Chuck Cadman

[Petitions, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition containing the names of 25 members of my constituency. They call on parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act with respect to, among other things, lowering the age of application and the publishing of names of violent offenders.

[Rcmp, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Mayor Doug McCallum of Surrey wrote to me concerning the chronic understaffing of our RCMP detachment. Surrey has approved a complement of 378 members at regular pay rates. However, up to 40 vacant positions have resulted in excessive overtime payouts to make up for the staffing shortfall, a direct result of the RCMP budget slashing by this government.

Surrey city council has passed a resolution requesting the government to refund to the city of Surrey payment for overtime in 1999. Will the solicitor general take some responsibility at last and honour this request?

[The Late Arnold Silzer, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arnold Silzer, a well respected and active member of the Whalley community of Surrey. Arnold passed away on November 11.

I first came to know Arnold personally in his role as returning officer for my constituency in the 1997 federal election. Arnold's passion for the well-being of young people can no doubt be linked to his 43 years as a teacher. As a long time member of the Lions Club he constantly advocated for youth. It was in that capacity that he worked closely with my office on the summer work student exchange program for the past two summers.

Arnold was a founding member of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society, a past president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, and secretary for the Whalley & Area Merchants Association.

Our sympathies go to Lois, his wife of 45 years, his children Bruce and Diane, and his grandchildren Jason, Jeremy and Chelsea, as well as to his extended family and countless friends.

Arnold Silzer, always a smile, always a story to tell and always a gentleman, will be sorely missed by his community.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, November 19th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (withdrawal of applications for full parole by offenders serving two or more years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for seconding the bill.

I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill, formerly designated Bill C-388 in the previous session, which seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

There is no provision in the current legislation to prevent offenders from withdrawing an application for parole at any time, right up to the actual commencement of the hearing and then they can reapply immediately.

As I said previously, many victims of crimes expend enormous emotional and perhaps financial resources in preparing to attend parole hearings which are frequently held far from their homes.

In addition, significant time, effort and money is expended by authorities to facilitate the hearings. There is no good reason why offenders should have complete control over a process that burdens taxpayers and revictimizes victims.

These amendments will place a consequence on offenders who withdraw applications for parole at the last moment for no good reason. Unless there is reasonable and valid grounds for withdrawal, the offender will be barred from reapplying for a period of two years.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all Canadians read Alex Macdonald's book. It is a very good book and a real eye-opener. I commend my colleague for bringing it to our attention in the House.

I am certainly aware of the reaction of my constituents and how they feel about the current Young Offenders Act but also how they feel about the proposed new youth criminal justice act. What is the consensus in my colleague's riding? Has he gone to his constituents and presented what the government is proposing, and how have they reacted to it?

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey Central.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne which is supposed to explain how parliament intends to proceed with public business.

The government recessed this place for over four months. Canadians must be sorely disappointed with the lack of substance announced for the current session. There must be particular disappointment in the whole area of justice. I will highlight some of the shortcomings in what was presented by the government in its speech.

Some have commented that a Speech from the Throne is intended to very generally indicate the direction of the government in the coming months. It is often flowery with little substance, and that is understood. Just what did it say to indicate where the government has its beliefs, its plans and its focus?

We have often heard of the don't worry, be happy attitude of the Prime Minister. His arrogance has become increasingly obvious. In spite of valid criticism, he always answers that only he knows what is best for Canadians. His answer to citizens who do not like the way of things is that they can always move to another country. What has he said through the Speech from the Throne?

His statement that “Canadians are justifiably proud of having built communities where citizens feel safe”, shows he knows very little about the average Canadian. Now that he has beefed up his own personal security through the RCMP, and now that he expends hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintaining that security, he jumps to the conclusion that all Canadians feel safe.

The most recent Statistics Canada studies on public perception of crime show that Canadians do not feel safe. Urban residents, females and seniors do not feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods at night. More and more Canadians are cocooning themselves within their homes at night. More and more Canadians are spending more and more on deadbolts, alarm systems, guard dogs and self defence courses.

The throne speech claim to citizens feeling safe rings hollow to most Canadians.

The speech goes on with more flowery words that on closer inspection contain little substance. It talks of a reintroduction of legislation to reform the youth justice system. The government is acting only to quell the strong dissatisfaction of Canadians with the Young Offenders Act. Even the Minister of Justice accepts its failures.

Unfortunately, this government proposes little more than a name change of the current legislation. It has only made minor improvements in limited areas. In most of the significant portions, it does not legislate the process. It leaves it up to the discretion of the courts.

The throne speech promises reform of the youth justice system, but in reality Bill C-3 is little more than a puff piece. There has been glitter, there has been spin doctoring and there has been promise, but there is little substance to the youth criminal justice act.

The throne speech promises to combat drug trafficking. The government likely made a similar promise 30 years ago. It is no closer to solving the drug problem today than it was then. In spite of billions of tax dollars spent on the war on drugs, we still have traffickers in our schools. We still see that the vast majority of crimes are related in one way or another to drugs and all we get from the government is vague promises. What we do not see is concrete action to address the illegal use of drugs in this country.

The throne speech mentions focusing attention on international crime, including money laundering, terrorism and the smuggling of people, drugs and guns. We have seen how prepared this government is to the problem of people smuggling.

Four boatloads of Chinese migrants were smuggled into my home province of British Columbia over the past few months. Taxpayers face a potential bill of $52 million or $123,000 per person for the 420 individuals we have chosen to detain. All indications are that more may also attempt to enter Canada in the same manner. We have all heard the minister's plan. She is waiting for the north Pacific winter storms to deal with the rusty old ships.

