Randy White

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to get government members to clue in to what is said in the House. I spoke to an immigration issue yesterday and it went over their heads.

This victim impact statement was read at a sentence hearing. What the government is talking about doing is hearing her again after 15 years and hearing her again after 20 years. We are saying we should not have to hear Corinne Schaefer again; we have already heard her. The government should clue in. This person has committed the crimes he has been convicted of. He stabbed this young lady 12 times. Why is the government looking for another impact statement to let him out?

We have to understand that this person should not be out. He should not attend parole board hearings. He should be left in prison. He should stay there. I do not want Corinne Schaefer to show up at another parole board hearing. Neither does her family. Neither does her mother.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

It has sat here before and can do it again.

Angela's murder is not the end; it is the beginning. I sincerely hope what I have said here today not be considered a speech. It is an impact statement from a victim at a sentencing hearing. Government members whether ministers, backbenchers or wherever they sit in the House, and all other members, should remember this statement. It needs to be heard. It needs to be listened to.

I do not know what else can be said about the matter. We could critique each and every clause as some of our members so aptly have done, but we must remember that the life and property of the law-abiding Canadian citizen should always be paramount in the country. The government should get off the track of looking for benefits and for a better life for the criminal who has committed the offence.

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-41. Members have heard from our party why we feel so strongly about the government wimping out once again. However, we are getting used to that in this session of Parliament. There are so many issues in Bill C-41 to talk about but the one I want to spend a particular amount of time on is victim impact statements.

A case which comes to mind happened to Angela Richards, a young lady in my riding. I attended the verdict and the sentencing of Wayne Perkin, the individual who actually committed this horrendous crime. This individual had previously committed a sexual assault; he bound up a young lady and injected her with cocaine. He was subsequently sentenced and was then released by the parole board. Had he not been released, young Angela would still be alive today.

However, it would not be appropriate for me to stand here and give some political rhetoric. I want to read to the House and to anybody listening a victim impact statement provided by Corinne Schaefer, the sister of Angela Richards. This victim impact statement probably says it all about what is wrong with our system in Canada today. I will sum up with comments about Bill C-41 that truly identify what the problems are and why this government is so very ineffective. This victim impact statement was given on June 30, 1994 in Vancouver:

Two years have just passed since learning of Angela's murder. It is extremely difficult to write down the impact of her death.

I am confused about the value of this. A part of me feels this statement will have no bearing on whether or not an "appropriate" sentence will be handed down as I do not think there is any punishment great enough. I tend to think this may only be a therapeutic exercise for my benefit.

Already it can be seen that Corinne's confidence in the system, as much as anybody else's in this country today, is lost.

The other part of me wants to scream and cry out to you in my anger and pain. I want this statement to really make a difference. I know this is my only chance to finally have some say in this matter. All those days in court were gruelling and particularly upsetting when defence presented false allegations about Angie. It is awful to go through such tragic and deeply personal accounts of her death and do nothing but sit and listen. Now the opportunity for this statement presents itself, yet I am told I cannot comment on sentencing, nor how much I hate the accused and wish him dead. So through my fury and rage I will do my best to put into words how just two years ago my carefree and wondrously happy life was shattered upon learning that my precious baby sister was murdered.

I love Angie very much, more than words can say. How can I make you understand how much I miss her when I am still denying her death? I do not want to believe this and though I know in my heart that it is true, my heart has yet to accept it. Angie was not only my sister. She was my friend. There were no secrets between us. She was funny and witty and bright and loving and mostly always happy. She was everything that the accused is not. And now she is dead.

I want so desperately to know and believe that she was truly struck "out like a light" before being so viciously stabbed but I will never know, no matter how many times I replay that night in my mind. How horrible for her. I cannot help but feel guilty at not being there to somehow save her.

How did we lose such a beautiful and vital human being? She is gone from our life. Yet we are plagued with remembering her murder for the rest of our lives. A despicable excuse for a person, a criminal with such an extensive history, a parolee, a repeat

offender, someone I hope you will consider to be a dangerous offender, considering the current charge he is facing: 13 counts of sexual assault with a minor, and administering a noxious substance.

This kind of person the victim is describing is the kind of person the government is talking about getting parole after 15 years.

