Randy White

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting point we get to in Bill C-19 on the issues in there. One of the particular issues I want to talk about is victims' rights. I find it interesting that we are still dawdling with victims' rights in this country.

One of the rights we find is that we are going to recognize the right of victims to present statements at National Parole Board hearings. It is now the year 2004. I can recall talking about this in the House of Commons in 1994. It took four years before we even got an acknowledgement from the government that there should be victims' rights in this country. That was in 1998, after many victims' groups and police and we ourselves got involved with the movement of victims' rights and tried to get some changes.

I want to refresh the memory of the government as to just what we were looking for in victims' rights from 1994 through 1998. I will ask the particular question: Why is it taking so desperately long to get victims' rights entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada?

These are the kinds of rights we were looking for and will continue to look for throughout the next year or so, or even less if we can get rid of this government and implement the victims' rights legislation ourselves.

We were looking for a definition of victim, which does not exist, and there is a problem because it does not exist. In many cases, victims are not treated as victims. In particular, when an individual is killed, or murdered, the family is not necessarily considered to be a victim for any compensation or other things. The dead person is considered to be the victim. We went about trying to describe what a victim was, which is yet to be acknowledged by the government.

We said that a victim is anyone who suffers, as a result of an offence, physical or mental injury or economic loss, or any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the individual against whom the offence was perpetrated, or anyone who had an equivalent relationship, not necessarily a blood relative.

Why such a long definition? Because in this country there is no definition of victim. The definition of victim, quite frankly, is at the discretion of those in a courtroom. Heaven forbid we keep allowing that, because nothing is consistent in a courtroom these days. We need to provide some assurance to those who have been wronged through criminal acts that they will be treated as victims.

I wrote this legislation in 1994 and we got some of it in 1998. That was so long ago, almost a decade now, and we are still fighting for victims' rights. It really is quite unbelievable. We still need a definition of what a victim is.

Let us go on further. Victims should have the right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any victims' services available.

People would not believe how often it is after a crime is perpetrated in this country that immediately somebody reads the rights to the criminal. I have witnessed victims sitting on the street, holding their heads, or trying to keep blood from emanating from their body, who sit there until someone decides to remove them because they are in the way. They never have a right read to them and never have a right explained to them at all.

But the criminals' rights are looked after. They are escorted somewhere. Everything is done for them. They are asked, “Can I get you a lawyer? Can I do this? Can I do that?” The poor victims are left by themselves. We need to give assurances that they have rights too and that they are told their rights at the scene of a crime. What is wrong with that? Why am I, a decade after writing these rights, still asking for them in the House of Commons?

Is there something wrong on the other side that this is such an onerous task, something that is too difficult to implement? I just find it so hard to believe.

The folks who are listening out there have been listening to me talk about this stuff for a decade. I just cannot for the life of me understand why we have to suffer intolerably because of the people on the other side who will not listen to common sense.

Let us talk about the other rights victims should have, which we wrote about. Victims should have the right to be informed of the offender's status throughout the process, including but not restricted to notification of any arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing dates, plans to release the offender from custody, including notification of what community a parolee is being released to, conditions of release, parole dates, et cetera.

By and large that one has improved. We got that into legislation to some extent in 1998, but still today I deal with victims from all across the nation who are coming to me and saying, “I did not know this person was out. Nobody told me. Nobody told me he was in the community. Nobody told me he changed his name”.

In fact, I have frequently found, particularly among sex offenders, that they change their names while in prison. When they get out, they appear in the same community. With the name change, nobody knows who they are except that the victims ultimately run across them and find out to their surprise that it is the same person with another name. Victims should have the right to know these things at all times. It should not be considered an imposition to individuals who have suffered through crime.

So once again I am in the House after a decade asking for some legitimacy to be given to victims of crime. Victims should have the right to choose between giving oral and written victim impact statements before sentencing, at any parole hearings and at judicial reviews.

This bill is dealing with that. What I am reading from is the victims' bill of rights that we wrote in 1994. Today in 2004 we are dealing with this very one. If we can imagine that, it takes these guys a decade to get around to dealing with it. That is far too slow and it is far too low a priority that is given to victims of crime.

I apologize to all the victims out there. It is a sad state of affairs, but I can assure them that with the stealing that has been going on with the government, and all these other issues we are dealing with today, it looks like it could very well be a change of government. I will give great assurances that these kinds of victims' rights will be put into law within very short order, with no committees, thank you very much.

Victims also should have the right to be informed in a timely fashion of the details of the Crown's intention to offer a plea bargain before it is presented to the defence. This has not yet been tabled by the government in the House of Commons, but it is one of the issues that is a terrible imposition to victims of crime. What happens is that plea bargaining takes place, usually unbeknownst to the victims. The lawyers get behind closed doors and make a deal with the judge. Suddenly the victim is standing there asking why the person got a lesser sentence and is told that a sort of a deal was made.

We can see that today within the gun law. Heaven forbid I even talk about that. In many cases within the gun laws, the crime of possessing a firearm is plea bargained out for a lesser crime. That is why the statistical data says there are not as many gun crimes. In fact there are, except that they are plea bargained out of the system.

The very least we should be giving victims of crime is the knowledge that a particular offence is being bargained for. They are not there to bargain. They are there to see justice. It is wrong and inappropriate to go away from the victims without their knowledge and make a deal on behalf of a sentence. It is absolutely wrong.

I do not have the time to finish the rest of the victims' rights here, which I have read to everybody, but people can get in touch with me or any of us if they like and they can be sure that we are going to continue fighting for victims' rights. I apologize to all the victims that it has taken a decade to even get to this level. Unfortunately, that is far too long.

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I know I am not allowed to say it, but I said it to bring to the attention of the Canadian people what is wrong on the other side.

No legislation has been developed to curtail financial institutions from funding mortgages relating to grow ops. That is happening in this country. I know there is one particular financial institution in this country that has funded up to 400. There is something wrong with that.

No coordination exists between provincial welfare departments and federal authorities of people on welfare having marijuana grow ops and making a lot of money that is non-taxable. If anyone thinks there are not that many, I have a list of individuals who are making money like that.

No commitment has been obtained from the judiciary to increase penalties within the limits set out in the bill or to follow the established possession guidelines. In other words, the government is going to tell us, and we will hear about this in a few minutes, that it is toughening up the penalties for grow ops. Wait for that comment. What the Liberals are saying is that the maximum penalty will be increased but there is no minimum penalty. There is not a courtroom in this country today that is giving the maximum penalty for marijuana grow ops or for crystal meth labs for that matter.

Time and time again people are getting caught with a $200,000 to $400,000 grow op and are getting a $1,000 fine. That is non-taxable money. If the government says that it is toughening up on those penalties, it is absolutely wrong. I have here a litany of cases of judges that are basically letting people off.

No provisions have been made to deal with the increasing toxicity of the THC content itself in marijuana. What the government is doing here is talking about a drug with a certain toxicity today that is increasing every single day. The government is talking about giving it a green light. It is talking about giving minor fines for possession. What it is not talking about is Ecstasy, crystal meth, heroin, crack, cocaine.

The government is playing around with fines for marijuana but does not have the courage to develop a national drug strategy to deal with the real harmful problems in our society.

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have so much to say and only 10 minutes in which to say it. There are several things that must be pointed out here.

The question is why Bill C-10 is before the House now. I suppose it is to try to take the focus off the government's stealing antics, of taking money from the public. I think the other reason it is here is to take the focus off the national drug strategy, which there really is not one. Here we are trying to do a little bit of a national drug strategy and we are not doing a good job of it.

I will provide a quote from the Ottawa Citizen . The Prime Minister said:

I think one's got to take a look at the fines, I think that you have to take a look at the quantities and I think that there has to be a larger effort against the grow ops and those who distribute it.

The heading of this article is, “Marijuana bill will be back, but stronger: Martin favours higher fines than Chrétien's version”.

The fact is that virtually nothing has changed. The new Prime Minister has tabled in the House virtually the same bill that was tabled before. Nothing has changed. We were told that something would be better in this bill and it is just as bad as it was before.

I also want to remind everyone that we are talking about a harmful substance. Before I get into the bill itself, I want to provide the medical evidence of what marijuana does.

Marijuana has a strong addictive capacity. This is emerging more and more in research and it is obvious for many marijuana users. Marijuana clearly impacts school performance and developmental trajectory. The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned of the possible effects of marijuana on the developing fetus, especially in the parts of the brain responsible for attention and memory. Marijuana has the same effects on the respiratory system as tobacco. Marijuana impairs motor functions. Estimates suggest that up to 15% of fatal motor car crashes involve marijuana.

The use of marijuana as medicine is highly questionable. Research has not demonstrated clear and unique benefits. Even Holland has refused to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

This is the product we will be talking about throughout the whole debate. I want people to know that we are not talking about a substance that we want to give a green light to in this country.

The Prime Minister suggested that he would change the bill. I want Canadians to know what is not in Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 sends the wrong message to Canada's youth. Penalties for the production of marijuana have actually decreased from the current legislation where 25 plants or less are found, when they should have increased. Fines for growing the plants were decreased even further at committee stage for amounts under three plants.

