Debates of May 26th, 1998

Supply

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble even hearing myself with the rhetoric from the other side. The Reform Party never seems to want to stay and listen.

My point is that a lot of good children are growing up healthy and responsible. I wanted to start with that premise.

The second premise is that during the very short period of the difficult teen years many young children go through a temporary period where they get into trouble in the sense that they may come into conflict with our laws.

The vast majority of them get into trouble because they commit property offences. I will not say that property offences are insignificant because they are not. I am sure all members of the House feel they have worked hard for their properties, homes and family security. Canadians value and want a safe community to live in. They do not want to be fearful.

Property offences are far different in nature and need a different response than offences that a slim minority of children engage in involving violence. Most violent offences of a criminal nature—and I want to stress this and maybe have Canadians understand it—are not committed by children, by young offenders, but actually by adults. That is important to understand.

I also stress that when we hear about rates of offences they are actually charge rates. They are not conviction rates. They are backed up by Juristat, a tracking mechanism in society doing victimization studies after the fact and tracking the charge rate. They correlate quite well. There is accuracy in these figures which show that crime is going down across the board in Canada.

That does not mean that a society ignores what crime there is. It just means that we must be doing something right. Something must be happening inside the system, inside society. The values of the majority of the Canadian public who seek a safe Canadian society are being responded to in a way that does work.

A safe society, how do we accomplish that? If I create a new act or I change this or change that or put some more words into a statute and put it through a parliament, is that going to make my society better? Some people think so. But in reality what has to happen is that whatever legislation and whatever we call it which is accepted by the majority of the people living under those rules, people have to accept the rules of society.

In other words our legislation has to be based on the values that society holds dear. That means responsibility. That means some compassion. That means accountability. And it means giving an individual in this country a chance to rehabilitate. That is the major difference between the Canadian society, our system of justice, and some systems of justice in different countries around the world where the rights and the protections are not there.

Does that mean we ignore victims? Absolutely not. In fact in the last couple of parliaments a lot of legislation and the actions of organizations across the country have very much taken to heart the need for all members to have a say for those people who are aggrieved by people who are not in control of their actions for period of time.

I think back to situations where we did change those rules. In fact in the last parliament we strengthened and changed some of the rules with respect to young offenders. We strengthened the rules with respect to DNA situations. We strengthened the rules with respect to gun control.

Who in our society in Canada is not thinking today that down in the States they have a bigger problem than we do. They have not had the will of their population to change the social more that thinks of a gun as a tool to which anyone of any age should have access.

We have a different set of values. If we want the values at the end of the system to be ingrained in a productive manner especially for the young children in our society who come into contravention of the law, then we have to put some values into the system which will surround the individual and try to change the behaviour while they are captured for a limited amount of time inside our justice system. It starts right at the beginning of the charge and ends for an adult at the parole system and for a juvenile at the end of the system in which we deal with that child.

There are differences in the individuals before our justice system just as there are differences in the individual needs of people inside a family, inside a community, inside a school, inside an organization. People are not clones of one another. They come with their positives and their deficits.

A lot of the children who go through our young offenders system have some social deficits. They have social deficits that may stem, not always but may stem from poverty conditions or that may stem from illiteracy. Maybe they have a dysfunctional family. In fact many do.

We all wish that there would be healthy, nurturing families surrounding every child in Canadian society, that there would not be child poverty. For some children with attention deficit disorders or learning disabilities, we might wish that we could put a white picket fence around them, give them a mother and father who are employed and functional and supportive. Where we cannot though we have to have systems.

Some of those have to come in the form of the social welfare system that is administered by the provinces. There are situations where we have good integration. I applaud the province of Quebec because it has a better system than many of the provinces for dealing with its young offenders. The solution is not to criminalize so as to access the social welfare system.

There are provinces where there are gaps. We know from evidence. We have to be careful to stay with evidence, things we can prove as opposed to thinking about or perhaps have a perception which is usually a misperception. We have to divorce the perceptions from the realities.

A lot of very good work done has been done on what are the causes and what can be the benefits of a well integrated, well defined program for young offenders to have a better outcome.

