Debates of May 26th, 1998

Environment And Sustainable Development

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to section 23(3) of the Auditor General Act, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons for the year 1998.

This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Canadian Forces

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1997 annual report of the Provost Marshal of the Canadian Forces.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-409, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (letter that cannot be transmitted by post).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this private member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Once it is enacted it will ensure that Canada Post does not deliver contests or prizes which instruct people to pay a fee in order to claim their prize. An extraordinary amount of Canadians are inadvertently subject to these fees and moneys are collected. I think it is a consumer rip-off.

It would also instruct Canada Post not to deliver letters that inadvertently display logos which mimic government logos on their envelopes. This is again intended to confuse or rip-off Canadian consumers. I think this is an important piece of legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to deliver a petition to the House from 665 petitioners from around British Columbia who are asking parliament to revisit the issue of the hepatitis C compensation package.

The petitioners are asking that the House reflect on the concerns of citizens of Canada and offer a fair, compassionate and humane compensation package to all who received tainted blood.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from citizens of Prince George—Bulkley Valley and also from Prince George—Peace River who are concerned about the growing trend of explicit public nudity and the effect it is having on children.

There are laws in Canada to protect our children against this form of nudity in all media, but currently there are no laws protecting our children in public places.

Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to enact legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically subsections 173 and 174, the indecent act and public nudity provisions, to clearly state that a woman exposing nudity in a public place, her breasts in particular, is an indecent act.

The petition is signed by several hundred petitioners from our ridings.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to amend the Young Offenders Act to reflect a change in the character of young offenders by increasing the maximum penalty for violent crimes, such as first and second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault and armed robbery, to double the maximum penalty and to allow the publication of the young offenders' names after a second indictable offence, to lower the age limit which defines a young person to include only those youth between the ages of 10 and 17 and, with violent crimes, youth aged 15 or older should be transferred to adult court.

I submit this petition signed by over 200 petitioners in and around my constituency.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to present a petition on behalf of the family of Barb Danelesko and some 300 other constituents of mine. They ask that the Young Offenders Act be changed to reflect the character of young offenders by increasing the maximum penalties for violent crimes, such as first and second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault and armed robbery, to double the current maximum penalties and to allow the publication of young offenders' names after a second indictable offence, to also lower the age limit which defines a young person to include only those between the ages of 10 to 17 and, with violent crimes, youth aged 15 or older should be transferred to adult court.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people of Peterborough and the surrounding area who note that police and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties. They point out that the employment benefits of police and firefighters are often insufficient for the families of those who are killed while on duty. They suggest that the public mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty.

Therefore these petitioners call upon parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

moved:

That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety, as demonstrated by their refusal to: ( a ) strengthen the Young Offenders Act; ( b ) abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and ( c ) introduce a Victims' Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

Today's supply day motion is aimed at strengthening Canada's criminal justice system. Canadians have lost faith in our justice system because it caters to criminals and it ignores victims.

The Liberal government has mismanaged our justice system so badly that the protection of society is not its primary purpose. The Liberal purpose for the justice system is the quick release of offenders and the protection of their rights. The justice system has become a revolving door for criminals. They go into prison knowing they will only serve a fraction of their sentences before being released, free to pursue their criminal activities.

The solicitor general, the minister in charge of prisons, said in January that he wants more low risk, non-violent offenders on the streets. Let us examine exactly what the Liberals consider to be non-violent, low risk offenders. Rapists and pedophiles have been released into many communities thanks to this Liberal government's conditional sentencing program. Conditional sentencing means offenders serve their time in the community subject to certain parole style conditions. The Liberals treat these despicable members of our society as upstanding citizens whom they consider to be low risk and not deserving of jail time.

On May 19 the Globe and Mail featured a story in which a Windsor woman was in a grocery store and ran into the man who was convicted of raping her. The man had been sentenced only a few weeks earlier and was given 18 months of house arrest. A 63-year old Kelowna man sexually assaulted his niece and received a conditional sentence. Two Montreal rapists received conditional sentences. The list goes on and on.

