Young offenders are a big problem in that part of the city in Saskatoon.

The hon. member does not even know there is a crime problem in his own riding. Yet he stands and has the nerve to say it is no big deal that Reformers are concerned about section 745 of the Criminal Code. All the members over here have been making apologies all day for Clifford Olson and hundreds of murderers like him who will get their day in court, who will be able to stand and plead for mercy after the despicable things they have done.

I have been in the House most of the day listening to the Liberals. A number of them over there have defended Clifford Robert Olson and section 745 of the Criminal Code. They are glad he will have his day tomorrow. They are trying to point the finger at us and say that we are in the wrong because we brought it to the attention of the House. All of Canada knows what is going on. All of Canada is upset. Yet these Liberals in their little cocoon are complaining because the Reform raised the issue for debate in the House.

Mr. Cannis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been following the debate throughout the day. There has not been a member from either side of the House rise to defend this criminal. They talked about the process and the system and how they unfold.

Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I have listened to members on the other side defend the process. They have defended section 745 of the Criminal Code even though many of them voted for rescinding that section when their former colleague put forward a private member's bill to do so. Now they have flip flopped and are defending section 745 of the Criminal Code.

One of those members is the member for Oshawa. Can we imagine what his constituents would think if they heard him in the House? I hope some of them did, although most of his comments were heckling rather than intelligent ones.

The member for Rosedale was also doing the same thing. He was supporting section 745 of the Criminal Code. I wonder what those constituents think of their member.

Right beside the member for Rosedale was the member for Sarnia-Lambton. He rose to make a speech. All he did was rail against Reform because Reformers are concerned about victims.

The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn had the gall to say that family members of the murder victims are not victims. I could not believe that he would be so insensitive and non-compassionate to suggest that family members of murder victims were not victims. I could not believe he would make such an atrocious statement in the House.

The member for Scarborough Centre yelled insults at Reformers and he was defending section 745 of the Criminal Code. I believe I even heard a way off in the corner the member for Victoria-Haliburton defend this awful section of the Criminal Code which Canadians from one end of the country to the other want to see rescinded.

The hon. member for Halton-Peel serves with me on the agriculture committee. I thought he would be concerned about Canadians and their concerns over section 745 of the Criminal Code, but no way. He was heckling as well.

In front of him was the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He has been involved with the issue. He heckled Reform because we brought the issue before the House. He belittled the importance of repealing or rescinding section 745. He said that it could not be done retroactively. However they could retroactively do away with the Pearson airport deal. We know what a Reform government could do in a retroactive way.

(1755)

They will push the most regressive legislation through the House. They will use closure. They will use time allocation. However when it came to a bill to deal with section 745 of the Criminal Code they could not do it because the Bloc did not like it.

Can we imagine those poor, helpless, majority government Liberals not being able to make changes to our legal system because the Bloc did not want them to do it? They had to bow to the separatists. They could not do the right thing. The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River justified that action. I find it incomprehensible.

The member for Dauphin-Swan River heckled Reformers. She said it was just awful that we were bringing the issue before Canadians. The member for Winnipeg St. James was his usual self. He is always yelling at us in the House. He is very unkind and very undiplomatic. He was doing his usual routine. The member for Halifax was babbling about Reformers and calling us names. I am sure you could not hear her, Madam Speaker, but that is the usual spiel we get from that member as well.

The member for Mississauga South also said some very unkind things about Reformers. He said we had no right to bring the issue to the floor of the House. Can we imagine that? We are the people's elected representatives in the Parliament of Canada. On a serious issue like section 745 of the Criminal Code he thinks it is wrong for us to bring it before the House of Commons. He would rather have it debated in the papers. He would rather have it debated on talk shows across Canada-

Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect, the member is attributing to me things which I did not say in the House. I would like to refute them and I would like the member either to withdraw the allegation-

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That is debate.

Mr. Szabo: He has attributed to me things I did not say in the House.

Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South certainly made some comments. He thought it was very inappropriate for Reformers to bring this issue for debate in the House of Commons today, the day before Clifford Olson had his day in court.

We could always check Hansard to find out what the hon. member said. He thought it was opportunistic. I cannot remember exactly what he said as there have been so many members who have spoken along the same line. However that was the gist of what he said. I may not be quoting him word for word but that was the gist of the message that he was trying to get across.

The member for Burlington spoke in the same vein. She criticized Reformers. She did not think this was an issue that was important to Canadians. She obviously has not been listening to her constituents.

