Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to such a worthwhile motion today.
While I have not been here as a member of parliament for very long, I have been here long enough to understand that today's debate will likely not encourage the government to pursue meaningful changes or improvements. The government does not appear to be too interested in changing the status quo. In fact I would go so far as to say it is primarily responsible for most of the ills and complaints that our citizens have today.
This motion makes three specific recommendations: one, to strengthen the Young Offenders Act; two, to abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and three, to introduce a victims bill of rights. These three issues are prominent reasons why I became a member of parliament.
Previously I had been actively involved in pursuing improvements to the Young Offenders Act. I was able to review the proposals made by the member for Crowfoot in his minority report subsequent to the 10-year review of the Young Offenders Act. His proposals helped me to choose the Reform Party as being the most likely opportunity to achieve improvements to our laws.
Just days ago the Minister of Justice finally announced her youth justice strategy. After almost a year on the job we expected some comprehensive legislation in response to last year's justice committee recommendations to significantly change laws regarding young offenders. Instead of legislation the minister produced a strategy. The minister has become so fond of the term “in a timely fashion” to describe her intentions regarding change that I believe she may have difficulty in understanding what that term actually means.
The Young Offenders Act was first made law in 1985. The 10-year review was not completed until 12 years later. It then took a year for the minister to ignore some of the key recommendations and merely announce what she hopes to do in the coming fall session. Meanwhile she intends to spend many more months studying, reviewing and analysing. I have heard that law professors are known for studying and analysing. I guess those among them who come to this place have difficulty in understanding that a minister has a responsibility to do something about a problem, not merely study it to death.
I appreciate that these comments may sound somewhat harsh but young offender legislation is of particular interest to myself and my family. Each day the minister reacts “in a timely fashion” means that additional victims in communities have to live with what even she has admitted to be seriously flawed legislation. And it is seriously flawed in spite of the attempts by her predecessor to address the failings of the Young Offenders Act, but I will save further comment in that regard for a future date.
On the issue of victims rights, I introduced Private Members' Bill C-294 last December. It is intended to balance the rights of victims and the rights of criminals. For years Canadians have complained that this government falls over backward to ensure that criminals receive all their rights and all their freedoms while not being nearly so vigilant as to ensure that victims and society at large also receive due consideration for their rights and freedoms.
My bill would provide a formal recognition of victims as a party to the criminal justice system. The system would be mandated to keep victims informed of developments in their case. There would be provision for the broader use of victims impact statements and restitution could be ordered for psychological harm done to victims.
Over two years ago the former justice minister promised to address his government's failure to properly amend our laws and to fully recognize the interest of victims. At that time he stated “Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”.
Almost a year ago the present Minister of Justice stated: “We have not done enough to accommodate the interests of victims within the criminal justice system”. Canadians are still waiting. Our laws are still inadequate and the government still has done nothing to address the interests of victims within the criminal justice system.
The justice committee has finally begun to consider the issue, but will the government have the fortitude to act? Only time will tell. Hopefully for the sake of victims of crime and society at large it will approach victims rights in a responsible manner, but I know better than to hold my breath.
I will now move on to the issue of abolishing conditional sentences for violent offenders. It is distressing that we even have to resort to a motion in an attempt to convince the government to do what it should have done over three years ago. The former government brought conditional sentences into the Criminal Code in 1995 through Bill C-41. Reform has no difficulty with the concept of alternative measures and conditional sentences, but we did argue to limit them to non-violent offenders.
The former minister in his infinite wisdom decided that he would not and could not give credit to the Reform Party for exposing his failure to appreciate the ramifications of unlimited conditional sentences. He initially held the position that of course the courts would not apply conditional sentencing for violent offenders. We all know the courts did use these lenient provisions for violent criminal acts.
The court said that if parliament intended to limit the provision it should have said so in the statute. What did the minister do? He pretended that it was a problem of interpretation by the courts and to assist them he again tinkered with the legislation. In Bill C-17 which passed in 1997 he made minor changes to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to try to direct judges as to when to permit conditional sentences.
He should have said something more to the effect that thou shalt not use conditional sentences for violent offenders and drug traffickers. I guess that was too direct and uncomplicated.
What kind of mess are we in? For one thing the former minister has definitely helped his colleagues in the legal profession. A little legislative issue has generated millions of dollars for those at the legal bar. It has cost taxpayers in many different ways. Cases have to be appealed, justice is delayed until cases are finally adjudicated to closure, appeal courts are clogged with matters that never should have been an issue, and our crowns are tied up with arguments and cases which should have been straightforward. After three years of outstanding government ineptitude the minister of timely fashion has announced that maybe we should study the issue of conditional sentencing to determine why it is being used for unacceptable violent offences. Perhaps she should review some of the decisions of the various courts of appeal. She will soon realize how our justice system is being thrown into disrepute over this provision.
Derek Anderson Austin, convicted of cultivating marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, received a conditional sentence. He had a long record, including possession, trafficking, four failures to appear, driving while disqualified, unlawfully at large and obstruction of police. On appeal the court of appeal stated: “We are very surprised that such a person would be given a conditional sentence”. What happened? Nothing, because the sentence had already been served.
There are those who receive conditional sentences together with community service. The lawyers ensure that some or all of the community service is completed before an appeal can be heard. At that point the hands of the appeal court are tied as the offender has already been punished and it would be illegal to incarcerate them. The former minister of justice solved the problem of our growing prison population by providing even those who deserve to be imprisoned with this lenient and abused conditional sentencing provision.
Court cases are brimming over with examples of individuals who obtained conditional sentences in appropriate circumstances but the courts of appeal were barred from rectifying matters because some or all of the sentence had in effect already been served.
Ronald John Schmidt received a nine month custodial sentence for sexual assault. He told his seven-year old victim not to tell anyone or he would do it again. He appealed for a conditional sentence even though none existed at the time he was sentenced. He was granted a nine month conditional sentence. There are a number of cases of sexual assault by persons in positions of trust over children where conditional sentences have been imposed. Conditional sentencing does not carry with it society's denunciation for these offences. Deterrence will not be effected by such leniency. Parliament's support for these inappropriate sentencing provisions will only reduce the standards of our country.
There are hundreds of other cases of improper and questionable use of conditional sentencing for violent offences but my time will not permit me to go into them in detail. We have a flawed Young Offenders Act and a minister who is taking forever to do what she could have done years ago. We have promises upon promises to address victims rights issues but the government wants more studies. We have a sentencing regime which permits violent offenders to serve their sentences at home.
Yes, the House should condemn the government for its inaction and for its failures with respect to our criminal justice system.