Having a lighter fine for young people than for adults sends the wrong message. On one hand the Liberals are saying they are trying to prevent youth from using drugs and on the other hand they are effectively eliminating any real penalty for them to do so.

I also take note that no resources have been provided for police to crack down on organized crime that is profiting from lax enforcement. Nothing has been done in that area.

The fines set out in the bill are much too low and do not increase for subsequent offences. In other words, if a person is caught once or 30 times it makes no difference, the fine is the same. That is a major flaw in the legislation. Repeat offenders should always pay tougher consequences for their crime.

The whole idea about a national drug strategy is interesting. We started out with the drug committee of the House of Commons, although it was biased, and we can appreciate that, from the government's point of view. We wanted a national drug strategy. We do not have a national drug strategy. What we got is a government throwing out this idea of decriminalizing marijuana and leaving it at that. No proceeds of crime legislation has been advanced, or put into this legislation, or amended along with this legislation.

I have just dealt with one case and there are thousands of cases like it. The individual came from another country and has been on welfare since the day he got here. He got caught in a grow op. We found out that he owns three houses. How does one person who has been here for nine years on welfare own three houses? It is from proceeds of crime. The houses should be removed from the individual under the tax act or any other legal means and used for drug rehabilitation or some other facility. That was not advanced in this legislation.

No provision has been put forward in this bill to deal with the damages done to houses and other facilities as a result of grow ops.

What really irritates me about this more than anything is the fact that I am talking about marijuana legislation and there is not one single Liberal sitting in the House. That is really irritating. I have to say there is something wrong in this country when we are debating an extremely important bill and not one Liberals is sitting over there.

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could just suspend sitting for a moment until we sort this out.

Of the four amendments that I am referring to, I do not know how two of them got removed. I think we do have to know that before we speak to it. I am not trying to play games; I just want to make sure it is right.

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned about the motion to allow the bill to be reviewed within three years. I understood that amendment was still in there and it was agreed to by the committee as well.

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I was going to call a point of order on that but I trust we are still speaking here about four amendments to the bill. I had better call a point of order on this before I start my time, Madam Speaker. I understand that there are four amendments to the bill. I would like confirmation from the Table, please.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a number of comments on Bill C-471, which gives dangerous offender designation to individuals with two or more convictions. It is high time we look seriously at this. I am glad to see the Bloc is looking at it very carefully as well.

It is unfortunate the government is taking the position it is. If I heard the members right, their concerns are somewhat concerning in and of themselves. Scaremongering was mentioned, and it is a standard comment from them when they do not like what they hear about what goes on the courtrooms. That is unfortunate because some of the examples put forward my colleague, the member for Crowfoot who developed this bill, were absolutely accurate.

Some individuals in my riding are not necessarily nationally renowned for their misdeeds, but they have created some serious problems, and I will mention one of them. This is not in any way shape or form scaremongering. It is reality in our communities. Perhaps some of the folks on the opposite side have similar concerns, but it does not appear so.

Also, another government member said that this went too far. This does not go too far at all. In fact it gives a very reasonable approach to something that is a growing concern in our country.

The bill actually does something else that I like. It does not provide release provisions for serious sex offenders. We do not see UTA and ETA, that is unescorted temporary absence or escorted temporary absence, or parole. We do not see these people out on the street. When they are out on those types of releases, that is usually when the second, third and fourth crimes occur.

One wonders what one is supposed to do when constantly we hear about repeat offences from sex offenders who are the most difficult to rehabilitate. It is well known that better than 40% of sex offenders recommit other crimes. What is one to do if we cannot keep them inside? Continuously releasing them time after time creates more victims. These individuals go back into the pen and they wait for their time to get out. They go before the parole board and give what I call “the big four”: that is, the reasons why they should get out such as, “I found Jesus, “I have a woman”, “I am sorry for what I did”, “I have taken all the courses and now my time is coming up so let me out”.

That is exactly what happens in a parole board hearing. The unfortunate part is that these individuals do not have to take any courses. They do not have to do anything in prison. They can sit there and wait until their time to get out.

In fact not too long ago I was in a sex offender's cell in one prison. I found all four walls and the ceiling coated with pictures of women in various poses of pornography. I could not even see the paint on the walls or ceiling. Now this individual is probably out again and has probably reoffended. My colleague is trying to prevent that kind of scenario.

I want to talk for a moment about something that I suppose colleagues across the way will say is fearmongering, which it is not. It is reality in my community. I want to talk about James Armbruster who had 61 prior convictions. One of those convictions was raping his grandmother. James Armbruster, who I believe was 45, had been out time and time again. Every time he was released, he damaged somebody else's life. Imagine how many times he has done that. He has had 61 convictions against him.

Not too long ago he went from maximum to a community release centre. He did not cascade down to medium and minimum. He was released directly to a release centre. He was there six days, walked out of the system, sexually assaulted a lady and robbed a store.

When I went to the courtroom to listen to the hearing, I could not understand why crown counsel would not bring a dangerous offender designation for this individual. I found out later that they were too darn busy. They had a lot of files, a lot of things to do, which took a lot of time, and they felt he would likely go in for a long time this time. That was conviction number 63.

As it turned out, because of the complications of the law today, this individual, who was incarcerated, was out on a form of release and his full sentence, his warrant expiry, was not up, so the crime that he had newly committed got tacked onto the crime for which he was currently committed. Therefore, he received virtually no extra time. He will be out very shortly. He will be on my streets and he will commit another crime.

Surely, after 20 convictions, one would think the lawyers and judges would probably say that they should stop that. After 30, 40 or 50 convictions, one would think someone would say that we could not continue to allow the person to get out of prison. After 61, now 63 convictions, we will still let him out. This fellow is a dangerous sex offender. He will repeat his crime. My colleague is trying to prevent that.

This is not an isolated case. I could go through a litany of stories like this, having seven federal prisons, unlucky for us, in the immediate area. I know my colleague from Red Deer has a case like this or more. Colleagues in the House, every one of us, have cases like this.

We have to decide how we are going to stop it. Simply leaving it up to the courts will not get the job done. It is much like a sentencing grid today. The reason why people want sentencing grids is because the job is not getting done in the courtroom. We want some way of directing the courts as to what should happen to offenders, in particular, sex offenders.

Bill C-471 is well worth supporting. I think every one of us in the House could stand and give an example of it, and it is not fearmongering. It is the reality out there. It is not going too far. It is going to the distance where we have to protect society and not the sex offender.

We are running out of options. There are far too many sex offenders walking our streets and far too many going back into prison and going through the roundtable of law courts just because we are letting them out time and time again.

In conclusion, even with the national sex offender registry, for which I wrote the legislation, we ended up in the House with the government giving options for that. Even though someone commits a designated sex offence, the government wants to leave open options for the crown to apply, for a judge to use discretion and for criminals to appeal the fact that they will be put on a sex offender registry. Bills like C-471 are coming forward because the options do not work. They work in favour of the offender. What we are working toward are laws that favour the law-abiding citizens in our country.

I ask the government to have another look at this because I am sure that people on this side, the opposition, are all pretty well in support of it.

I might add this. There is an election coming pretty soon, and people like my colleague from Crowfoot and I and many other justice individuals like us in the House are going to make sure things like this do get into law, so it is one way or the other. How about it?

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, no. My colleague is right. It is a culture of corruption. It has been there from the early days when I came into the House of Commons in 1993. I can recall going to Cape Breton and looking at the ding wall in David Dingwall's riding. I followed issues time and time again in this country where it was just bad spending.

Now it has gone deeper than just bad spending. It has gone to taking taxpayers' money, diverting it through sources and getting it back to the party in general to fight elections.

I think there is nothing more corrupt than what has happened here. The government deserves to be thrown out of office, quite frankly.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one wonders what the other important business of the House is, if it is not about the integrity or lack thereof of the government.

There is nothing wrong with this kind of issue going to a committee of the House of Commons or an inquiry, but there is also nothing wrong with opposition members spending a great deal of time talking to the government about the problems it is having and trying to put into perspective in the House of Commons what the government, its cronies and the Liberal Party have done wrong.

This is not as simple as putting this issue off to the side, studying it for a while and meanwhile having an election and making sure the election goes well. The fact is there was money stolen from the citizens of the country. The fact is that merely putting it off to the side for a public inquiry is not good enough.

Members of the government must understand that they too will be held to account. That is our job in this country. It is not a matter of the government or its cronies looking for fall guys. A big part of the problem is systemic. It is systemic in the Liberal Party. It is systemic in the politicians who exist in the House.

I will repeat once again that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. I believe that is where the Liberal philosophy has been for years.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Provencher.

I am having difficulty with some of the things that I am hearing from the other side and I will give a couple of examples. The government is now asking all of us to work together. For the first time in a decade since I have been here the Liberals are now asking us to all work together because they are in a pickle. They stole some money, gave it to their buddies and then financed an election, and now they are asking us all to work together and fix it. It is really incredible that we are being asked to work together on that thing.

Another comment made over there was that they did wrong but over here on this side we did wrong, too. If I refer to the speech that was made just before I rose, it was a kind of “we did it, you did it, so we did it”. I just do not relate to the two issues that were put to us.