I do not think there is a party in the House that would not want a better outcome and that includes the Reform Party. Sometimes the rhetoric and partisanship that surround this issue rob Canadian taxpayers of the viewpoint that is best for Canada, the viewpoint that kids come first.

We cannot penalize kids more than when we have a choice between money spent on penalties and money spent on rehabilitation. We could probably tell 3 year olds or 10 year olds that they will be in trouble when they hit the young offender system. We could ask any teacher in any riding and they would be able to point out who is having problems.

We need systems outside the justice system supporting children. That is where there needs to be some financing. If we spend money preventing children from turning into young offenders we will have accomplished something of which we can be proud.

People often talk about costs and wastes in government. In my mind a waste is to build a building that incarcerates people and warehouses them without giving them good programming so that there is some benefit for those individuals and hence for society. If young or old people are put in a building and their behaviour is not changed during the time they are there, we have wasted that dollar. Eighty per cent of adult offenders will be on the street again. What do they learn while they are incarcerated? They learn about brutalization and anger.

I have been in our penitentiaries. I am five foot one. If I stretch out my hands I can touch both walls of a cell where often two prisoners are housed. It is not a cell built for two but a cell that is accommodating usually two adult males. There are sleeping accommodations and a toilet facility in the cell. People ask “Why do I care if they are crowded or it is uncomfortable for them? There many other better human beings to spend money on”.

That tells me in the double bunking system of our justice system that there is not enough money to provide programs. There is not enough money for programs for these people.

It is much easier for an opposition member to talk about a nine hole golf course, the extreme exception. What is more the rule is the double bunking situation where there is insufficient programming, a situation which breeds unrest, violence and many things people do not want to think about.

As a mother of two teenage boys and another younger child coming up through the system I could not think of a worse place to send a child, especially if they are in trouble. It would be horrific. It is not in line with the values of people.

We can go through the process of looking at some of the recommendations the justice committee has worked on. All members of all parties on the justice committee and members of the communities have worked hard. We just returned from a week in my riding where I talked with the partners in my community involved in these issues. They regularly talk with me and voice their ideas. Their ideas work. The community is where the best ideas will come from.

I cannot sit in parliament and dictate to people what will solve the issues in their communities. We have to facilitate a mechanism that may involve for young offenders and adult offenders some alternate measures. Then the community will have to find a much cheaper way. Alternate measures are much cheaper than incarceration, especially for juveniles. Up to $100,000 a year can be spent on a custody situation for a juvenile.

For example, in my riding in London, Ontario we have something called the youth justice system. It is a diversion for young offenders out of the court system, not on serious crimes, but again I stress most young offenders are not involved in serious violent crimes. It takes those young offenders and the community chooses people, adults and youth, to sit in a discussion group and the young offender has accountability for the offence. There is counselling. They are trying to figure out what created the problem. They are not pointing a finger saying “you are the problem”, but they are figuring out what created the problem and how will it be fixed.

That youth then often is involved in a restitution situation to whomever he has harmed. There is often a community working restitution order. It is whatever is wanted as a creative solution at a very low cost and which is very fast. Most sentencing youth justice circles take less than three hours. Often the parents, or whoever is living with the child and is responsible for the child is in attendance. In fact if they are not, it tends not to work.

There is no long time schedule. We who deal with teenagers know that tomorrow is forever. A court system is slow. In my opinion I would rather see the majority going to alternate measures outside the very formalized courtroom setting and into something which I think will bring real value and real solutions at far less cost.

We should be looking at the community to help us design these measures. As members of parliament we should be there as facilitators. It is so much cheaper, so much better and so much safer for society to prevent the offence than it ever is to come after the fact and punish for the offence. In that way we can build the values.

Some of those systems are there now. It could be the sports and recreation system or the tutoring system. It could be as basic as nutrition programs. There is a need for breakfast programs in some of our communities, let us face it.

