Chuck Cadman

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to my party's supply motion.

The main thrust of the motion reads:

That, since the government has failed to give effect to the motion adopted by this House on March 13, 2001, calling for the establishment of a sex offender registry by January 30, 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill reflecting the spirit and intent of that motion;

That the Committee shall make its report to the House no later than June 1, 2002;

It is incomprehensible to me why the Liberal government would drag its feet in this most crucial area of public safety: protection from sexual predators for all Canadians, particularly from those who prey on our children.

I wish I had a dollar, and make that a U.S. dollar, for every time the solicitor general has said that the government's number one priority is public safety. That is beginning to wear thin with Canadians.

I wish I had a dollar for every time the solicitor general has said that our current CPIC is adequate despite evidence from experts that it is not. The truth of the matter is that CPIC is just not up to the job, even with the $2 million upgrade that the solicitor general likes to tout so much. It is clear that he puts a lot of stock in half measures when it comes to the protection of Canadians from sexual predators.

The government's own research shows that 50% of child molesters reoffend in 10 to 30 years after serving their sentence. This is not a very comforting figure considering that the CPIC system, which has been operational since 1972, only offers police four searchable criteria when looking for possible reoffenders. Those criteria are name, address, offence and age. This does not give police a whole lot to go on, especially when we consider the problems associated with keeping addresses up to date. There are no federal laws setting out requirements for offenders to provide current addresses. There is no enabling legislation.

Last fall the provincial justice ministers said that the CPIC upgrade was not up to the task. They are not alone in the call for something better. The Canadian Police Association, which represents 30,000 front line officers, said that CPIC just did not cut it.

A variety of victims' groups are calling for a more viable search tool that will include physical characteristics and photographs, one that will provide jurisdictional and radius searches. Again, CPIC, to my understanding, is just not up to this kind of task. This of course is why it is so disturbing that the government has not implemented a national sex offender registry that will meet these requirement.

That was the intent of the motion of the Canadian Alliance back in March of last year. I think it is fair to say that the solicitor general's solution to simply add addresses to CPIC does not a sex offender registry make.

In the absence of any federal initiative, individual provinces are well on the way to creating their own sex offender registries. To them there is an obvious need to identify these potentially dangerous criminals when they move into our communities long after their sentences have been served.

Ontario has its own sex offender registry up and running. It has offered that system to the federal government as a model at no cost. Ontario's registry went into effect in April 2001 and already has 5,000 names on it. Over 90% of offenders are complying with the provincial legislation that compels them to report annually.

Other provinces are beginning to follow Ontario's lead. My home province of British Columbia has enacted legislation required to established one there. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are all considering plans for their own registries. Unfortunately, without federal participation, the very real possibility exists for these systems to lack effectiveness if they cannot communicate with each other.

Similarly, if a sex offender moves from one province to another without a national system there is little the federal government can do to track them under the present circumstances.

The driving force behind the Ontario registry was the family of Christopher Stephenson, who was murdered by a convicted sexual offender. The enabling legislation is actually called Christopher's law. It took the death of a child to create the Ontario registry. How many more needless deaths and damaged lives do there have to be before the federal government takes action?

The primary issue here is that Canadian police agencies need a quick, complete, searchable database in order to help prevent deaths and serious sexual offences.

No system will be 100% effective but what we have now has holes in it that are big enough to drive a truck through.

If the federal government were to implement a national version of the Ontario system, police could search known sexual offenders when an abduction or sex related crime occurs. The search would be conducted based on seven different criteria. If the crime were committed by a previously known sexual offender, the likelihood of identifying that offender would be far greater than using the current CPIC system.

There is little doubt in my mind that Ontario's example should be followed nationally. The mission statement of the Ontario registry reads:

--to enhance public safety by providing law enforcement agencies with a modern, reliable and effective electronic tool and support services to track sex offenders in our communities and to improve the investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

In October 1998, according to the Alberta justice minister, the former federal justice minister agreed to a national registry. During the 2000 federal election, the Liberal candidate in Surrey Central, just to the south of my riding, campaigned on the creation of a national sex offender registry with the blessing of the Prime Minister. This was obviously nothing more than typical Liberal lip service for votes in regard to a very serious problem.

I urge the government to follow the example of Ontario and put the safety of Canadians ahead of all else. I know it is difficult for the Liberals to acknowledge anything done by the Ontario government, but this is not an issue with which to play petty politics. This is about public safety so why not take this innovative system and implement it on a national basis before we lose any more innocents to sexual predators?

I urge all my colleagues to support the motion.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, I would like to know what the previous speaker would say to former chief, Gail Sparrow, of the Musqueam Band in Vancouver, who commented on the case of two Musqueam youth who pled guilty to an assault that put a 17 year old young man named Joel Libin into a coma and caused him brain damage. The two youth were given conditional sentences?

