Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure for me to rise to address these very serious concerns the Reform Party has brought forward today.
Unfortunately like so many Canadians, probably millions across the land, I am suffering a little from a cold and it is not very pleasurable to try to make a speech. If my voice fails me at some point during the speech members will understand why. Over the weekend I lost my voice completely. Some people would say that would be a good thing, in particular some members across the way who do not like to hear what I have to say from time to time in this place. It is bad news for a politician not to have a voice because it is the one essential tool of the trade, so to speak.
Today in the short time I have I will be addressing the issue of conditional sentencing. I should explain for viewers at home and those in the gallery what conditional sentencing is.
Conditional sentencing should not be confused with parole and conditional release. Conditional sentencing allows judges a tool whereby rather than sending a convicted or confessed criminal to jail or prison, they can divert that individual to conditional sentencing, to serving their time in the community or at home in many cases under certain conditions. Thus the term conditional sentencing. There are certain conditions imposed on that individual.
Conditional sentencing was established under legislation of Bill C-41 in the first session of the 35th parliament. That is the parliament immediately preceding the one that is under way at present. This bill made sweeping changes to Canada's sentencing laws, but in each case neglected to reflect the interests of Canadians. The majority of the debate when Bill C-41 was before the House was focused on classifying murder.
According to the Liberals, killing only one person is not so bad as long as you do not kill more than one, or murder out of hate. If either of those cases were prevalent in a particular conviction, either a multiple murder or a so-called hate crime, then the individual might have to serve their entire lenient sentence.
But I am digressing from my main point today which is conditional sentencing which was also contained in Bill C-41.
As far back as March 1995 the Reform Party has been pleading with this government to change the law to exclude violent crimes, but so far our cries have fallen on deaf ears. It has been four years since we first raised this very serious issue. It is some two and a half years now since this law has been put into force. On September 3, 1996 conditional sentencing actually came into place and began to be utilized by judges across the land.
In 1995 the Reform member for Crowfoot moved several amendments to Bill C-41 in committee which would have disqualified violent offences from conditional sentencing. It would have ensured that the sentences were to deter the offender and others from committing offences and that the sentences were to provide compensation to the victims and/or their families.
The Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence echoed the concerns expressed by the member for Crowfoot, yet the Liberals did not support any of those measures. I find it ironic in light of that fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice rose in her place about an hour ago in questions and comments following her speech and said that she or her government would be willing to look at amendments to the newly announced changes to the young offenders legislation. Some of us on this side of the House and indeed all Canadians might be just a bit sceptical of how sincere she was. We might even have some reason to be cynical about it.
Conditional sentencing was meant to cut costs. Although it can be argued that some financial costs have been cut, the human costs of the victims of crime are mounting. The trauma one feels from an unjust sentence is immeasurable. I am sure one feels victimized all over again. The societal costs of conditional sentencing are mounting. Rapists, killers, child and spousal abusers and drug dealers are set free without deterrents or consequence. It is my firm belief that without proper punishment there is no deterrent.
Bill C-41 allows convicted criminals to serve their sentences at home in the community rather than in jail. It is my belief and the belief of many MPs including the justice minister that it was not parliament's intent that conditional sentencing be used in the cases of violent or sexual offences. In January 1998 the justice minister publicly stated that. She said, “There have been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of parliament to have them and those should be appealed”. The minister added that conditional sentencing was never intended to apply to violent or sexual offenders.
I am going to relate to the viewing public a few of the cases where I believe conditional sentencing was applied inappropriately.
In Montreal three men were given 18 month conditional sentences after raping a 16 year old pregnant woman and holding her upside down from a balcony. The judge thought that this was part of their culture.
In Winnipeg a youth previously convicted of theft and seven armed robberies and on temporary leave from a Manitoba youth centre received a one year conditional sentence and three year probation for the drive-by shooting death of a 13 year old.
In Nanaimo a 28 year old man received a one year conditional sentence for shooting his girlfriend with a crossbow.
In Edmonton a 57 year old man who swung a machete at a 21 year old male cutting his face and cutting a third of his ear off got 240 hours of community service and a curfew.
I raised this particularly appalling case during question period just last week. In Ottawa, Paul Gervais confessed to sexually assaulting nine boys, yet he got two years conditional sentence and a curfew. That is absolutely appalling. I think the general public has every reason to be outraged at these types of sentences.
Also in Ottawa, Robert Turcotte strangled his mother to death. He received a two year conditional sentence, 100 hours of community service and a midnight curfew.
Pay close attention to this one. In Vancouver, a person out on conditional sentence for two counts of theft and dangerous driving has been accused of killing an 83 year old woman during a home invasion.
While the justice minister prefers to allow the appeal courts to address the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing, the courts have indicated the opposite. The issue of conditional sentencing continues to become more and more of an ambiguous matter within the courts.
Despite the minister's belief about the intention of conditional sentencing, in August 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that violent offenders are entitled to serve time in the community under conditional sentences. The B.C. appeal court ruling stated: “If parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in clear language”.
It is my contention that Canadian courts are already bogged down. We should not be using the courts to appeal these types of sentences. Indeed the general public is waking up to this more and more and is becoming justifiably outraged at some of these sentences.
Since the minister has not responded to this public outcry or to her own criticisms of the law, I have submitted two private member's motions, Motion No. 383 and Motion No. 577, to rectify the situation. Motion No. 577 is currently on the Order Paper and reads:
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 a dangerous crime including: murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking, sexual assault, and all other classifications of assault including child and spousal abuse.
If the government would act on a motion similar to that and bring forward amendments to this section of the Criminal Code, it would certainly stand itself well with the general public. It would address a serious inadequacy in our present law.