House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 44% of the vote.
Prisons And Penitentiaries June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, before I came here I was on an advisory committee to the deputy commissioner for the Pacific region years ago. We complained about bleach being in the prisons to sterilize needles. We complained about a convicted killer who actually murdered his wife in prison during a conjugal visit by overdosing her with heroin. The problem has been there for years.
I will again ask the solicitor general when we will get a solution to this?
Prisons And Penitentiaries June 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general just said that we had a 300% decrease. A 300% decrease should mean that we have a zero problem, but we now have a massive problem.
In my riding, a convicted armed robber said that when he went into prison decades ago he had no drug problem. When he came out he was addicted to heroin. Nothing has changed.
Where is the solicitor general's plan? Who is doing it? When are we going to get some results?
Criminal Code May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. After years of frustration on the part of victims of crime all across Canada, after years of promises, after years of pressure from the Reform Party and after repeated failure of the government to properly address its supposed priority of the issue of victims rights, we appear to be on the home stretch.
We are now at third reading and hopefully we will be voting on Bill C-79 before the government decides to break for the summer recess. Hopefully this legislation will pass from this place to the other place, which hopefully again will give it a high priority and pass it in relatively short order.
As I have stated, victims have been waiting for years for the formalization of legislated rights for their interests. As I have also stated, we are almost there, but each and every day that Canadians are deprived of the effect of this legislation means that victims are continuing to be deprived of specified rights. Each and every day victims are continuing to be disregarded and abused by our justice system. It is a travesty that victims of crime are further victimized by the very system supposedly designed to bring and maintain justice in this country. Until effective rights are provided we will continue to witness instances of further injustice.
I will not be critical of the entire process. I acknowledge and I appreciate the work of my colleagues on the justice committee. While we do not always see eye to eye, we did recognize and accept the necessity to expeditiously prepare the committee report entitled “Victims Rights'—A Voice, Not a Veto” which formed the basis of this legislation.
The report and the subsequent legislation are a tribute to Shaughnessy Cohen who chaired the committee and created the spirit of co-operation to achieve this objective. I must add that I first met Shaughnessy long before I was elected to this place, at a time not long after my family became unwilling participants in the criminal justice system. Although we differed on some things, I hold nothing but the deepest respect for Shaughnessy's compassion and her commitment toward this issue. The committee expedited the process once Bill C-79 was passed at second reading and referred for review.
I would also be remiss if I did not thank all witnesses who appeared before the committee and the individuals and organizations that provided written submissions.
I would also like to thank all those individuals who participated in the national forum on victims' roles in the criminal justice system held in Ottawa in June 1998. All of those individuals and organizations were invaluable in helping the committee to form a consensus on many of the shortcomings which exist in our justice process with respect to victims of crime.
So that the Liberal government does not get too complacent, I will move back to the area of criticism on the shortcomings of this legislation.
First, as stated previously, it is unfortunate that the government did not see fit to address the recommendations of the justice committee concerning amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. A number of important rights for victims need to be addressed in the area of corrections and parole. This has not been done and there is little indication that the issue is on the government's immediate agenda. It is difficult to understand why it has to be continually pressured and pushed into amending our laws to provide for the interests and rights of victims of crime.
The government has used the excuse that the justice committee is currently undertaking a review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. That is just a red herring. There is absolutely nothing to deter the government from incorporating changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act within Bill C-79.
As a result, one must ask whether victims rights are really a priority to the government. The government only did what it had to do. The government had to respond to the committee report, but it did so no more than it had to. For some unfathomable reason it has decided to put off victims rights in the corrections and parole fields until another day, another year, or possibly even another decade. Hopefully it will at least be a millennium project. This delay is most unfortunate.
Second, this legislation fails to apply the victim fine surcharge to the Young Offenders Act. Why? I certainly do not know. The justice committee report recommended that young offenders be included within the victim fine surcharge scheme. The federal-provincial-territorial working group recommended permitting surcharge orders against young offenders. Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario are on written record as supporting victim fine surcharges for young offenders. However, the government chooses to ignore all of this strong support.