Former Chief Sparrow said:

The message for younger kids now is, 'Hey, they got off too, because there's a special law for us.' You're going to put the community at risk

She further stated:

The undercurrent here is that people are afraid to speak up because of the repercussions. They're asking, 'Why do we have a separate set of laws for us? Now my son will go and beat somebody up and think it's no big thing because it's home arrest.

A lot of people do not support that action and are very upset. There have been a number of other cases in British Columbia, incidents in the aboriginal community where that community has been completely upset with this kind of legislation and the way it has been applied. They do not feel it is appropriate. It is not fair to the victims or to anyone.

What would the member have to say to the aboriginal folks who are upset with this kind of legislation? They do not like it one bit either.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment, Gail Sparrow, former chief of the Musqueam Band, has been very critical of this type of legislation. The majority of crimes by aboriginals are committed against other aboriginals. The legislation would diminish the suffering and recognition the victims deserve. Sufficient guidelines already exist for judges to consider all mitigating factors for all offenders irrespective of race. The declaration of principles already sets out respect for ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences.

Why is it necessary to introduce an element of race into the legislation? Why should any victim receive a lesser degree of justice based solely on the racial origin of his or her victimizer?

[Privilege, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the same argument as was raised by the hon. House leader came up this morning by some members of the committee, that it was only one day late.

This rule was brought in by the House to make the government answerable when it was late in answering questions. This was the first time it had come before the committee. The length or time or how late it was is irrelevant. The fact is it was one day late. That is the point I made today. If we let one day go, the next time it could be two, and then it could be a week. We have to get serious about this and send a message to the committee that we have to deal with these.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it has only affected my community. I certainly know what the problems are in the constituency of Surrey North and the city of Surrey. They are monumental. The costs of implementing and driving the youth justice system have risen. The funding is not there, but that is the case all across Canada. We heard from other members. I know our senior critic, the member for Provencher, has had personal experience of this, being a former attorney general. He has actually seen the problems. We have heard our colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough refer to this.

Funding is the bottom line. It is easy for the Liberal government to offload it on the provinces and tell everybody what they should do, but it is not backing it up with the proper funding and resources.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Last fall the House of Commons passed Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, at third reading stage. The bill has now been returned from the other place with an amendment which must now be considered by the House. The amendment came from the Liberals in the other place and the government is supporting it. I will oppose this amendment for reasons I will go into in a moment.

If memory serves me right, a similar amendment was proposed by the government at the justice committee during deliberations on Bill C-3, which of course died on the order paper at the last election call. Interestingly though, it was not in the bill when it was reintroduced as Bill C-7 but now it shows up from the other place.

This amendment would in part change the purpose and the principles of sentencing, requiring that “all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons”. I take little issue with this. Of course we should consider all reasonable options before resorting to incarceration for many offences, especially minor first offences.

The second part of the amendment requires youth court judges to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal youth at the time of sentencing, similar to section 718.2(e) of the criminal code, which we opposed in the 35th parliament for similar reasons.

Personally, I do not believe that race has any place in criminal law sentencing provisions, be it adult or young offender. A sentencing judge is already required to consider “any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person”. These would normally include factors such as family and social circumstances, background and special needs, among other things.

Further to that, the bill's declaration of principles says in part:

--measures taken against young persons who commit offences should...be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person's rehabilitation and reintegration, and...respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements--

These requirements are already sufficient for a sentencing judge to give consideration to any young person. The operative word here is any. There is no reason whatsoever to bring a person's race into play. I believe that the injection of race specific wording in the criminal law is dangerous. Criminal law should be blind to race.

I think we have all heard comments about the aboriginal community being over-represented in our jails. I acknowledge that, but I do not for a moment believe they were incarcerated for being aboriginal. They are there because they have been convicted of committing a criminal offence. If, as it is sometimes argued, it is shown that bias against aboriginal offenders exists in the courts or in the system in general, then that is wrong and by all means it must be rectified.

Also I do suspect that in many cases incarceration is the only option available to the court due to the lack of resources and support mechanisms in the community. I think we all agree that those issues must be addressed and remedied. Equally as, if not more important, the substandard social and living conditions experienced by many aboriginals both on and off reserve must be rectified. That being said, I do not believe that the criminal law is the appropriate place to address those issues.

I have heard the point made that children coming to Canada from parts of the world where war, civil strife and violence are commonplace may be more predisposed to antisocial or criminal behaviour as teenagers or adults than are children born and raised in Canada. However at no time have I ever heard anyone suggest that those people representative of parts of Southeast Asia, the Balkans, or parts of Africa, to mention but a few, be singled out by race in the criminal code for special consideration. The courts consider their mitigating factors in the same way as any other offender, as I described earlier.