On December 8, 1997 the justice minister stated in this House: “We agree in principle that conditional sentencing is working well”. Working well for whom? It works great for the criminals, that is for sure. But there you have it. The Liberals are most concerned with criminal rights. The Liberal focus is on what is best for the criminals, not on what is best for society. The previous justice minister, now the discredited health minister, agreed to a victims bill of rights over two years ago and we are still waiting. Victims are still waiting and still nothing from the justice department.

The justice committee spent almost a year travelling across the country, consulting and hearing testimony on proposed reforms to the Young Offenders Act. It tabled a comprehensive report in April 1997. The Liberals have had that report for over a year but what has the minister done? Did she bring in legislation? No. Did she introduce tough new measures to deal with young thugs? No. Did she display a keen interest in taking on youth crime and defeating it? No. Instead, over a year later the justice minister released a glossy discussion paper complete with a colourful logo. She calls it a strategy paper but what it amounts to is more stalling and more delays in reforming the flawed Young Offenders Act.

I speak about the Young Offenders Act as a representative of a province that is all too familiar with the problem of youth crime. Saskatchewan has the highest rate of youth crime in the country on a per capita basis. Regina and Saskatoon are ranked first and third among Canadian cities when it comes to break and enters, most committed by teens.

Carol Wright of North Battleford was so sickened by the Young Offenders Act that she created a petition signed by 70,000 people. And what is the justice minister's response? What does the justice minister offer Ms. Wright and other residents of Saskatchewan plagued by youth crime? The minister released a pamphlet entitled “Canada's Youth Justice Renewal Strategy” which is coloured and designed like a fancy promotion piece. Typical Liberals, do nothing, just discuss, release a paper, discuss some more, study it, have a report.

How much longer do Canadians have to wait? How much longer does our safety have to be compromised before this government will act? How much longer must Canadians live in fear of walking down the streets in their own communities and in their own neighbourhoods? The minister's colourful PR package does nothing to make our streets safer or to address the concerns Canadians have about youth crime.

The minister's proposals leave too much discretion in the hands of judges. We have seen where that has led with conditional sentencing. In typical Liberal fashion it is left up to a judge to decide whether names should be published and whether a violent young offender should face an adult sentence. So-called special sentencing options will also be left to the discretion of judges.

Rather than ensuring young offenders face stiff sentences and penalties by entrenching them in legislation, the minister wants to leave everything to the whims of judges. Clearly leaving too much power in the hands of judges is not the way to proceed.

That type of open ended discretion has led to the mess we are in today where young offenders who murder and rob are given slap on the wrist sentences.

The minister states that adult sentences will be given to those who display a pattern of violent behaviour. What kind of pattern? How many offences make a pattern? None of this is explained so I assume this also would be left to the discretion of a judge.

The minister is also vague about non-violent offences. Is break and enter going to be considered non-violent? What about drug trafficking? Will these youths be sentenced to community work? Do we want burglars and drug pushers serving community sentences in our neighbourhood?

I do not want to waste the time of this House with a detailed analysis of the minister's strategy paper because it simply continues the consultations, the discussions and the debate that have raged over the Young Offenders Act for years.

Now all we get is a smoke and mirrors strategy paper from the Liberals to make it appear as though they are serious about cracking down on crime.

Let us look at what others are saying about the minister's paper. The attorney general of Ontario said: “I do not think beyond a couple of things that it really deals in a comprehensive way with the concerns that Ontarians have expressed over and over again”.

The justice minister from Alberta said: “From what I am hearing from Albertans every day, this will not fit the bill”. It will not fit the bill because this strategy is not about the protection of society. It is not about anything. It is just hot air, more talk and more debate.

Since the Young Offenders Act was introduced in 1984, the justice department has operated in a social engineering fashion and look at what it has got us. People are afraid to walk the streets at night. Violent crime by youth is at an all time high and some cities are contemplating curfews for teens.

The Liberal way is the wrong way and this new strategy paper does absolutely nothing to steer the youth justice system off the wrong path.