What I am saying is that Canadian youth are far from perfect. Our justice system is far from perfect. There is a need and I believe a desire in this country to get beyond the rhetoric of crime and the fear of crime, and into the real working situations day in and day out. This will model a justice system that actually does benefit our society, as opposed to always focusing on unfortunately what the media can sell a paper with, which is the latest crime. There is nothing I would wish more than to never have those horrific crimes occur, but when they do there will be a stricter discipline system. However those crimes are the minority.

Our legislation has to cover everything from the extremes through to the broad middle section. It is important that we also remember all of those youth and those adults in this country who never come into contact with our criminal justice system.

The final thing I will say is that it is so very important for Canadians to understand that there is judicial independence from the politics of a nation in our justice system in Canada. I applaud that concept. I believe in that concept. Judicial independence is as fundamental to our system of working in a Canadian democracy that values rights and freedoms as is privacy of information in our taxation system.

These are fundamental building blocks and I believe they should not be called into question. I call upon members from all parties in this House because all of our communities will benefit when we work together with different levels of government toward these solutions.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention today on what I think we all agree is a very important topic.

It is unfortunate at times that in the heat of debate the atmosphere in the Chamber does not allow for reasoned debate. I think we all participate in that. I know I do. I confess that from time to time we do not allow it to be a chamber of reasoned debate.

It saddens me, as a member of parliament and as a member of the opposition, when we bring in a motion like this, which will hopefully serve to open the debate even further, that sometimes members opposite and even those on my left would heap only scorn and anger upon us because they do not agree with our position. They do not acknowledge that we are speaking for a number of people in the country who are very concerned about this problem perhaps from a little different perspective than theirs.

I met last week with a group of people in my riding who were concerned about the Young Offenders Act. Some of them were young people. I want to pay tribute to a young person in my riding by the name of Sarah Taylor who, in response to concern among young people over youth crime in her school and the surrounding area, started a youth against crime club in her school. I commend this young woman. She has taken an initiative to tackle the problem.

Some of the feedback I get from her and from others is that there is the perception that somehow either there is no fear of consequence of action in our country because of our laws or kids just do not get it.

Should our laws act somehow as a deterrent to crime?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is correct to say that most teenagers will say that the Young Offenders Act has no teeth. They actually believe that. Yet when the police do a criminal investigation, the whole system surrounding an offence has exactly the same investigative powers, the same charge powers. So that is just wrong.

There is a misperception about the system. They would get a very quick surprise at how fast that system would take them in. It is not sport.

One of the analogies I use when I am talking to groups is that if I was sick and people were concerned about my illness they would tell me about the remedies that cured their disease. But in the long run, if I was really sick, I would still go to my doctor. If I was really, really sick, I would want the best specialist I could get.

Sometimes I think it is our obligation as members of parliament responsible for these issues to actually go and seek the best evidence we can get and then act on what will actually fix the problem; what will help to solve the problem, as opposed to what will satisfy the fears and the anecdotes. I think that is important to remember in this debate.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, when I have been in the Yukon in the last while there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the justice system and there is some fear. However, when there is satisfaction, it is very clear where it is coming from.

The First Nations people have the option of circle sentencing. They still go through a trial procedure, but they have the option of going to their community for circle sentencing where they will have to face their victims, their parents, their aunts, their uncles and the community. That also makes the community responsible for that person. There seems to be a bit of envy that the option is there for some people to serve their sentences in their communities with the support of the people who matter most to them.

Can the member see that sort of situation becoming available to all of us? It does put a lot of responsibility on individuals to follow it through. We cannot just stick the criminal in a jail and pay someone to look after them. It means that they come into our homes, our schools, onto our streets and we are all responsible for them. Can the member see that?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that excellent question.

If it was my desire, all kids in this country who have been convicted of less than violent offences would be in a justice circle modelled after the native sentencing system.

That is happening in my riding right now. It was an interesting partnership that started it. Neighbourhood Watch teamed up with the St. Leonard's Society in my riding of London West, Ontario, and put it to together. Even the provincial Government of Ontario, which often talks about boot camps, is helping to fund some of these circles, or justice circles as they wish to be called in my riding.