If our goal is to achieve the equality of all people, how can we justify race specific sanctions under the criminal law? Can we reasonably expect tolerance and respect when some offenders based solely on their racial origin are singled out for less punitive sanctions than offenders of all other racial origins, all other things, including circumstances of the offence being equal?

Imagine for one moment the well deserved hue and cry if we were to legislate the opposite, that individuals of one race be singled out for more punitive sanctions than all others.

I would like to quote Gail Sparrow, a former chief of the Musqueam Band in British Columbia. She was commenting on a case in which two Musqueam youths, one of whom was already on probation, were given conditional sentences for their involvement in a severe beating in Vancouver that put 17 year old Joel Libin into a coma and left him brain damaged.

Former Chief Sparrow said:

The message for younger kids now is, “Hey, they got off, and I can get off too, because there's a special law for us”. You're going to put the community at risk.

She went on to say that the sentences have left the Musqueam community angry:

The undercurrent here is that people are afraid to speak up because of the repercussions. They're asking, “Why do we have a separate set of laws for us? Now my son will go and beat somebody up and think it's no big thing because it's home arrest”. A lot of people didn't support that action. They're very upset.

Before some of my colleagues begin falling all over themselves to label me as a racist, anti-Indian and anything else that they can think of for opposing this amendment, I would remind them that the words I have just quoted were spoken by a former chief.

I oppose this amendment because it allows the criminal law to treat one specific group of people differently from all others based solely on their racial origin and nothing else. That is wrong.

[Bill C-15A, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, here is one more reason parliament must show some leadership on the issue of home invasions. A woman who took part in an extremely violent home invasion in 1998 was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day for her part. As everyone knows by now, this means serving a sentence at home.

Sandra Rickovic and two others tied up and pistol whipped jeweller Jitendra Goldsmith and his wife. Their two young children were locked in a basement room at gunpoint while the grandmother escaped out a back door with a seven month old baby. Goldsmith, who operated a home business in Vancouver, lost nearly $400,000 in the robbery and was not insured.

Another of the home invaders, David Anthony Labadie, was convicted of break and enter, robbery, wearing a mask, using an imitation handgun, unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm. For his efforts he received a paltry seven years while the crown wanted fourteen.

In Bill C-15A parliament made home invasion an aggravating factor for sentencing. I supported that. If this is any indication of what we can expect from the courts there will be no alternative but to legislate mandatory minimum sentences for these vicious crimes.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been an agreement that we would ease the passage of this legislation. I will keep my comments brief as there are a few of my colleagues who wish to make some comments.

As we approach this Christmas holiday season we are all bracing for the carnage that normally appears on the roads due to impaired driving. Any message that parliament can send to the Canadian public, and this bill is one, that we intend to get serious about the whole issue of impaired driving will be well received. I wish it could have happened a bit sooner, but it is better late than never.

When the drinking and driving legislation was being reviewed in the last parliament the then Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, was supportive of the whole notion of interlock devices on ignitions. I commend my colleague from Prince George--Bulkley Valley for all the work that he did on impaired driving over the last couple of parliaments.

I am sure all members have recently been contacted by MADD. It has a very active campaign right now to reduce the blood level alcohol content from .08 to .05. Let me assure the government that we will be working together with MADD to bring that about. It is something that we think has to be addressed.

Some of the other problems that we saw in the previous parliament were complaints from police and prosecutors that there were many procedural problems and many hurdles to be overcome before we had what most people would consider to be effective impaired driving legislation. This legislation would add to the many improvements we made in the last parliament. It is a good step but there is still much work to do.

I encourage all the folks listening today to please have a safe holiday season. If people are going to drink, I ask them not to get behind the wheel.

[George Harrison, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend while in New York City I made my way to Strawberry Fields in Central Park to join a small crowd at a makeshift shrine to the memory of George Harrison. The mound of flowers, pictures and tributes accompanied by strains of Beatles songs gave me pause to reflect.

I was about 14 when the Beatles exploded on the world. Drawn by the strong, lyrical guitar solos I made a decision that set the course for my life. I bought a used guitar for five bucks and a book of nine basic chords. My parents were not thrilled when a few years and two bands later I took the vice-principal up on his offer and left school for rock and roll on the road rather than get my hair cut.

The drone of Norwegian Wood , the melding of Indian and western themes in Within You, Without You , the raw emotion of Something and While My Guitar Gently Weeps will endure. For me personally it is the melodic ring and lyrical optimism of Here Comes The Sun that defines George Harrison.

Coming from that kid in the early sixties who, influenced by Harrison's brilliant simplicity, picked up a guitar and lived a dream, I say thanks to George.

[Terrorism, November 30th, 2001]

Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Just yesterday a suitcase full of what appears to be middle eastern currency was found in a dumpster in Surrey and turned over to the RCMP. There is a report that cash is from Iraq.

Could the solicitor general confirm the country of origin of that cash? Could he tell us if there is any connection between that cash and the business card found in Kabul?