It makes me sick to write his name. I wish him dead so I do not have to worry about when he appeals parole and the day he gets out, which could be in 15 years. Every day I fear for his next victim, my life and for his. I figure I will be barely 50 years old and he will be out on the streets and I will still have it in me to kill him. Who can predict what the future holds? I wonder if I will ever be kind and caring again. I certainly will not be forgiving of this. I have become cynical, hard and very sarcastic. I am humiliated by the person I have become. I also tend to be paranoid. After all, who can you trust?

This is a victim impact statement and is not made up by me. It is by someone who is affected by the laws this government is bringing into place.

Even my dreams are nightmares and often show Angie's body cut up and floating in water or in a dumpster. Once I dreamt that she was brought to the hospital and was going to make it. The reality hit once again upon waking.

For a while there I wished for my mom to die as I could see how much pain she was in. I cannot talk to mom about my sad feelings and how much I miss Angie because I hate to see her cry. She has cried so much I do not want her to see me cry because I do not want to upset her any more than she already is. It's crazy. Even though I need mom more now than ever I can't turn to her. I hate to see the pain on her face, how disoriented and scattered her thoughts have become, how tiny and frail she is to us all. It is disgusting and totally unforgivable. I am at a loss as to what life is all about.

The joy of my sons' births were diminished greatly by my grief. They have been cheated out of what would have been innumerable wonderful moments with their Auntie Angie. I wonder why I brought them into such a horrible world.

I am just now forcing myself to get therapy as I've exhausted whatever coping mechanisms I had and I'm starting to want to hurt myself badly. I'm scared I'm going to do something stupid. My husband is at a loss as to helping me. At times I just want to run away from it all and not accept this. My grief counsellor has assured me that I'm not crazy (which is somewhat comforting.)

My job as an RN in emergency is affected. I'm not able to show compassion for IV drug users, especially cocaine users.

This is what the convicted was.

In fact, I don't want to acknowledge them. There are increasing numbers of stabbing victims presented to emergency and I cannot help but think of Angie and how her beautiful little body was torn after 12 vicious stabs. I'm currently forced to look at alternatives.

The number one rule about doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you was taught to us at a young age. Angela understood and lived this rule; and only good should have come her way. I now realize that there are no guarantees to a happy, long life, especially within our faulty Canadian justice system.

I do hold the system responsible for her murder. I have learned a lot about the justice system and parole board. The foremost message I've received is that criminals seem to be rewarded, rather than punished.

Does that sound familiar?

How many more victims is it going to take before we stop tolerating this?

I am now compelled to join other victims in the fight to improve and strengthen our legal system in hopes that tougher sentences and less cushy prison environments will deter increasingly violent criminal activities.

Corinne knows what she is talking about. One has to ask why the government still includes a golf course at Ferndale penitentiary and so on. Where is the government coming from?

Believe me. I would much rather spend my precious free time with my family, than to have to fight to keep a murderer in jail for the rest of his life. He should never be paroled again.

Does that sound familiar?

The fact that he served only two years of a six-year sentence for attacking Ms. Eastman in 1986 is a joke. How lucky she is to be alive today. Again, I say, had he served his full sentence, my Angie would be alive today.

Why hasn't anyone taken responsibility for slipping up? How could he have been paroled so early? Are parole board appointees not aware of how manipulative these offenders are? Do they not realize that these criminals have nothing better to do than plan and plot for parole?

The emotional, mental and physical costs far outweigh any monetary losses we have encountered. I am however attempting to have the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board repay my mother over $800 for therapy she needed and probably should have continued, but for worry of the cost.

I'm also angry that reward money was used to entice certain individuals to give information. It is unfortunate but money talks. That $30,000 should have been used for a bursary in Angie's name at her high school. She would have like that.

My life has been tarnished forever. I am sorry for the people near and dear to me who put up with my broken spirit. All I know is this: I did make it through yesterday and am cautious about the future.

For the love of Angie, I write openly, honestly and beg that my statement will make a difference.

I can say to Corinne that her statement does make a difference. It has been read in the House of Commons for the government and all other people to listen to. However it is more than a victim impact statement. This is a statement from an average law-abiding Canadian citizen, hoping the government will finally clue in to the fact that legislation has to be a little stronger these days. We have to think of quotes like the one my colleague from Crowfoot referred to. It bears repeating. One parliamentarian in support of section 745 calls it "a glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals".