As recently as last week there was a movement to put the partners together with the Fanshawe College social worker, students together with the local board of education, to alleviate some of these partnership concerns and to get the synergy of people working in an interdisciplinary fashion on the same problems, surrounding the offender with a system that would be supportive long after the sentencing circle had gone for the evening.

It is a very inexpensive thing to do. It is done mainly with volunteers and expert supervision.

I hope that this is something we could see a lot more of in different communities around the country. It makes communities take ownership of and embrace their own children. They do not have to rely on prisons for a period of incarceration, pretending that they can forget about them and they will come back better.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly our role in the opposition is to hold the government to account. Our job is also to present constructive alternatives. When we bring the issue of justice to this Chamber, certainly the government should not mischaracterize our points in defence when perhaps in the public view it is found lacking in the operation of the justice system.

When the Liberals say we are extreme, they are just plain wrong. It is the failing system that is extreme. When they say we are simplistic, I think that is somewhat of an admission from the government that these complex issues of justice administration are rather confounding the government and it just does not know what to do.

Today the justice minister talked about the criminal justice system, the mental health system and the social welfare system, especially for young offenders. However, she forgets that it is the criminal justice system which provides the railway track for the train to be able to get to the social welfare system and the mental health system, for it is the police that form the 24 hour social agency in most of Canada, especially in the outlying communities. It is often in that context that the mental health worker or someone from the hospital and the local social welfare agency get together with the local justice system person to deal with problem families and issues. Unless we have the criminal justice system to provide the authority to act, we cannot bring to bear the other social services in the community.

I wanted to talk about what the justice minister said the other day. The justice minister said “justice delayed is justice denied”, but she continues to delay the introduction of the needed amendments to the Young Offenders Act and fails to bring in a victims' bill of rights. When are we going to have some legislation rather than continued reports and press releases?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe the justice minister has indicated that legislation will be introduced in the fall after the Canadian population has had time to discuss and reflect on the proposals just put forward by the justice minister.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in the House on the motion put forward by one of my colleagues in the Reform Party on this opposition day.

We have to admit that the current criminal justice system has some major failings, in terms of both its application and its principles. However, I should point out that the Bloc Quebecois vigorously distances itself—and I underscore the word vigorously—from the positions advocated by the Reform Party, which represent in our opinion a vision of things worthy of the best westerns.

The Reform Party places itself at the far right of the political checkerboard, whereas the Bloc is right in the centre, just because of the people it represents. This dichotomy in a matter so complex illustrates the state of Canadian federalism and the impossibility of its being properly reformed. Quebec's expectations are incompatible with the perceptions of the rest of Canada. This matter is simply one more example that two completely distinct societies are living within a single state and this arrangement does not work.

On the subject of the Young Offenders Act, we were right to criticize the initiative of the Minister of Justice, because she was giving in unduly to western pressure on the application of criminal justice to young people, something that is totally unacceptable and simply a way to make political points.

The minister's parliamentary secretary herself said on Le Point on CBC French television that the aim of the reform was to solicit public support rather than to expose the real problems and propose solutions. Need we add anything? I do not think so.

Toughening sentences for young offenders is not the best way to discourage criminals in waiting. There are other much more flexible methods that would ensure a better performance and therefore greater justice within our society. Branding a young person for the rest of his life will help neither him nor society.

According to those in the criminal justice system in Quebec, this message must be brought home. The Young Offenders Act raises problems in its application and not in its present form. If the Young Offenders Act were applied as it ought to be, according to the way it is written, everything would be fine. The proof of this is that the province which applies it best is Quebec, and Quebec is where there are the best results.

We are perpetually confronted by the incompatibility between Quebec and the rest of Canada, the west in particular. We are caught in a vicious circle and, with her fake reform, the minister is endangering the very foundations of the justice system and the efforts expended against youth crime, particularly in Quebec where, as I have said, it is working fine, though not perfectly. Before changing the act, however, I believe that, as the former Minister of Justice said himself, it must be applied as it was intended to be applied, and the other provinces would be well advised to follow the example of Quebec.