The guiding principle of the justice system should be the protection of society. The rights of criminals should be secondary. The maximum age for the Young Offenders Act should be lowered to 15 years for all offences and the minimum age for the Young Offenders Act should be lowered to 10 years in order to get young offenders into the system early.

We need truth in sentencing and the names of all convicted violent offenders should be made public regardless of whether they were convicted in adult or youth court.

There should be parental responsibility for their children's actions. The minister speaks of parents paying court costs but their responsibility should go beyond that in cases where it can be demonstrated that parents were negligent.

We also need to promote personal responsibility. Individuals must be responsible for their own actions. The Liberals believe that our environment is responsible for criminal behaviour. They believe individuals have no personal obligation whatsoever. Blame it on TV, blame it on alcohol, blame it on the humidity, the alignment of the stars and planets, whatever, but do not feel you are personally responsible. That is the message being delivered to criminals by this Liberal government, but that is the wrong message. Criminals must be held accountable for their actions.

The types of changes that Canadians wanted to see are not mentioned in the minister's new glossy package, but then this government has not done anything with respect to bringing our justice system into line with the views of Canadians.

They want to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. The Liberals bring forward this meaningless paper. They want truth in sentencing. The Liberals established conditional sentencing where rapists and pedophiles are released into society, into our communities.

Canadians want a victims bill of rights. The Liberals continue to champion the rights of criminals. I therefore urge all members of the House to speak in support of today's supply day motion.

To speak against it, someone must either be a Liberal or they must have an extremely warped sense of justice. I guess those are really one and the same.

This Reform motion reflects the opinion of average Canadian citizens and I know many members will want to support the objectives of this motion when they speak in favour of safer streets, safer communities and a more effective, functional criminal justice system.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the Reform Party member had to say on this and my question is a very simple one.

Does he agree that, whether with respect to youth or the entire penal system, there are also two solitudes in Canada when it comes to the issue of crime? There is our attitude in Quebec with regard to the entire penal system, young offenders, parole, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society, and the attitude of the other solitude further west in Canada on these same issues.

Since the member was so interested in the Young Offenders Act, I wish to point out that the 66th convention of ACFAS was held during the week of May 14. This important meeting of specialists, political scientists, criminologists, and those working in the sector is held annually in Quebec to examine all aspects of crime. I will read the conclusion and I would like the Reform member to tell me whether or not he agrees that there are two irreconcilable solitudes in Canada, not just with respect to crime but with respect to other matters as well, and that we will never be able to see eye to eye.

This conclusion says “The federal proposals to amend the Young Offenders Act that were released Tuesday by the Minister of Justice reveal a growing gap between the approach to crime in Quebec and that in English Canada, particularly in the West”. This was the view expressed by Quebec researchers during the symposium on politics and social management. They conclude as follows “There are two irreconcilable solitudes; that of western Canada, among others, and that of Quebec”.

Will the hon. member at least admit that there is an increasingly wide chasm between Quebec and the rest of Canada? If so, what does he propose to prevent this chasm between the two Canadian solitudes from growing even wider?

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide any specific explanation as to why youth crime is higher in Saskatchewan than in Quebec, in fact higher than anywhere else in the country.

The Reform Party has proposed a three step plan to deal with young offenders. The first step involves early intervention and prevention. The second is community based sentences for non-violent, non-serious crimes. The third is what I focused most of my discussion on, getting tough and having effective and harsh penalties to deal with repeat violent offenders who are not start getting the message currently.

We had a town hall meeting recently in Saskatoon. Advocates of the current system's remaining as it is were there and there was a young offender there who had committed repeat violent crimes over a period of five years. His opinion was “see, now I'm better”, but if our Young Offenders Act were working and effective, his first offence would have been his last. That is the type of justice system we need to prevent people from getting into patterns of repeat criminal behaviour.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the opposition from the Bloc in Quebec. I applaud the system of youth justice in Quebec because it is well integrated. But I also want to say very strongly and emphatically that whereas the loyal opposition talks about plans in town halls and stridently critiques, in London, Ontario last week I opened the Sonier Centre, together with many of the community partners.