During fiscal year 1994-95 there were a total of 4,472 cases across Canada where a fine was the most significant disposition by our youth courts. Some 87% of these fines were between $50 and $500. Surely, if these young offenders can pay these fines, they can pay the minimal surcharge as laid out in Bill C-79.
Young offenders create victims in the same way as adults. It is indeed puzzling why the government seems to feel that young offenders should not be held to the same level of responsibility toward providing assistance to the victims of their crimes as anybody else. It is no wonder that Canadians are losing faith in our justice system.
A third aspect that I wish to discuss happens to involve the highly inflammatory issue of subsection 745.6, the faint hope clause. Once again the government is amending section 745. Instead of scrapping it entirely, it continues to tinker with the provision of our law that appears to be only acceptable to murderers and members of the Liberal Party.
I will admit that the provisions in Bill C-79 improve this situation somewhat. Clause 21 finally forces the justice process to be a little more honest or upfront with victims and the Canadian public. Judges will be required to pronounce at the time of sentencing that a sentence of imprisonment for life may not necessarily be just that. Now everybody in the courtroom at sentencing will know that, in the case of first degree murder, the supposedly mandatory 25 years before parole eligibility could be significantly reduced at a time in the future when everybody but the family members have forgotten about the crime.
Why does this government continue to try to make essentially a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Subsection 745.6 is bad law, plain and simple, but instead of scrapping it altogether, every year or two the government tinkers with it some more in an attempt to make it more palatable to Canadians.
Just a couple of years ago, with Bill C-45, the government changed this section in an attempt to limit and restrict multiple murderers from benefiting from this faint hope provision. Now, in Bill C-79, after some 20-odd years, it has decided that the practice of telling Canadians that murderers are sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years has not been entirely upfront. Victims will now at least be informed of subsection 745.6 which permits early parole for our most serious offenders. However, anyway we cut it, it is still bad law.
I will now take a few moments to sum up this legislation. It is a good start, but it is just that, a good start. Our justice system falls over backward to ensure and protect all the rights of all our criminals and that is fine. It sets Canada apart from most other countries of the world and reflects the fairness and equity of our society. Having said that, we can also say that we have been woefully negligent in ensuring and protecting the rights of the victims of crime. We have been too quick to use the excuse of the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces to rationalize these deficiencies. Hopefully Bill C-79 will see the beginning of co-operation between the two levels of government so that victims of crime do not continue to fall through the cracks.
As I have indicated, I am disappointed with the government for its failure to address the justice committee's recommendations concerning the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. With a little intestinal fortitude the government could have easily incorporated those recommendations within this legislation. As a member of the official opposition I will continue to pressure the government to fulfil its promises in this regard.
The government's failure to include young offenders within the victim fine surcharge scheme makes absolutely no sense. The government appears to view victims of young offender crime as being somewhat less significant than other victims.
The faint hope clause still lives. The tinkering continues but the primary problem still remains. Hopefully one of these days the government will get tired of skating around the issue and will instead send it off to the scrap heap where it belongs.
Justice May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, once again Canadians are outraged by the ease with which our laws allow people to escape accountability for their actions.
Bert Stone killed his wife because she insulted him. Yesterday the supreme court upheld his lenient sentence and in effect accepted his provocation defence. A discussion paper on this issue was distributed a year ago. The Stone case was not the first and others have occurred since.
The provocation defence is archaic. Canadians want it eliminated entirely or at the very least severely restricted in its use and they want some action now. Will the Minister of Justice act immediately to put a stop to these travesties?
Criminal Code May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Criminal Code May 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief and restrict my comments to the Group No. 1 amendments.
I have no problem with Motion No. 1 of my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It simplifies the intent of the section. I appreciate his foresight in addressing this issue. To those of us with no legal training it seems rather inconsequential, but I understand that the hon. member, with his experience in the courts, knows how things can fall apart and why one would want to propose this amendment. I certainly have no problem with it.
As for Motion No. 2, we are adding the Young Offenders Act to the list of statutes for which the victim surcharge will apply. The reason for that is that the amendment follows Recommendation No. 13 of the justice committee in its report “Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not A Veto”. The committee actually reported and recommended that victim fine surcharges should apply to young offenders.