Concerning the conditional sentencing of young offenders, the parole system is based on the principle of rehabilitating offenders. This is a principle that is dear to the hearts of the large majority of Quebeckers, and of Canadians I believe.

Commission has followed on commission, report after report, and consultations of all kinds were held on the early parole procedure.

What we can conclude, without fear of being wrong, is that there is a problem with the system itself, not the principle underlying it. There are numerous examples of offenders being released for good conduct after serving one-sixth of their sentence. Several examples could be given, but it would waste the time of colleagues in the House.

Authorities are applying the principle of good institutional conduct, which, by definition, should guarantee the same conduct outside the establishment. This is the crux of the problem. The same conclusions are based on two completely different realities.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have drafted a bill along these lines that will be introduced shortly, so that offenders are not released after serving one-sixth of their sentence. I urge all colleagues in the House to support us in this undertaking.

As for victims' rights, beyond all the considerations we accord the criminal justice system, it must be remembered that those most affected by this issue are still the victims. Before all else, we must think of these people, the innocent victims.

There is a necessary balance to be achieved between the treatment reserved for offenders on the one hand and victims' rights on the other, and finally the general public. If the balance between these three categories is destroyed, nobody wins, not the victims, not the offenders, who also have rights, not society.

Without saying that we support the Reform Party on the issue of victims' rights, we cannot deny that the government's initiative of passing legislation on this thorny issue must be examined more closely.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Yes, indeed.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

The Bloc Quebecois is demonstrating its open-mindedness in all the debates and this issue will be debated in the same way. I appreciate the verbal support of my colleague, the member for Richelieu.

[Some hon. members]

And others as well.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

And others as well who are with me in this august Chamber.

However, in all this debate over victims rights, sight must not be lost of the provinces' role in the administration of justice, because the provinces are in the best position to meet the needs and expectations of the societies they represent.

It must not become another example of useless, costly and unproductive duplication. The federal government must respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, especially, and I bust my britches with pleasure here—since we are often accused of working ourselves into a state over things—because Quebec's treatment of victims is exemplary.

The government should not be currying public favour, and especially that of the west, as it did with the reform of the Young Offenders Act. The stakes are high and should not be the focus of petty politicking by the other parties.

I invite all the other parties to follow the example of the behaviour and positions taken by the Bloc Quebecois, because its apolitical and impartial behaviour sets the example for all parties in this House.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for his comments. He is a member of our justice committee and I appreciate his participation on that committee.

When we did the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act of course we went to Quebec and we listened to a number of witnesses. I was impressed with the advance that the Government of Quebec extends beyond what most other provinces have in terms of the treatment of young people.

Yet according to an editorial in the Montreal Gazette , there is a way to go even in the province of Quebec. Teachers in Montreal's largest school board are indicating that they live in a state of fear. In the last two years 90 incidents occurred where teachers were physically assaulted by students and 30% of the cases were considered so serious that police were called in.

Teachers have been punched, kicked, choked, bitten and scratched, had chairs, bags and books thrown at them. There is a youth crime problem in Montreal, certainly in this school.

As we travelled about in the last two months, we were in a number of urban schools. When talking to the high school students, grades 11 and 12, I was amazed at the number of students who raised their hands and said they lived in apprehension and fear. That is very sad for me to hear that.

We were in western Canada. We will be holding public meetings in June in Ontario and will be asking the same questions.

There is a degree of apprehension on the part of our students and I imagine there is a degree of apprehension with the students in the Montreal school this article refers to.

I wonder if I might address a question to the hon. member dealing with this whole concept of the recommendation made to parliament by the justice committee with regard to the lowering of the age.

We questioned some of the officials from the department when we were in Quebec and they seem to have a very good system of dealing with youngsters under 12 who get into difficulty.

I wonder if the hon. member would care to share the response of the authorities. When the police are investigating an offence and they realize it has been committed by someone under the age of 12, what is the process that occurs in Quebec?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for his question. Although we do not always share the same position, I believe our debates within the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are productive for all of its members and for everyone in this House.