We are not at the planning stage. We are at the implementation stage. That implementation in my city involves crime prevention. It involves getting a collaboration between boards of education, early intervention to prevent children leaving school. It involves getting neighbourhood watch and the St. Leonard society, youth justice circles.

We can talk and critique but really what matters is action, and action starts in communities.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on her community initiatives to deal with the problem of youth crime. I wish the justice minister would take some initiatives at the federal level.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Reform Party supply day motion today. It addresses a number of issues that are very near and dear to my heart, in particular the Young Offenders Act, victims rights and conditional sentences. I can speak to any of these points for a full day and still have more to say about them.

At the moment I want to concentrate on the issue of victims rights. I want to relate a situation, one of many in my riding, that I am very concerned about. With regard to the once proud Canadian criminal justice system which today is basically a legal industry, I am asking people who are listening and watching this debate to take out a pen or pencil and a piece of paper and write down some of the dates I am about to give. It will give everyone a good idea of what the legal industry is all about, a legal industry that is perpetrated by a government so mired down in legalese and legal phrases that it has forgotten the basics of what we are all about, that is victims rights.

In 1994 I began working with victims groups across the country in developing a national victims bill of rights. In the latter part of 1995 the Reform Party adopted the proposals in the national victims bill of rights and included its blue book platform at our assembly.

In 1996 at the height of this issue my colleagues and I brought the proposals into the House on April 29. The then justice minister, the now woefully inept health minister, stood in the House just before me in debate and agreed to it. He said that we needed a national victims' bill of rights and that it should be sent to committee. And there it sits. That is unfortunate.

I want to talk about an individual and give everyone listening an idea of what a victim goes through in society today. This is about one of these characters. His name is Clinton Dale McNutt.

In 1995 at age 19 McNutt's adult criminal record began. He was driving with over .08 and was convicted of mischief, refusal to provide a sample and uttering a forged document. That can happen. Maybe we should intervene. Maybe we should look at it.

What happened five years later? He was sentenced in 1990 to eight years for attempted murder. During a domestic dispute McNutt shot his brother-in-law in the abdomen and his wife's sister in the back of the head. Both survived. After a plea bargaining arrangement—and this is where the victims rights bill comes into play—McNutt pleaded guilty to one charge for that damage.

In January 1995 McNutt was granted day parole at Sumas Community Correctional Centre. This is the day care of all day cares for criminals. There are no fences, no guards and no security system. Criminals can venture out in the community of Abbotsford during the day, do what they please and go back at night to sleep. There have been four rapes by residents of Sumas centre in the last two years.

In July 1995 McNutt had day parole at Sumas centre but his day parole was revoked. He was found intoxicated at the centre, which is no surprise as booze and drugs come into Sumas all day long. The correction centre says that is the kind of risk faced in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

On October 18, 1996, McNutt was again granted day parole at Sumas centre for a second time. He was back into day care again so that we could look after this boy.

On April 14, 1997, not too long ago, McNutt was charged by the Abbotsford police with indecent assault causing bodily harm.

He is accused currently—I like the word accused—of leaving the Sumas day care centre and attacking the corrections volunteer whom he had met at the centre. The female victim required hospitalization. Even the workers are not very safe from this guy.

What happened after April 14? This is what should be noted. This is what that indecent assault victim is going through like many victims in our country today.

On April 25, 1997, disclosure court was adjourned. On May 23 the discovery was adjourned. On June 24 disclosure court was adjourned. On July 15 disclosure court was held. On July 29 a judicial interim release hearing was held. November 7 was the preliminary hearing. He pleaded guilty. We must keep this in mind. He is now guilty of indecent assault. He said “Yes, I did it”.

On December 2 sentencing was adjourned. On January 21 sentencing was adjourned. On January 29 sentencing was adjourned. On February 16 sentencing was adjourned to obtain a psychiatric report. That was after four adjournments.

Judge W. Field struck down the guilty plea and ordered himself removed from the bench after all this. He deemed a possible conflict of interest since the judge's former law partner defended McNutt in the attempted murder case when Field was a defence lawyer.

We have to piece this together and think about it. Suddenly the judge says, after adjournment after adjournment, that his law partner defended him years ago when he was a lawyer. He deemed it in conflict so he stepped down.

