Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of speaking to preventing the use of conditional sentencing for violent criminals and drug traffickers earlier today on our supply day motion. My comments in that speech are just as applicable here.
As I stated earlier, the former minister of justice erred when he refused to limit the scope of conditional sentencing. Through Bill C-41 it is available to even violent offenders and drug traffickers. At first the former Minister of Justice said the courts would of course restrict the application to non-violent offenders and they did not. Then he attempted to tinker with the wording through Bill C-17 and that still has not worked. He and the government for political reasons refuse to admit their error and correct it. In the meantime those Canadians affected are holding our justice system in disrepute.
To support these criticisms I will first of all refer to the Alberta Court of Appeal case of Steven James Waldner. Mr. Justice Berger made it very clear that conditional sentencing was open to violent offenders and drug traffickers when he said at page 6 of the decision “Parliament has made the legislative choice to exclude only those offences punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment from the regime of conditional sentencing”. At page 7 he said “Unless parliament has barred what would otherwise be an option, the starting point must be that all options are open”.
I will provide a case of drug trafficking and conditional sentencing. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia decided that Trung Viet Bui's conditional sentence was appropriate. Mr. Bui and his brother-in-law were in the drug trafficking business and undercover agents caught Mr. Bui. He sold approximately $3,000 worth of cocaine in the first transaction and about $35,000 worth of cocaine in a second transaction, not exactly a nickel and dime operation. Obviously these individuals were well connected to be dealing at this level.
We all know of the damage done to our society by the sale of drugs. Younger members of our communities are particularly susceptible to addiction and to criminal actions to support their habits. The court of appeal decided that since Mr. Bui had served a year of his conditional sentence without difficulty, he should continue. Little discussion occurred regarding deterrence of denunciation over high level drug trafficking and what it does to our society.
I will now move on to some sexual assault cases. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia in the Ronald Neil Scott case dealt with the issue of conditional sentencing. Mr. Scott was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching in relation to incidents with his step-granddaughter from when she was five or six years old until she was 10. His actions came to light when the victim told a school friend that Mr. Scott would offer money for touching his privates. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and placed on probation for two years. He was sentenced prior to conditional sentencing coming into effect but his appeal occurred subsequently.
The court decided that conditional sentencing was a lesser punishment available to the accused and he should be considered for its application. It also stated that parliament had formed the intention to provide for and encourage the imposition of conditional sentences and wherever appropriate the courts must carry out that intention. The court decided that the offender was not a danger to the community because he had only done these acts with his step-granddaughter. He obtained conditional sentencing even though it was not available at the time of his offence or at the time of his sentencing.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Regina v M.M. also took advantage of conditional sentencing. The accused was convicted of three counts of gross indecency with the three children of his girlfriend. He commenced his sexual activities with one victim when she was nine years old and with the other when she was 10. He was often left alone to babysit the three girls. The abuse continued over a period of nine years and involved countless acts of gross indecency. Evidence was presented that he often had sex with their mother in front of the three girls.
In deciding whether to accept conditional sentencing as a possibility, the court viewed the purpose of the reform to reduce the number of persons sentenced to prison. The court viewed a conditional sentence as still a jail sentence but one that is served in the community. The court decided that no sentence could right the wrong done to the three girls. The court agreed that sexual assault was a crime of inherent violence but recognized that parliament had decreed a scheme of conditional sentencing. A conditional sentence was applied.
I will now provide another case which goes to show how we permit and maybe even encourage criminals to move up the scale into more serious crime. The Court of Appeal in British Columbia in the case of John Paxton McEwen had to consider conditional sentencing. In 1997 at age 24 he attacked a 78-year old woman who was out walking near her home at 10 o'clock in the morning. When he stole her purse from around her arm she suffered a broken and dislocated arm. Surgery was likely required and she suffered serious psychological injuries. The experience had a very serious effect upon her life.
His previous record indicated that he had had a large number of second opportunities. In 1992 he was convicted of mischief and given a suspended sentence and probation for eight months. Also in 1992 he was convicted of impaired driving and fined. In 1994 he was convicted of driving while disqualified and fined. Also in 1994 he was convicted of assault, sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a year. In 1996 he was convicted of theft and he was fined. He was also convicted at that time of failing to appear and he was fined.
The trial judge gave McEwen a conditional sentence for one year for his attack on this elderly woman. He was also ordered to take drug and alcohol counselling and to stay away from the victim. The court of appeal decided that the trial judge's decision did not go far enough. It ordered the remaining portion of his one year conditional sentence to be served in custody but subject to any parole as if he had been incarcerated for the entire period.
When we look at his continuing record and the growing seriousness of his offences we can see that he is not getting the message. The conditional sentence will certainly do little to convince him of the error of his ways. More individuals will likely be victimized in the future.
I have to question just what messages are being sent to victims in communities by these conditional sentences. These cases show that you can traffic in cocaine at highly profitable levels and if caught, serve your sentence at home. You can sexually assault children in your care and serve a little time at home. You can even attack senior citizens while they walk in the community and be sent home for your efforts, even if you happen to hurt them badly or possess an extensive record.
That is just not good enough. The justice committee must be encouraged to fill the void which the Minister of Justice has refused to address.
Reducing the number of prisoners serving time in our institutions is one thing. Failing to deter or denounce violent crimes is something else entirely. The former justice minister brought in conditional sentencing to reduce the pressures on our institutions. Obviously little thought or consideration was given as to how the best interests of offenders and the corrections system would impact negatively on the interests of victims and society at large.
The concept of conditional sentencing is not at issue here. What is at issue is who should qualify to benefit from it. Violent and multiple repeat offenders as well as major drug traffickers should be excluded. I urge the government to fix this problem immediately.