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.