I am commonly asked in western Canada about the outcome of the 2000 election. The Liberals had a whole bunch of money then. They got money from other funds that were redirected through advertising agencies and other agencies back into the Liberal Party which helped the Liberal Party form a government because of the money. We should be looking at whether or not that very election was a valid one. That is how serious this is.

I want to make a couple of comments on a philosophy that I often hear across the country about the government. I really believe that the government subscribes to the philosophy that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. That kind of fits in with this little philosophy that I think the government has. That is a lot of what this is about. Taxpayers' money is redirected through sources and given back to the Liberals and everybody is happy. That is not the way a proper democracy should work.

Before I get into what this really means to people in my area, I want to mention that I do a lot of work in the prisons and other areas like that in politics. Yesterday an all points police bulletin was issued for Russell Corbin in my riding. He up and walked out of Ferndale prison, unannounced of course. He felt he should go somewhere. Now there is a Canada-wide warrant looking for Russell.

Russell was in prison for the possession of property obtained by crime and theft. He got two years for that and now the government, in its wisdom perhaps, has an all points Canada-wide warrant out looking for Russell and here the Liberals are trying to justify themselves for what, the possession of property obtained by crime and theft. How ironic is it that. There are people in prisons today for having done the very thing that the government has done, not accused of having done but proven by the Auditor General that it has done. It is kind of ironic.

I want to go through some of the numbers and what this means to average Canadians. It is interesting that according to Statistics Canada there were 54,000 full time university students in 1998-99 studying at undergraduate and graduate levels in British Columbia. My children were among that group.

With an average tuition in 2002-03 of $4,100, every university student in the province could have been given a bursary to fund his or her education if the government had not abused the $240 million, every single student in British Columbia. Think about that. It is not a very proud comment quite frankly, from a politician in opposition or wherever we are in the House of Commons to think that money was stolen out of the hands of taxpayers which could have gone to our students.

In addition to that, the $250 million could have paid for eight years of salary for 556 new police officers in the country, but what did those guys do? The Liberals threw it at their buddies and had some of it delivered back to their party.

Here we are today looking for more police. I spend a lot of time on drug issues. We are woefully short of police officers fighting the drug issues in Canada. Yet those guys over there think it is a darn sight more important to fund themselves than to fund police officers.

That $250 million could have bought 8,333 police cruisers and paid the salary of an additional 250 full time nurses in Canada. Imagine, that is less important in the minds of the government than those things. We could have bought between 100 and 250 MRIs and had them installed in this nation for the same amount of money the government sucked out of the pockets of taxpayers and funnelled, in part, back to its own party.

The 1996 census showed that the average annual income in Canada was $25,196. Some 9,922 Canadians could have been paid for a year.

I have another little anecdote about attitude around here. Just before question period yesterday I read a statement about an individual who had come to this country nine years ago. He is currently a non-citizen. He has been on welfare for all nine years. He was recently picked up for drug dealing. Although he had no money when he came to this country and has been on welfare for nine years, he owns three houses and all three of them are in my riding.

When I asked the revenue minister how this atrocity could happen, what I got from the revenue minister was laughter, telling me that it was a joke. I just do not get the attitude in this place. The revenue minister thought that it was a joke. While hardworking Canadian citizens are spending their lives paying for mortgages, a guy is given welfare for nine years and is allowed to keep three houses that were obviously obtained illegally.

We have no proceeds of crime legislation to deal with situations like that. There is only laughter from the revenue minister. It is a joke in his mind. That is wrong. Half of what is going on in this country with the government is a bit of a joke.

A lot of communities in many rural areas could have used that money. In fact, there are many communities in my province alone that could have done with the money. Here are some examples of towns in Canada that have paid a total in income tax of about $250 million: Heart's Delight, Deer Lake and Stephenville in Newfoundland and Labrador; Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia; Sackville, New Brunswick; Montebello, Quebec; Barry's Bay, Cochrane and Sioux Lookout in Ontario; Flin Flon, Manitoba; Churchill, Saskatchewan; Fort Macleod, Alberta; and on it goes.

Incredibly, all of the taxes paid for one year by each of those communities is the same amount of money that was dished away by the government. Each of those communities paid the same amount of money that the government has absconded from the taxpayers and put partially in its own pocket.

I want to close by reiterating the way I have always thought about the government and the Liberal Party. I opened my remarks by saying a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. Is that not the philosophy we are dealing with here? It is truly unfortunate. It is truly a sad day for this country. No amount of let us help each other out of this is going to work. That party has stolen money from people in Canada and we intend to have that party pay for it.