I would like to point out that my hon. colleague referred to what I would call the exemplary treatment the Government of Quebec gives to young offenders. This merits attention, and should even been copied outside Quebec.

The hon. member referred to an editorial in The Gazette . With all due respect to my colleague and to the newspaper, I must say that it does not constitute a reference for myself or a number of my colleagues. That is, to put it mildly, an understatement.

I taught in a number of secondary schools in my riding before being elected to this august Chamber. I believe, once again, that it is important to distinguish between reality and perceived reality. Are teachers and the general public afraid of crime? I believe the answer is yes. Do the facts justify that fear? Not as much, I think, as some would have us believe.

I do not want to minimize the hazards to which teachers are exposed, but the emphasis should not be on punishing young people who beat up a teacher, but rather on raising awareness, prevention, information programs and promoting non-violence. This should replace the threat of the strap if the child misbehaves. We used to think that a smack on the fingers with a ruler worked, but that is no longer done, and our schools are none the worse for it.

In closing, I would like to repeat for the benefit of my colleague that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are against lowering the age in the Young Offenders Act, because we unanimously believe that, as my colleague to the left has said, we will arrive at a fairer and less violent society not by stigmatizing young people but by raising their awareness.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague's opinion on the defence of provocation.

I believe our justice system should be evolving and this law came into effect in the 1700s. It was so that two men of equal class could shoot each other in a duel and use an insult as defence for this murder and have the charge reduced to manslaughter.

Now this defence is used most often in spousal murders where a man will murder his wife and use the defence of provocation that he had been provoked by her to murder her.

I would like the member's opinion on whether we should be keeping something like in our justice system.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question put to me by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.

As my colleague herself points out, this is a problem that is most often raised in cases of domestic violence, one of the most serious problems in our society, I believe.

When we speak about violence, something we do a lot in the House, these cases arise more often when the aggressor knew the victim than between perfect strangers. That is why, in a case such as this, it is a very complex problem, one that cannot be simplified, and there is no yes or no answer.

It deserves much more extensive study, so that women who are the victims of violence at the hands of their spouse, among others, can feel adequately protected by the system and not feel that they have to take matters into their own hands.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I knew that if I persisted you would recognize me.

I have two short questions. I urge the parliamentary secretary to listen to the first one. I would like my colleague to provide us with some information. Is it true that there is an argument between Canada and Quebec as to whether this government, the government of which the parliamentary secretary is a member, owes Quebec the considerable sum of $77 million, which is not peanuts, considering that we are administering this part of the Young Offenders Act ourselves and that it is modeled on Quebec's approach? I am sure he will have much to say on this topic.

The second question is of more general interest. Could he bring us up to date on hostels—

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Quebecois were elected and re-elected in 1997 to promote sovereignty in Quebec and to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

Without the presence of the Bloc in the current debate, the interests of Quebeckers would not be defended. This government, which claims to be just, is treating Quebec unjustly.

Quebec is the only province to really apply the Young Offenders Act as it should be applied. The federal government owes the Government of Quebec $77 million for applying the legislation of this government—

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

—and this government is refusing—

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

We did not refuse.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. We will continue to fight to ensure Quebec receives its due.

[An hon. member]

We want a certified cheque. We don't trust you.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

I invite my colleague—I am even ready to give her my pen so she can sign the cheque for the Government of Quebec.

Conditional Sentencing

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)( b ), to prepare and bring in a bill to prevent the use of conditional sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of any sexual offence, drug trafficking, or any other violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to elaborate on my Motion No. 383. It is very appropriate, almost ironically so, that the one day allotted for my private member's motion concerning conditional sentencing happened to fall on this Reform supply day. In its role as official opposition the Reform moved a supply motion that was debated by all parties in the House. We debated conditional sentencing, the Young Offenders Act and other aspects of the failed legal system which is presently masquerading as a justice system in Canada.

It is unfortunate that Motion No. 383 is limited to simple elaboration. The committee responsible for determining which private members' motions are votable and worthy of three hours of debate in this House did not feel inclined to allow all members of this House to explore the issue further. Naturally I am extremely disappointed in that decision as this motion is non-partisan in nature. It is simply a mechanism I proposed to remedy a legislative error.