This government has few, if any, ideas or programs to properly address crime within Canada and now it talks of addressing international crime. It is all just talk.

The throne speech mentions strengthening the capacity of the RCMP. However, it was this government that put the RCMP in such a fiscal straitjacket that the only training facility was forced to close. Patrol cars are parked because the force cannot afford tires. Planes were grounded, boats were docked, investigations were shelved due to lack of resources. My home province of British Columbia is already short about 400 federal police officers. My own community of Surrey has some 70 vacant positions in a complement of some 370.

This government operates in a most peculiar manner. First it rapes our national police force of its ability to function through budget freezes or inadequate resources. Then at some future politically opportune time it will ride in on its white horse amid much fanfare to announce additional funding. In the meantime our communities suffer from inadequate policing and lose valued police officers who leave for other opportunities because of frustrations and obstacles to doing their job. All in all there is little promise for Canadians in the area of innovative justice programs.

I turn now to a couple of areas important to Canadians but which were not even mentioned in the throne speech. There was no mention of the child pornography issue. On January 15, 1999, 10 months ago, Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw ruled that the present law on possession of child pornography was unconstitutional. On January 16 I wrote to the Attorney General of British Columbia urging him to appeal the decision, which he subsequently did.

On January 21 I wrote to the justice minister to encourage her to immediately introduce amending legislation for the sake and the safety of our children. On January 26 approximately 70 Liberal members and senators urged the minister to introduce new legislation, then promptly voted against a Reform Party motion to do just that. The minister merely made public statements that in her legal determination the British Columbia Court of Appeal would uphold the constitutionality of the current law. Well, we all know just how wrong she was. The appeal court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

I wrote the minister once again urging her to introduce legislation to clearly define for the courts the intent of parliament on the possession of children pornography and still no action. Instead, the minister now wants Canadians to wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the case which will not be heard until January. The decision may take months.

Meanwhile our justice system is left in chaos over this law. Some prosecutors are holding charges in abeyance until the supreme court decision. Some investigations are being shelved because scarce police resources cannot be wasted on legislation that may ultimately be unenforceable. Convicted offenders are now proceeding with appeals. And there is nothing from the government in the throne speech.

Another issue of importance to Canadians is the raising of the age for consensual sex. The Mulroney Tories lowered the age from 16 to 14 years, meaning that a 14 year old can consent to having sexual relations with an adult. Canadians everywhere feel that this law subjects young people to abuse by predatory adults. There is a clear cry for the return to the age of 16. Canadians believe that those 14 and 15 are far too susceptible to coercion to be making informed decisions about sexual activity with older individuals.

In fact in a recent case, two escaped sex offenders wound up with a 14 year old girl. Eric Wanamaker, 51 years old, charged with sexually assaulting this young girl, was acquitted when the judge ruled her conflicting testimony led him to believe that she had consented. It is difficult to believe that a 14 year old has the wherewithal to make a free and informed consent with a 51 year old, especially when we consider emotional maturity and power.

There is no mention of the issue of consent in the throne speech. It does not seem to be a priority for the government. Once again the government will probably study the issue to death and if anything ever does get done, it will be watered down in an ineffective way.

To sum up, the throne speech contained a number of smooth and flowery words. It contained little if any substance. Much of it contained issues that have been around for throne speech after throne speech. It did not address many of the issues of concern to Canadians. It leaves us with poor expectations. I am disappointed and Canadians are disappointed.

[Youth Violence, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, two nights ago a 15 year old Toronto youth died tragically in what appears to be a brutal, random, unprovoked attack of violence.

Matthew Baranovski and his friends appear to have been minding their own business when they were set upon by a larger group for no apparent reason and the community is in shock.

Now the experts and the media are wringing their hands in horror, asking what is happening to our youth. I have news for them. This is nothing new.

Seven years ago my son Jesse suffered a similar fate under very, very similar circumstances. The entire country was shocked with the murder of Reena Virk in 1997. On Halloween last year Clayton McGloan was swarmed, beaten and stabbed to death in Calgary. Last June Jonathon Wamback was viciously beaten in Newmarket and left in a coma. Fortunately he survived and will hopefully recover. I could go on and on but my time is limited.

Seven years ago I said that Jesse would not be the last, and nothing has changed. On behalf of all parents who have lost sons or daughters to youth violence, our hearts go out to Matthew's family. But sadly, Matthew Baranovski will not be the last, and still this government continues to tinker.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is responsible for the RCMP funding crisis. The government ordered the long overdue RCMP pay raise to be taken from an existing limited budget and the RCMP had to cut service in a number of essential areas to compensate. We have now learned that a lack of funding is preventing the annual testing of members in the proper use of their firearms.

The largest RCMP detachment in Canada is in my riding and my constituents are fed up with this.

My question is for the solicitor general. How much longer is the government prepared to jeopardize the safety of police officers and Canadians?

[Justice, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago the justice committee submitted recommendations to improve the rights of victims in the criminal justice process, including corrections. The Minister of Justice has addressed those falling within her jurisdiction and we now have laws in place. The solicitor general, however, has a subcommittee studying recommendations made by the full committee over a year ago.

Are victims of crime going to have to wait forever for this minister to get his act together?

[Justice, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Karla Homolka continues to inflame the sensibilities of Canadians. Months ago she was given escorted visits from prison without any notification to the families of her victims. Now she has applied to serve the rest of her sentence in a Montreal community. Once again her victims' families were never notified.

This problem is not isolated to this particular case. The solicitor general has been on the job for some time now. Why does he continue to perpetuate a system that places the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims?