Debates of Sept. 20th, 1994

Criminal Code

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

As I said in my earlier statement I too had a private member's bill and my question is to the hon. member who just spoke. Those irresponsible bleeding-heart politicians that the member referred to did help the courts to create the best country in the world according to the United Nations. It is not as though we are all going to hell in a handbasket on one bill.

I would hope that the member opposite is not so opposed to this bill, as he stated at the end of his remarks, that he would not consider coming to the justice committee when it deals with Bill C-41 in order to give us his background, knowledge and expertise on section 745.

It is very easy for anyone to stand up in this place and condemn. I used to do it myself four years ago from across the way to the government. I always took the opportunity, when given, to go before a committee to try to reason with the government on why it did not act, or attempt to team up with other members of Parliament who wanted change.

I would hope that the member opposite will take the opportunity to make representations to the committee on justice in order to try to change the government's mind on section 745.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is reasonable. As I have appeared before audiences all across certainly my constituency and other parts of Alberta I am quite prepared to appear before any committee or any assembly or any audience to put forward my concerns and my reasons for opposing section 745 of the Criminal Code.

The premise on which my concern is based is that it was a betrayal of the people of Canada at the time capital punishment was being removed from the Criminal Code. We were promised that the substitution would provide the protection that society was looking for and that substitution was life imprisonment with a minimum penalty of 25 years.

I have heard individuals, including open-line commentators, express outright disbelief when they heard about section 745 and its implementation. Now these murders come forward and use it in order to gain early parole.

My concern and my opposition is to the whole of the bill, of course. However with the time limit, I focused only on that one particular area and other members will focus on other areas of this bill.

My specific concern is that section 745 should never have been implemented in the first place. It was a betrayal of the honest people who are prepared to give this whole idea of the removal of capital punishment from the Criminal Code an opportunity. That was based upon a life sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment for 25 years.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 is a major step toward safer homes and safer streets. I am pleased to speak in support of it.

This bill responds to many of the concerns about our justice system that I heard during the last election and that I continue to hear on the streets of Edmonton. It presents positive measures and practical common sense solutions, not rhetoric and sensationalism. Bill C-41 is effective action, not simplistic slogans, and that is what the people of Edmonton East voted for.

Edmonton has established a strong record in crime prevention, reducing the crime rate by 25 per cent in the last five years while rates in other cities have increased. It has achieved that goal through community co-operation and community policing. Based on its experience Edmonton has been calling for changes in legislation to support local action.

Today I would like to highlight a few of the specific measures of Bill C-41 that will be welcomed by the people in my city and other communities across the country.

First there is a clear statement of principles as the basis for sentencing. People in Edmonton East get angry about what seem to be arbitrary sentences handed down by judges without explanation.

How can one explain it when someone abuses a child, takes away the very foundation of her life and is back on the streets in a year or two with no change in behaviour? Edmonton East welcomes the provision requiring judges to take into consideration the misuse of a position of trust and authority as an aggravating circumstance.

How can one explain it when a repeated offence by a john destroying the safety of a neighbourhood gets a mere $100 slap on the wrist, less than a traffic ticket these days? Communities in my riding will welcome the explicit requirement that judges take into account other aggravating circumstances.

When a break-in leaves an elderly couple bleeding and dying and their house in shambles, the community understands the seriousness of the offence but the courts do not. We have been trying to make judges aware of the true costs of damage done by johns soliciting next to a neighbourhood school, an aggravating circumstance.

When charges are laid against drug traffickers who use drug houses and destroy neighbourhoods, judges should be able to consider the considerable damage to the community. Hopefully the police will not need to go back time and time again and that will also save money spent on expensive policing efforts.

The second is a greater voice for victims in the justice system. This bill responds to the public demand that victims have a greater role in several ways.

First, victims and their families will be able to make representations to the court in early parole hearings. This is a welcome change. People who receive threatening letters from convicts and fear their release on parole will now have a voice in that decision-making process and decision makers will have more complete information on which to base their decisions.

Second, restitution will now be a real option. Justice is not done when an elderly couple in our community loses most of their possessions in a vicious attack and at the end of the whole process they get nothing back. People are the victims of crime, not the state.

Greater use of restitution was one of the recommendations of the Edmonton safer cities report. I am happy to see that its recommendation has been followed here.

Experience with pilot projects has shown that offenders who understand the true impact of what they have done on another person are less likely to reoffend. For the first time Bill C-41 puts some teeth into that basic truth by making restitution an integral part of sentencing.

Third, Edmonton will welcome stronger rules for probation. Offences by people out on probation have eroded the public confidence in the justice system in my riding. Yet probation is an important vehicle for the rehabilitation of young offenders. The provisions in this bill will go a long way to restore credibility of the probation system and by extension, the public confidence in the justice system.