The granting of conditional sentences to violent and sexual offenders is indeed an error. It was never the intent of this House in the last parliament to have Bill C-41, which instituted the concept of conditional sentencing, apply to those types of crimes. That is one of the issues that was being debated virtually all day in the House. Even the justice minister at the time publicly stated that was never the intent.

Through this motion I wanted to right that wrong by using the resources and co-operation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This motion does not propose something concretely unpalatable to any members of this House. It is a first step in drafting a reasonable remedy to the ambiguity of conditional sentencing.

I believe certain members of the private members' business committee did not understand that intent. During my presentation the chair of the committee asked “And just how many more prisons would have to be built if your motion were passed?” In case any members of the House are asking themselves that same question, I caution that they do not understand the motion. I emphasize that the prison population will not suddenly expand to phenomenal proportions if conditional sentencing were disallowed for violent and sexual offenders and drug traffickers.

Conditional sentencing is a recent development. It has not been responsible for significantly reducing the prison population throughout the years. It did not take effect until September 3, 1996, so the answer is no. There will be no sudden overwhelming need to build more prisons. I fear the chair of the committee missed the entire point of my motion when she asked that question.

Conditional sentences have created confusion and ambiguity in the legal system across the country. It is ironic that when Bill C-41 was before the House the justice minister at the time said the bill would improve the process of sentencing and criminal law. I ask government members to listen carefully to his words which so specifically describe the intent of Bill C-41: “In this bill, parliament is given the opportunity to declare the key purposes of sentencing, to put before judges a list of factors to be taken into account, to provide direction, to encourage uniformity so that the purpose of the process can be properly understood and so that it might be rendered more predictable than it is at present.

“What are those purposes and principles? They are spelled out clearly and in plain language in the statute. The sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offence. There would be similar sentences for comparable crimes. Those who contravene the criminal law must face punishment”.

Those were the words of the justice minister in June 1995. He said that Bill C-41 was to assist the courts in making the sentencing process more reliable and more consistent with the intentions of parliament.

Now fast forward to January 1998, more than a year after Bill C-41 provisions took effect. The current justice minister publicly stated: “There have been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of parliament to have them used and those should be appealed”. She added that conditional sentencing was never intended to apply to violent or sexual offenders. While Bill C-41 was supposed to clear up ambiguity in sentencing she said she prefers to allow the appeal courts to address the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing.

Needless to say, this is entirely opposite to the promises of consistency and reliability for the courts in using Bill C-41 as a guide which were given by the former justice minister in 1995. Since its implementation conditional sentencing has been used in cases of rape, assault, drug trafficking and other violent offences. Canadians are alarmed at this application of the Criminal Code and communities feel threatened. The punishment certainly does not fit the crime. This is not a tough on crime perspective. This is just the simple facts of the wrongful use of conditional sentencing.

Rapists, violent offenders and those who attempt to exploit children and the weak through a profitable drug trade should face jail time. In Grande Prairie, Alberta a judge released a man on a conditional sentence after he fired a .22 calibre sawed-off rifle at his wife but he missed. He received an 18 month conditional sentence to be served in the community.

In a B.C. case a man who confessed to sexually assaulting his babysitter once a week for three years from the time she was 11 was excused from serving any time in jail.

In Nova Scotia a convicted wife beater received a conditional sentence. In Ontario another man pleaded guilty to carrying a pellet rifle while assaulting and forcibly confining his estranged wife in her Mississauga home while his children watched. His punishment was an 18 month conditional sentence through which he was to live with his parents and stay at least a kilometre away from his wife and children, despite the fact that his wife believes he will return to kill her some day and the children remain fearful of even seeing their father.

A B.C. man was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and three counts of gross indecency. The victim was a child he helped raise from the age of three months and the sexual assaults began when she was three and ended when she was thirteen. This man was spared jail time on a conditional sentence.