Then what happened? On February 26 they fixed a date for sentencing. On April 3 sentencing was adjourned since the crown counsellor announced that a dangerous offender designation was being sought. They did not do that way back when the victims were sitting in the court. After all this the crown decided to seek that designation.

On April 20, 1998, the dangerous offender hearing was adjourned. On April 27 the dangerous offender hearing was adjourned as McNutt entered a new plea of not guilty. He had the right to do that because the judge stepped down and there was a new judge: “I was guilty before but I am not now”. The victim who was indecently assaulted was sitting there listening to this stuff. On October 29 the pre-trial was scheduled. On November 30, 1998, the preliminary hearing was held.

What is going on? This goes on every day in almost all our cities. This is nothing but a sick legal system, a legal industry feeding on itself at the cost of victims. They sit there day in and day out, the lawyers earning big pay for this sort of thing, while the case is adjourned and adjourned and the judge steps down. He pleaded guilty; he pleaded not guilty after another judge was on the case.

They laugh. Look at them over there laughing at it. Liberal members think it is funny. They should try going to the victims and asking them about it. I think it is sick.

Unfortunately I only have a minute or I would start on what is wrong with the system. We should take that for what it is worth. That is what victims are going through day after day. It is darn well time the government had the courage of somebody's convictions to develop a national victims bill of rights to make sure that victims are not treated like third class citizens, to make sure that victims have at least the same rights as criminals, and to make sure that victims are treated decently in a country where they should have always been treated decently in the first place.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, normally a government member ought to have risen to say that what has just been said makes no sense. I cannot remain seated without commenting on such a speech.

I think I have figured out what the hon. member's problem is. Having listened to him carefully for 10 minutes, I think he is in the wrong legislature. He should be a member of a provincial legislature, because everything he mentioned relates to the administration of justice. As far as the disqualification of the judge is concerned, he may have forgotten, but he did not specify which level of court this was. It was probably a court of first instance, where the judgeships are provincial, not federal appointments. If the judge is incompetent, let the hon. member speak to the Minister of Justice for British Columbia, which is where he was appointed, but not in this place.

I think that he is comparing apples and oranges, and scaring everybody in the process. This is how prejudices are created in Canadian and in Quebec society, when people listen to these folks with their tales of the bogey man, trying to stir up fear about the Young Offenders Act, for instance.

Everything the hon. member had to say about the adjournments, the changes of court dates, the disqualification of the judge, who appears not to have done a good job, comes under provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc Quebecois members are not in agreement with this, because we respect your Canadian constitution. We may not have adopted it, or signed it, but we do respect it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

They cannot understand for they are not listening.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Instead of yelling, the hon. member should perhaps listen to what I have to say. He would hear somewhat more balanced and realistic speeches. People would not be alarmed. The game they are playing here is a dangerous one. Crime, the judicial system and public safety are nothing to joke about. They should not be making political hay with them and they should certainly not be picking up easy votes in western Canada on such important matters. I think their remarks are outrageous.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Furthermore, I am receiving applause from the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives. Something is wrong in this system.

I am coming to my question and I will be brief. The hon. member would do well to come more often to the meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We recently heard the testimony of an illustrious individual from British Columbia on a victims bill of rights and on everything the member has just said.

It was refreshing to hear someone from B.C. expressing views that are different from those of Reformers, because that province has a good system for victims. Perhaps it could be improved. If the federal government has surplus money, let it give it to the provinces to improve the system. British Columbia, like Quebec, has a good system already.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Just what I need, Mr. Speaker, and just what the country needs: a separatist telling us in the House how our provincial governments and our judicial system should run, a separatist telling us how our Canadian judicial system should run.

This is about politics. This is about a government and politicians who legislate in the House and leave the administration of political decisions that lead to legislation to provincial governments.

Why not legislate a national victims bill of rights and let it be administered? Why is it that a government like this one institutes conditional sentences and then turns around and says to provincial judges that they can issue them all they like? What happened? In my riding there were two rapes in a row. People who raped women received conditional sentences.