Where is the glimmer of hope for Angela Richards? Where is the glimmer of hope for all victims out there? A victim is not only the person who died. The victims are the direct relatives and friends of people who have been killed and maimed in this life. Where is the glimmer of hope? Why is a glimmer of hope being offered to the people who do this sort of thing?

The government had better clue in or the next time there is an election it will be sitting over here.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to the particular aspect of Bill C-45 which is going to committee.

Several items in the bill are actually good points that we could support. However the proposals are yet another example of the Liberal government wanting to do something to convince Canadians that it is really getting tough on law and order. In many cases it is much to do about nothing. This is the story of our lives in Canadian government in 1994-95, is it not?

We support some of the points. We obviously support the measures to counter child sexual abuse. Full term sentence before release is and has been a Reform position since time immemorial, since the party was started. We obviously support it and agree the government should pursue it in Bill C-45.

We also support empowering any law enforcement officer to detain and return an offender violating parole requirements. That is a good step. The government is to be complimented on that. It is not often I stand in the House to compliment the Liberal government on something it does.

The other item I wish to compliment it on is expanding offences wherein an offender must serve full term sentences to include serious drinking and driving offences, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, criminal harassment or stalking, and conspiracy to commit serious drug offences. That is also a positive move in the right direction.

Let us get down to some of the concerns that are obviously omitted. This is where we get into the flaccid approach. I always said the dictionary term for flaccid means limp wristed and so on. I like to think of flaccid meaning the federal Liberals are crafty Conservatives in disguise. I will explain that at the end of my 10 minutes.

The legislation does not insist child sex offenders must receive treatment during or after their incarceration. How could that be missed? The country must stress that no serious child sex offender should be allowed to enter society whether or not full sentence completion exists, without assurances that future child sexual abuse by the offender will not occur. They should think about that when they are sitting on the committee. It is something that is very important to Canadian citizens. If they look at the area I come from in the lower mainland of British Columbia they will see this is a serious problem.

Mandatory treatment must take place. Currently if an offender refuses treatment no treatment is forced upon the offender. If an offender refuses treatment during incarceration some means must be at the disposal of correctional services that force the individual to take treatment. The offender should not be allowed to re-enter society until assurances are received that the offender will not reoffend.

There are no provisions in the legislation to account for sexual offenders that stalk and with violence violate adult women. It is not only young sex offenders we are looking at. They had better get real serious about looking at all sex offenders.

The proposed legislation does not force mandatory review of parole board decisions that go wrong. The legislation states the chair of the parole board may recommend such a hearing take place. This is really preposterous considering some of the boondoggles parole boards have been undertaking. We know that in many cases they are patronage appointments. Liberal Party hacks came into the jobs. Perhaps their qualifications and abilities do not quite match the job they are used to.

However let me give a little indication about a fellow by the name of Wayne Perkin in my area who was supposed to do six years for taping up a young lady's arms, beating her over the head with a hammer and sexually assaulting her. He served about 14 or 16 months and the parole board let him out. After that he bludgeoned to death Angela Richards in Langley, and the story goes on.

When I went to the sentencing in this particular case I thought how ironic it was the parole board was not even represented there to listen to the damage that was done after it let this person out. I really think accountability of the parole board has to come into play. It is not in the legislation and I suppose those folks over there will let it go by. The committee should really look at the matter. I know that Reform members of Parliament will be talking to it extensively at committee level.

The chair of the parole board has a vested interest to keep foul-ups by board members as quiet as possible unless media make a big fuss about board foul-ups that forces the chair to ask for an inquiry. Why would the chair of a board actually critique what happened in the bad mistakes made by a board? It would do our country well to have some of the Liberal MPs involved in assessment at committee level of Bill C-45 go to a parole board hearing. They might have their eyes opened.

The proposed legislation still leaves board members as investigators and decisive people in parole. Nowhere does the legislation insist frontline workers like case workers, prison guards and those types of people, make direct representation at hearings. The frontline people know the serious offenders very well. Their input would offer board members details that otherwise may escape their investigations. Let us think about that. The onus is on a parole board to assess whether or not an individual should be eligible to get back on the street. What it really needs is the maximum amount of input it can get, not the minimum amount.

The legislation makes a half hearted attempt at correcting a problem with short shrift eligibility for parole violators. Instead of saying parole violators must serve one-third of a new sentence the legislation should state that if an offender commits another crime while on parole the offender should be forced to fill the entire remaining period of the old sentence, face a minimum sentence for committing a crime while on parole, and face full term for the offence committed while on parole.

It is rather ironic to talk about the next item since I raised it in the House in the last session. It is nice the government wants criminals to contribute toward their room and board. What about the victim? If the criminals have any income that income must

be directed toward restitution to the victim prior to or as well as the cost of their upkeep. Once again the victim is forgotten.

We disclosed in the House in last session that the government's benevolent attitude is allowing criminals in our system to get old age security, income supplement, GST rebates and CPP. What I heard from the Solicitor General was that it really did not work and they would make a change. Then I saw in the change they would have to pay 30 per cent of it, which is ridiculous.

They should not get one cent of old age security, the people I checked up on. There was one person in for a double murder who was getting old age security. The government should tell me the logic of that. Why should that money not go toward the victim? Why should all that money not go toward board and upkeep? For the government to suggest that it is going to take another tough measure, that it is going to take 30 per cent, is ridiculous.

The Liberal government will have to smarten up one of these days and look at what is right in the country. It should not be too shy about being tough.

Currently our investigations have discovered that there are far more sexual offenders needing treatment than there are treatment facilities. We have been told of 1,800 serious sex offenders currently incarcerated. There are only 200 slots for treatment at any one time. The legislation only promotes treatment for sex offenders abusing children. What about offenders who assault teenage or adult women? Once again the victim is forgotten. Where is the treatment for victims of assault? Have you not remembered the victims? It should keep that in mind.

How will the government pay for increased treatment? We must push for treatment for all violent or sexual offenders. At the same time where will the money come from? I know they are not overly concerned about where the money comes from in Canada today, but they should try to think about it in Bill C-45.

I have a final point. This was a fine opportunity for Liberals concerned about guns to include full sentences served for offences where any gun is used. Why did you not do this? Why is it not in here? Where is it going to be?

Once again I do not think the courage exists on the other side to deal with the tougher issues about taking away money that the criminal element should not have in our prisons, about dealing with gun laws, about dealing with violent sex offenders from an adult point of view, and about dealing with the victim.

I hope that in Bill C-45 they look at these issues in committee.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Yes, that is right.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

I thought I said laws.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what was I supposed to have said?

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

I have to address this point about 10 per cent in the polls. I do not know who draws the polls, but I can assure them that if they take a little walk where I come from they will not even be on the map. They will not even be on the list of who is in a poll. They should not tell me about how they are doing. They are not doing so well in a lot of aspects. These laws they are trying to write here are weak. They are poorly motivated.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging when we get comments like those. I made a point of prefacing my remarks today by saying that we agree immigration is healthy. We agree with it.

I come from a community with a lot of immigrants. However I was talking about what we do not agree with. It is necessary to bring to the attention of this group here the problems involved in the refugee process. Yes, the bill goes some way toward that but there are still problems. I laid them out. I know the hon. member does not understand but that is what gets Liberals elected nowadays. They do not understand things.

Let us not cloak the issue of serious criminal immigrants in the country under the positive aspects of immigration. There are some serious concerns and they are in virtually every riding. I can assure the House that José Salinas Mendoza is not the only one in my community. In the wake of these it is not only one criminal immigrant. I have already said this guy has 12 criminal convictions. There is a string of victims. There are all kinds of them.

There is not much sense in talking further to the people over there. They have a majority government. They will put through what they want to put through. They will leave out the tough aspects as they did on the Young Offenders Act. There has not really been any toughness in anything they have legislated including the budget.

I tell them to go to it. We will see them in the next election. Then we will talk some real turkey on who is doing better, them or us.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

The comment I get from a Liberal member over here is he does not understand a damn thing I am saying. He is absolutely right. He does not understand what I am saying. The system is not working. Get it through your heads. This is an industry that is feeding on itself.

I do hope I have some questions because I am looking forward to a little debate on this with this weak minded Liberal group here. Let us go back to the basics. Let us go back to the fundamentals.

This individual has had far too many taxpayers' dollars for the good of the Canadian taxpayer. He does not deserve it. For anyone with 12 criminal charges who has been deported from this country to walk back in and have a young lady hiding and cringing is wrong. It is wrong to be spending dollar after dollar after dollar on this kind of exercise. We are sick and tired of it and we are not going to take that any more.