Then, my dear friend, the member for Vancouver Quadra, got into the act. Why he would do that I do not know. Perhaps he has been a constitutional expert for too long and is out of touch with how Canadians feel and what is in their hearts. They still believe in decency. They still believe in justice. They still believe that when somebody ruthlessly takes another human being's life there should be severe consequences that will last for more than just a few years.

I have taken almost all the time available to me in questions and comments. In closing, I wish Liberal members would set aside their partisanship and come to their senses. I wish they would start to listen to Canadians.

I cannot believe that the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn would show such insensitivity to the concerns of Canadians who see people brutally murdered. Then the justice system protects, cares and pampers the murderers while the victims continue to suffer. It is wrong and I bring that to the attention of the House.

Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member did not hear the speech I made. I never referred to other members of the family as not being victims of the crime.

Mr. Benoit: Yes, you did. Check Hansard.

Mr. Bodnar: Unfortunately they are not telling the truth at this time.

(1800 )

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Check the tape.

Mr. Bodnar: Certainly.

As a further matter, with respect to crime in my riding, it is interesting that he is busy campaigning in my part of the riding and the election has not even been called.

Madam Speaker, I have had information passed on to me that during my speech the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia uttered the word ``asshole''. I am asking that this be withdrawn at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On the point of order, the Chair did not hear that but we will certainly review the blues.

We are now resuming debate.

Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I guess we are going to be a little short of time, but I would like to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Mr. Kirkby: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my understanding that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn was sharing his time with me.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): No, he was not.

Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate the motion that we are supposedly debating today proposed by my colleague from Crowfoot. It reads:

That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a consequence, this House urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to those families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I am going to cite a specific case of a constituent family of mine whose daughter was a murder victim. The family members are now victims themselves of the murderer and of the whole flawed judicial process. The family's name is Clausen. Svend and Inge Clausen live in Duncan. Their 15-year-old daughter was murdered in 1981. Because of section 745, since August 1996 the Clausens have had to be on the edge of theirs chair asking: ``Will that murderer now appeal in order to get his reprieve after 15 years?'' It has not happened yet but day by day this family is living through this misery of having the whole thing come to life again.

(1805)

This came to my attention in part because the Clausen's sent me a copy of their letter to the current Minister of Justice. Because of that I asked if they minded if I used their name in the House, if I talked about their case. I asked if it would bring back the horror for them. They replied, ``no Bob, it won't do that because we live with the horror every day, and because of section 745 we will be living it every day for the next 10 years. We don't know when this maniac who murdered our daughter will put his name forward and say that it is his right to appeal''.

With that I will quote from the Clausen's letter to the Minister of Justice:

I am the mother of Lise Clausen who was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered on August 2, 1981 by Paul Kocurek, a convicted sex offender free on mandatory supervision. I am writing this letter on behalf of my family.

Kocurek had borrowed a car from a friend and was cruising the quiet roads of our neighbourhood looking for prey. He came well prepared [in other words premeditated] with a starter gun and handcuffs ready in the car. He spotted Lise who was out for a quick afternoon run before dinner, found a suitable place to park, opened the hood of his car pretending to have car trouble. When she came close and asked if he needed help, she found herself staring at the gun. He pushed her into the car, handcuffed her and then drove past our driveway and up the mountain behind our property. By the time she was located the next day it was all over. Her life, her future, her dreams were all taken from her. Our lives were changed forever.

This was the third offence committed by this unbalanced, perverted individual who consequently was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 25 years. According to our justice system the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. However, we soon realized that ``life'' does not mean life and later we found that 25 years with no parole does not apply either-due to a little known section in the Criminal Code, namely section 745''.

We learned that in 1976 the Solicitor General of the day, Warren Allmand, publicly stated that: ``To keep them in [jail] for 25 years in my view is a waste of resources, a waste for a person's life''. At the time Allmand was fighting to get the minimum life sentence for first degree murderers set at 15 years. When he failed, he introduced a loophole dubbed the faint hope clause, namely section 745.

This clause is an insult to all victims and their families. We are talking about the worst kind of killers here. First degree murder is a planned cold-blooded killing, but section 745 is being used as a sneaky back-door route to freedom for these murderers so that they can have the opportunity to kill again. For you and your government to condone this defies common sense, and we are at a loss to understand why this government is so eager to help such killers on to our streets long before the sentence imposed on them by the judge has been served. Victims, past, present and future should be so lucky to have such advocates for their concerns.