Community groups that have tried to provide opportunities for people on probation report that they need more support to make these programs successful. Better supervision will encourage communities to participate in programs designed to help offenders change their ways and find their place in the community again.

Fourth, greater use of conditional sentences with clear penalties will be more effective than overcrowded jails. Canada has the second highest incarceration rate in the world next to the United States. One look south of the border is proof enough that high incarceration rates do not equal safe streets.

My riding contains a number of correctional facilities, enough for people to know that jails do not change many people. In fact we see the evidence that jails are often schools for crime. Doing time can turn a minor offender into a professional criminal.

For minor offences a conditional sentence with a severe penalty for breaking the conditions is a much better alternative. It will also allow us to spend our limited protection dollars on people who really need to be put away from society. The correctional service says it costs about $47,000 a year to keep someone in prison with little to show for it at the end.

Finally, expansion of the alternative measures program will be welcome. Edmonton has a successful program for young people who are going to court for the first time, often for shoplifting. One of the recommendations of the safer cities report endorsed by city council is the expanded use of this program. Young people who have already had a brush with the law, perhaps in another place or on a reserve, would also benefit from a program that forces them to deal directly with the victim and understand the consequences of what they did. Bill C-41 will allow that.

I am happy that the federal government is responding to suggestions made by people who are close to the problem and who have put a lot of effort into identifying practical ways to deal with crime in our communities.

In conclusion, Bill C-41 will have three positive results: better outcomes from our justice system; safer homes and streets; and better value for money spent on courts and corrections. That is what the people of Canada want for every community.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

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.

[An hon. member]

It has sat here before.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

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.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing Corinne's plea with us. I suggest to him that Bill C-41 speaks directly to her request to be heard. During the hearings for early parole the impact statements of victims will be included. That is a very important part and a very significant addition to our situation. I believe better decisions will be made on whether or not criminals will be paroled as a result of this change.

I suggest that you have made an important comment. I do not believe our bill is a wimpy bill. It speaks directly to the cries of Corinne.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask all hon. members to put their remarks through the Chair. The word you is to be avoided unless it is directed to the Speaker.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

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.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, at what point does the hon. member consider the parole board ought to relook at such an impact statement?

The person has been condemned to a period of serving his sentence in prison. Shall he just be released without any forewarning, without anything? In terms of his sentence at what point should there be any consideration of the impact on the victims and when should they have a say?

I would like to ask an even more fundamental question, not in terms of the individual but in general. What would you do with all the people who have committed crimes? Where do you intend to house them and how do you intend to run those prisons?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before calling on the member for Fraser Valley West I would ask the minister, as I just asked her colleagues, to address all remarks through the Chair.

Having members speak through the Chair is designed to keep tension down. It is not because we need to have all comments directed at us.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about Wayne Perkins. I already said that he was let out on parole. He had bound a young lady, sexually assaulted her and injected her with cocaine. After he was let out he stabbed another young lady, Angela Richards, Corinne's sister, 12 times.

I am not talking about letting this fellow out. They have it all wrong. I am talking about keeping him there and leaving him there. I am asked how long. I am saying to leave him there, period, to close the door. Enough people have suffered.

In that courtroom 50 people were crying. All of them are affected, from her mother, Lorna, to her sister, her brother-in-law and so on. I am saying to leave him there. If he gets out we are into the same problem again. It was already tried it once and it failed.

[An hon. member]

Life means life.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Life means life. What part of that does the government not understand?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me direct a supplementary question to the hon. member. I understood when he said Life means life. That is all very well and good. He is well aware of the fact, as I think many of us are, that the statistics on the level of crime show crime has gone down but the number of crimes being reported has gone up.

If we fill our prisons what are we to do? How does the member plan to keep our prison population in control?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a lot less worried about accommodating prisoners than I am with letting them out.

Let me repeat the quote. It will tell us the philosophy of where the government is coming from. It says we should provide 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.

What is a terrible penalty? Why is life such a terrible penalty to a person who has bludgeoned a young lady who would have been a contributing member of society? Why is that such a terrible penalty? Keep him in, keep him in. That is the answer.

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Grandparents

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to that segment of our society we sometimes forget or overlook. With the United Nations having declared this year the International Year of the Family it is appropriate to recognize the importance of grandparents in the traditional family structure.

In provinces throughout Canada the second Sunday in September in each year has already been set aside as a day on which we honour grandparents.

I wish to extend my warmest wishes to all grandparents. We must not forget their importance to the structure of the family in the nurturing, upbringing and education of our children. Sometimes the greatest gift a child will receive will be the wisdom and experience offered by a grandparent.