The federal-provincial-territorial working group also recommended permitting the surcharge against young offenders. Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario are on record as supporting victim surcharges applying to young offenders.
Young offenders create victims in similar ways as adult criminals do. A victim is a victim is a victim, regardless of who is the perpetrator of the offence. As such, young offenders should be held responsible to provide assistance to the victims of crime in a similar fashion as adults do.
During the 1994-95 fiscal year there was a total of 4,472 cases across Canada whereby a fine was the most significant disposition by the youth court. The vast majority of these fines were between $50 and $500. If these young offenders can pay those fines, a minimum surcharge scheme as laid out in Bill C-79 should not prove to be any great problem for them.
Motion No. 5 merely applies the same line of reasoning to the proposed youth criminal justice act, if it ever in fact sees the light of day.
I will finish my comments there. I will have more to say at third reading on the main body of my thoughts on this bill.
Criminal Code May 28th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-79, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 15 with the following:
“section 730 of an offence under this Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Young Offenders Act shall”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-79 be amended by adding before line 17 on page 19 the following new clause:
“28.1 On the later of the day this Act comes into force and the day Bill C-68 introduced in the first session of the thirty-sixth Parliament and entitled An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts is assented to, subsection 737(1) of the Criminal Code as enacted by section 20 of this Act is replaced by the following:
National Drug Strategy May 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in just seven hours from now Canada's first national anti-drug rally will take place in Abbotsford, British Columbia. I wish I could be there but Bill C-79 on victims' rights requires my attention here tomorrow.
The rally will focus national attention on the need for federal, provincial and municipal governments support for health care for those addicted to drugs, for more commitment to drug education and for a real national drug strategy that works on the street.
The question is why in 1999 do we need to be taking this action? Where has the government been over the last six years? What will it take to get this Liberal government to care more about drug addicts than their patronage friends?
With the help of former Canadian heavyweight champion George Chuvalo, we will begin to answer the question: “Drugs, are we ready to fight?” Tonight in Abbotsford thousands of people will be ready to say yes.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police May 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, for months now we have been demanding that the solicitor general restore funding to the RCMP so that they can do their job properly.
There have been stories of reduced drug operations, parked and damaged patrol cars, the grounding of aircraft and boats, and unacceptable responses to citizen complaints.
We have another one for the list. In Surrey we recently lost three of our nine school liaison officers; that is, one-third. According to the RCMP the officers were redeployed to other areas because of a staff shortage brought on by a lack of funding and a shortage of new recruits.
Three of our schools recently had bomb threats. A recent survey of students found that 44% were concerned with drugs, 41% complained of fighting and 31% found bullying to be a problem. Now we lose one-third of our liaison officers.
Maybe the solicitor general would like to explain to my constituents how his government can bankroll pornographic films while their children's safety is being put at risk through lack of funding.
Surrey now has 16 vacancies and that number is expected to rise to 23 by the end of the summer. We are tired of hearing about reviews and studies. We want the problem to be fixed.
Young Offenders Act May 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, there is not much to say. I was prepared to thank the hon. members for supporting the bill all the way through, as far as it got, but now we see what the government is really up to.
The bill was meant to amend the Young Offenders Act, which is the current law of the country. I understand and appreciate the fact that the minister did choose to use it in the new legislation, but we do not know where that legislation is going to wind up. It has been pushed back and pushed back. We do not know if it is ever going to see the light of day. I am not prepared to take a pig in a poke and act on faith alone.
I am disappointed about this, but I have dealt with more severe things in my life. I think most members can attest to that.
This piece of legislation was an idea that was prompted by some personal experience. It would have been good legislation for the country. It would have allowed the crown an opportunity to increase the sanctions on parents who fail to supervise their children properly.
In effect, my bill is dead. That is fine. That is part of the deal here. All I can hope for is that Bill C-68, the new youth justice legislation, does come into force sometime. Judging by what I have seen, I do not anticipate that will happen.
There is not an awful lot more I can say on this other than—