In another B.C. case a man who threatened, raped and sodomized a 38-year old woman with the handle of racquetball racquet received a conditional sentence exempting him from serving two years in jail. The sentence was appealed and the offender eventually received a sentence of two years in jail less time served; in other words, just a few months in jail for that horrendous crime. The appeal itself was a drain of resources.

We are not talking about fearmongering here. We are talking about legal precedents. These are just a few of the examples of phenomena occurring with increased frequency. In any of these cases I find it impossible to believe that any reasonable and feeling human could consider that these offenders should not go to jail for their crimes. The victims of these criminals deserve better. It sends the message that despite the pain and suffering resulting from the violent trauma they have endured society does not feel it is worthy of punishment for the offender.

Imagine how this must feel to the victims of these crimes. Many victims have compared an inadequate sentence to enduring the attack all over again. Unfortunately in some cases an inadequate sentence may actually mean the attack will occur again. This is certainly a very real possibility for victims of domestic violence and sexual crimes.

A woman whose husband, ex-husband or boyfriend has beaten or raped her and is released on a conditional sentence lives every day in fear of that happening.

Since he is not in jail he is able to strike again. As we have seen, once these offenders are obsessed with the intent to harm their victim the restrictions imposed under conditional sentencing are not much deterrence, little deterrence if any at all.

The two fundamental reasons for sentencing are punishment and deterrence. Fair and just sentences are required to denounce unlawful conduct, deter offenders and others from committing criminal offences, separate offenders from society when necessary, provide reparations for damages and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

What deterrence is there for a convicted drug trafficker granted a conditional sentence? The trafficker has already shown a preference for profit over the welfare of children and other users. What part of a conditional sentence could possibly convince that person to give up their trade? They are immediately back out on the streets on a conditional sentence. The best source of income they know is to continue pushing drugs. There is certainly no deterrence. As for fair punishment, is a ticket to freedom justifiable for an individual motivated by greed through the physically harmful exploitation of others? I ask that question to the government.

The sentences handed down in these cases and many others across Canada have created even more of a backlog in our justice system, as the legal wrangling ensues and appeal after appeal is initiated.

Keeping in mind what the former justice minister said about Bill C-41, making the sentencing process easier for the courts, and keeping in mind what the current justice minister said about leaving the subject of conditional sentencing up to appeal courts, listen to what the appeal courts have to say about conditional sentencing and parliament's role in it. An Ontario appeal court judge stated: “The new sentencing direction set by parliament requires that the courts give these provisions a large and liberal construction and wherever possible the court should resort to the community sentence option”.

“Parliament clearly envisioned that a conditional sentence would be available even in cases of crimes of violence that are not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. Parliament also contemplated that the conditional sentence would be available even where, absent appropriate controls, there may be some risk of reoffending”.

So much for the certainty in sentencing the justice minister claimed to have come with Bill C-41. So much for the current justice minister's belief that parliament did not intend for conditional sentences to be granted for violent and sexual offenders.

What we really have is a wide ranging legal interpretation of parliament's intent and tremendous ambiguity. My motion is a method to remedy this situation by instating more specifications in the Criminal Code on conditional sentencing. The B.C. court of appeal agrees. In a August 1997 decision the B.C. court of appeal ruled that violent offenders are entitled to serve time in the community under conditional sentences: “If parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in clear language”.

That is plainly and clearly an invitation for this House to enact clear language and to provide more certainty for conditional sentencing under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. I believe we and this government have an obligation to do so.

Let us not get into blame and partisan finger pointing. Let us just fix it. We owe that to Canadians and we owe that to the victims of crime. Canadian courts are already bogged down in legalities and appeals. If it truly was the intention of Bill C-41 to relieve the confusion, we must ensure the conditional sentencing is not a further source of backlog in the courts.

Since parliament is responsible for initiating this ambiguity, parliament must also rectify the situation. This motion was to send a clear message that we have a flexible and responsive democracy. It is my hope that even though my motion has not been deemed votable other similar initiatives such as the motion debated by my hon. colleagues today, or even a legislative initiative by the government, will ultimately right this injustice.