I am certain many of us here today have experienced the joys of sharing a day or a special moment with a grandparent.

I urge the government to recognize the important role they play in society and set aside the second Sunday in September in each year as a day to remember grandparents.

French-Speaking Soldiers

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom, admitted again yesterday that the military college in Kingston is not at all ready to receive French-speaking soldiers and give them the training courses they need. According to him, the linguistic record of the Kingston college is markedly worse than that of the Saint-Jean college.

The commissioner also noted that only 6,000 of the 13,000 so-called bilingual positions in the Canadian Forces are held by people with a sufficient knowledge of French. Why are francophones always underrepresented? Why does the federal government insist on closing down the only French-language military college in the country? The Liberals are showing their true colours. The facts are there: the government refuses to make room for francophones.

The reality is that French is an irritant to the Canadian government.

Team Canada

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all the members of Team Canada who competed in the recent Commonwealth Games in Victoria, British Columbia. Their performance was the best ever with our team winning a total of 40 gold, 42 silver and 46 bronze.

I would like to point out that their performance gives an indication of the many years of dedication and training which these athletes have devoted to their sport. In particular, special mention goes to Corinna Wolfe who competed in the women's high jump and lives in Mission. I congratulate her on her entry to the games and her strong performance.

As well, I would like to give special recognition to Chris Wilson of wrestling fame. Chris, who lives in Coquitlam, also of my riding, won a gold in the 68 kilogram category in wrestling, an outstanding performance.

Ukraine

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Manitobans take pride in the federal government's recent decision to hold in Winnipeg, home to the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, the upcoming special G-7 conference on partnership for economic transformation of Ukraine in preparation for the G-7 summit next summer in Canada.

The Ukrainian-Canadian community which has its roots in Manitoba and the greater west had long dreamt of independence for its motherland, a dream that was passed on from generation to generation and finally realized in 1991.

Political independence needs economic prosperity to sustain it. Thus this conference is both essential and timely.

It therefore behoves Canada to ensure that this conference leaves a permanent legacy, perhaps the creation of a Canada-Ukraine foundation to help secure the economic transformation and prosperity of Ukraine which benefits Canada as well.

Albania

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the shameful actions of the Albanian government toward its ethnic minorities.

Last month the Albanian authorities held what can only be called a show trial against five leaders of the Greek-speaking minority. This show trial was held under the auspices of the penal code that was established by the communist dictatorship of Enver Hoxha and should not go unnoticed by the world community.

These convictions were nothing more than a malicious attempt to silence the representatives of the Greek-speaking minority in Albania in their efforts to secure the rights that are guaranteed to all people through the United Nations declaration on human rights.

I hope that our government will, should the opportunity arise, condemn the convictions of this ethnic leadership and contribute to the efforts to gain their release.

Canadian National

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a belief that crown corporations, those corporate representatives of the Canadian public, acted in the interest of all Canadians. To the surprise of certain Canadian National employees in my riding, management has informed them that some 25 positions will be phased out and replaced by American workers at Flat Rock, Michigan near Detroit, which I still believe to be in the United States.

On behalf of those workers and indeed all CN employees I implore the board of directors and management to start working for the real shareholders of that company.

I believe all Canadians want trains inspected and repaired by Canadians. That is not an unreasonable request.

Canadian National employees expect a reasonable reversal of this mistaken decision of the management of our corporation, Canadian National.

Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC has made public its decision on the new telecommunications regulatory framework. Despite what was promised in June 1992, basic monthly rates will rise by 50 per cent over three years in some regions. For the first time, basic telephone service, which is an essential service, is being undermined.

Why such a sudden and rapid increase? Consumers are the ones paying for the CRTC's decisions. A less drastic hike could have been agreed to for the sake of poor people hurt by the recession.

While Minister Manley plays with the idea of regulations allowing the convergence of cable and telephone networks, the CRTC announces that this sector will be almost completely deregulated and presents everyone with a fait accompli.

The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That is another appalling example of the inconsistency of the federal system.

The Senate

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister appointed some political friends to the other place, including a former Manitoba Liberal leader, a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister, and the daughter-in-law of a former Liberal Prime Minister.

Is it any wonder that Canadians have virtually no respect for the other place or the patronage appointees who rest there. They know that an unelected, unaccountable, anti-democratic body like the other place has absolutely no place in a democratic society. It has no business shaping legislation. It has no business whatsoever in deciding how taxpayers' money should be spent. It has no legitimate role whatsoever and serves mainly to provide a retirement income for the Prime Minister's friends.

Canadians demand that the other place be reformed so that it is elected and accountable, an effective guardian of regional interests.

While the new appointees collect their pay cheques, whether or not they can walk to work, the national debt has risen to $531,172,948,085.41.