Most citizens were led to believe that the safety of society was important to you. Did we misunderstand? If we didn't, then please explain why you are doing everything possible to help convicted killers to get out. So that they can assault and/or kill more innocent people?

We are well aware of the arguments put forth by your ministry. Points like ``there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel,'' and ``if we repeal the section we would close the door for people who are in no danger of reoffending, such as those who killed an abusive partner''.

The answer to point one is straight forward-there is a light at the end of the tunnel-at 25 years. The answer to point number two is that very, very seldom will the killing of a partner result in a first degree murder charge, most likely manslaughter, for which the sentence is much less.

In Canada today we continue to see a miscarriage of justice. As a matter of fact most feel that we do not have a justice system. We have a legal system.

My time is running out so I will finish. Section 745 demeans the value of life and the balance is again swinging in favour of convicted killers.

I do not have the time to finish Ms. Clausen's letter to the Minister of Justice, but I think it speaks reams. The victims of murderers are families such as this who have to relive it, not just their daughter. Section 745 by being there as a hope which murderers such as this one and Olson and Bernardo can invoke at any time keeps them in agony from here on in. That is not justice.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, had I, instead of the Reform Party member or the Minister of Justice, received such a letter, I would have tried to reassure the family by telling them about the existing legislation. I would certainly not have added fuel to the fire as the Reform Party members have been doing since this morning. The question of parole is perhaps not without problems, but neither is it unremittingly bleak, as the members of the Reform Party have been saying since the beginning of this debate.

I would have told this family that I fully understood their sadness, what they are going through, and that I hope never to have to live through anything like it myself. But I would remind them that there are provisions for dangerous offenders. I would explain to them the definition of ``dangerous offender'' and how the system can designate murderers as ``dangerous offenders'' not eligible for parole under section 745. I would take the time to explain that to them.

I would also take the time to explain the parole system. I would give them statistics. When you are involved in such a case and you yourself become a statistic, it is, of course, a sad thing. But I would use statistics to show them that the system is not as bad as all that. Some things could be improved, I agree.

As I said this morning, one repeat offender is already too many, in the case of murderers like those we are considering. I would try to reassure this family by telling them that the ideal solution we are seeking is the one that ultimately eliminates repeat offences.

If I were to do anything, it would be to seek a way to eliminate this kind of criminal in our society. Perhaps we should pay more attention to education, invest more in our young people. But one thing I would not do is add fuel to the fire as the Reform Party member and his colleagues have been doing since this morning.

I would like to put a question to the Reform Party member who just spoke. We have seen with Bill C-45 that the government has changed the rules for obtaining parole under section 745. It has become section 745.6. There are extremely specific criteria, one in particular. We have been hearing about the Clifford Olson case since this morning. I do not always agree with the Liberal government, but when they do something good from time to time, they deserve credit.

(1815)

Could the Reformers tell me whether, under section 745.6 an application for parole from someone like Clifford Olson would simply be blocked?

So, after hearing everything they said since this morning I think things could be discussed more calmly if they were aware of the provisions already in the Criminal Code and if they did not invent things to make political points, which in the West, it appears, is the way things are done.

I was listening to the Liberals and the Reformers earlier. This subject requires calm and very careful examination, because not only does it cost a lot to imprison murderers, but it costs a lot to rehabilitate them and reintegrate them-something we have to think about eventually.

I therefore ask the Reform member whether he thinks that, with the amendments to section 745.6, someone like Clifford Olson or Joe Blow would have a hard time getting paroled. Did he take the time to look at the amendments and apply them to a specific case, as he seems interested in doing?

[English]

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, it is probable that Clifford Olson will not be granted parole. However, the answer to my hon. friend from the Bloc is that just the possibility of it makes the family live in trepidation.

I am sorry the member does not care to hear my answer. Let us forget about answering if it means that little.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, shortly after coming to Ottawa, there was a comment in the paper by a woman who said that she had been picked up along the highway by Clifford Olson and raped.

Following that, a media reporter asked for a comment from me. I simply said that if that is the case, it should be investigated and that if he is convicted, add it to his sentence.

I received a personal letter from Mr. Olson after that. I am not proud to have received it. It was a letter that showed no remorse. It showed contempt for the justice system and contempt for everyone involved with him.

This is the man we are dealing with. Where is this government's compassion when I think of the victims and their families?

Tomorrow on March 11 child killer Clifford Olson will begin his appeal for early parole under section 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause. This government could have stopped Olson's appeal but it chose not to. Therefore tomorrow, March 11, will be recognized as one of the saddest and most disgraceful days in the history of our justice system because it does not carry justice.

It is tomorrow that the families of Olson's victims will relive the horror, the suffering and the pain of what this child killer did to their loved ones in the most brutal and gruesome way imaginable.

To bring some conciliation to these hurting people, I exhort the House today to recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code.

To give some justice to these hurting people, I exhort the House to urge the Liberal government to formally apologize to the murder victims' families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I participate in this debate today and I want to argue two points. First, the families of murder victims needlessly are made to suffer more when murderers make appeals or applications for early release under the so-called faint hope clause.

Liberal members talk about respecting the justice system. If there is so much respect for the justice system, why is the decision of the court which tried, convicted and sentenced Clifford Olson now being questioned using different standards of evidence and a different standard of reasonable doubt? If we have such respect for the justice system why are we revisiting this and trying to redecide what was decided 15 years ago?

(1820)

Second, the government had an opportunity to repeal section 745. It refused to do so and for this hurtful and neglectful action the Liberals must formally apologize to murder victims' families for their unnecessary pain and suffering. These are the people who are having their wounds reopened and their suffering and loss reimposed on them. This is unjust and this is cruelty.

I want to outline for the House what a Reform government would do to protect the rights of murder victims' families. Before I do let me give some historical background to provide a context for today's debate.

Section 745 dates back to 1976 when Parliament abolished capital punishment with the passing of Bill C-84. Included in Bill C-84 was the mandatory sentencing clause which gave 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. It gave every first and second degree murderer the right to apply for early parole after they served 15 years of a 25 year life sentence.

Fifteen years after the passage of Bill C-84 the families of murder victims started to discover for the first time that section 745 existed. This is when they realized that the murderers of their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters were getting out of prison on early parole.

To the end of 1995, 50 of 63 first degree murderers who applied under section 745, a shocking 79, per cent were recommended for some form of early release. In Quebec, which accounted for 60 per cent of all recommendations for early release, not a single applicant was turned down. Quite clearly the faint hope clause has become the sure bet clause.

Section 745 appeals and hearings have traumatized the friends and families of murder victims for too long. These are the people who go home every night to an empty house or an empty bed and who live out every day with grief, sorrow and pain knowing that the one they love is not coming back. These families would find out that the one who murdered their loved one is applying for or already has a hearing for early parole. After this happens they would discover that the criminal who inflicted so much pain on them has been released early from prison. There was no honesty in the sentence that was provided.

I am always amazed when we talk about serious things like this at the levity that takes place on the government benches. This is no joke. These are suffering people. I have listened to some of the people who have gone through this experience and it is heart wrenching to say the least. No one can understand the shock, the horror and the pain that these victims endure when the person who murdered their loved one has been let out of prison early or is being considered for such a privilege. These victims relive the suffering and pain of their loved one's death. They too are victims. They hurt day after day for the rest of their lives.

Let me read to the House some personal testimonies of people who have been revictimized because of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Mrs. Rose Onofrey, whose son Dennis was murdered, said: ``Is that all my son's life was worth, 15 years? Why do I have to be victimized again and again? Dorothy Malette, 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''.

Willa Olson, whose brother was murdered in 1978, said of section 745 hearings: ``It is so hard on the family. You think you have forgotten some of it and then you are reminded all over again''.

Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son Daryn was killed by Olson, said this of section 745 last year: ``I can only hope to God that it will be repealed before August so that our families and the 10 other families will not have to go through this whole nightmare again''.

The Liberal government had an opportunity to stop the suffering. I have just described the opportunity. But it chose not to. Instead, it decided to tinker with the faint hope clause by amending it under last year's Bill C-45. The inadequacies of Bill C-45 I would like to bring to the House's attention but I lack the time to do that.

I conclude by simply reminding the House of what a Reform government would do to protect the families and friends of murder victims. First, there would be no parole application for early release for Olson or any other killer. A Reform government would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code and bring back truth in sentencing. This means the sentences given would be the sentences served by all offenders.

Second, a Reform government would enact a victims bill of rights that would put the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of those of criminals.

A Reform government would make compassion and caring for victims the centrepiece of its justice policies. Where there is a choice to be made between the rights of victims and the rights of convicted criminals, victim rights would always come first.

Reform would make sure that child killers like Clifford Olson are never given a cruel weapon like section 745 again to impose on and further hurt and damage the lives of many innocent people.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 6.25 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

[Translation]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than15 minutes.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.)