Chuck Cadman

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with that. We are certainly going in the wrong direction. All across the country people are asking for more public safety, more police on the streets and more protection.

The surge in gang organized crime on the west coast is phenomenal. It is completely out of control. With the shutting down of the port police in Vancouver, with the problems at the airport, with the problems of drugs coming in, with the biker gang problems in Quebec, we are certainly going the wrong way. I think it is about time the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice got this through their heads and start doing what Canadians are asking for.

[Criminal Code, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51 this afternoon, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Canadians have been waiting for many, many months to finally see legislation from our Minister of Justice. One would almost think that justice reform is not a very high priority with this government.

Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill which will make amendments to the criminal law. It is an attempt to respond to the changing conditions within our society. Much of what is being proposed is long overdue. Many of the proposals within this bill make sense and cause very little concern. Canadians must wonder why these issues have not been addressed before now.

It is unfortunate that this minister and this government continue to lurch ahead with half measures because of politics. Canadians continue to be shortchanged when it comes to improvements to our criminal law.

First I have a brief comment on the bill's proposal to amend section 186 of the Criminal Code. It concerns invasion of privacy under part VI of the code.

In the 1970s the federal government introduced a whole scheme to permit police to legally intercept private communications to assist them in their investigations.

The law permitted authorized personnel to install, maintain and monitor communications through the installation of devices such as bugs or wiretaps. It has taken over 20 years for the government to amend the legislation to also permit the authorized removal of those bugs and wiretaps. I suppose this falls into the category of “better late than never”.

Bill C-51 proposes to permit the operation of casinos on international cruise ships that are Canadian or operating in Canadian waters. Dice games will now be permitted and will be managed by the provinces and territories.

While it can be argued that casinos and dice games will improve the competitive nature of Canadian assets, there is significant opposition to gambling of any form in many parts of the country. I will be interested in the justice committee review of this legislation.

I understand that international cruise ships which operate within the Canadian inside passage route to Alaska already operate casinos within Canadian waters. It will be interesting to see just how this has occurred.

Another proposal would eliminate the requirement for a victim to die within a year and a day of an assault in order that a charge of murder, manslaughter or causing death by criminal negligence can be brought. With modern medical advancements it has become much easier to maintain victims on life support for extended periods of time.

Charges and convictions were often based merely on when the life support machines were turned off. Individuals who cause the death of others must be accountable for their actions, no matter how long the victims manage to hang on.

It seems impossible, but this government and its predecessors have been permitting killers to walk free just because their victims have managed to survive, often in a comatose or vegetative state.

One can only begin to imagine the anguish foisted on a family when they learn that the perpetrator has escaped justice because their loved one lived too long. This problem was first discussed 12 years ago and, as I have stated, some provisions are long overdue.

This bill contains a proposal to amend the offence section for the prostitution of a person under 18 years of age. It is amendments such as this that illustrate why it appears to take forever for this government to bring forth much needed legislation.

Bill C-51 proposes to amend section 212(4) of the code. I note that just last year Bill C-27 amended the same section. A number of thoughts cross my mind when I look at this. I wonder whether the previous Minister of Justice did not know what he was doing the first time around. I wonder whether this government even has a plan to address juvenile prostitution. I wonder why they refuse to consider increasing the penalty for engaging the services of our children.

Why will they not legislate an increase in the age of consent from 14 to 16 years for sexual activity between a young person and an adult?

Two weeks ago, while in my constituency, I attended a function at which Diane Sowden, the courageous mother of one of these sexually exploited young people, was honoured with an award from the attorney general of British Columbia for her tireless devotion to these issues. I have presented numerous petitions in this House on her behalf, but still nothing from this government.

I have similar concerns over amending section 742.6 of the code. Again I wonder whether the previous Minister of Justice got anything right during his term in the position. Section 742.6 came into being through Bill C-41 in 1995. It concerns the very controversial conditional sentencing provision whereby criminals are permitted to serve their sentences at home to avoid the costs of incarceration.

In spite of Reform Party proposals to limit conditional sentencing to non-violent and non-drug offenders, the former minister maintained that he knew better and made it quite clear that he was not open to changes.

Nevertheless there was soon public outrage over the weakness of the legislation. Violent criminals were being released back into the community almost every day without serving any time in jail for their crimes.

The former minister of justice appears to be joining in the Prime Minister's mantra of don't worry, be happy. Perhaps he was auditioning for the role.

Eventually pressures became so great that he was compelled to amend his conditional sentencing legislation. But did he limit it to non-violent, non-drug offenders? No, he cranked up the spin machine to con Canadians into thinking that he was making major improvements when in reality he was only tinkering, again.

In Bill C-17, which was passed in 1997, he tried to persuade our courts to pay more attention to community safety when considering conditional sentencing. But even today we find hardened and dangerous criminals still receiving this Liberal perk of serving a sentence in the comfort of their own home.

For example, we have recently seen police raising serious concerns over losing the battle against organized crime. Canadians have witnessed vastly increased violence among biker gangs as they fight over control of criminal activity.

The solicitor general has been quick to board the political bandwagon to announce a strategic partnership with the provinces, the police and customs officials. I wonder what he must think and what he can say when recently a member of the Hell's Angels was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to serve his time in the comfort of his own home.

This government is once again amending the conditional sentencing legislation but as usual it is failing to properly address one of its most fundamental flaws.

Last but not least, the minister wants to change the accelerated parole provisions. They messed with sections in Bill C-45 in 1995 and that same year in Bill C-55 they reduced parole eligibility to one sixth of the sentence. They had another go at it with Bill C-95 in 1997 and now they want to change the section again to exempt organized criminals from receiving such lenient early parole eligibility.

In their rush to reduce prison populations they changed the law to permit the release at one sixth but now realizing that organized gang members are not very nice people, they say they should serve a little more time than that. Reality, what a concept.

Perhaps they should consider truth in sentencing. Many citizens are disillusioned with our justice system just because of instances such as this whereby the government acts irrationally, without forethought and with purely political motives.

If criminals were properly sentenced and served those sentences citizens would be much more inclined to understand and support that process.

I would like to address the funding problems of the RCMP we are having in B.C. RCMP boats are tied up, helicopters are grounded, and there have been overtime bans. My riding is in the city of Surrey, a large city of over 300,000. It is the largest detachment of the RCMP in Canada. Frontline officers have serious concerns about their abilities to provide adequate services and protection to the public. My constituents would like some answers.

The attorney general of British Columbia is now talking about getting rid of the RCMP altogether and forming a provincial police force. He has been requesting a meeting with the solicitor general to discuss these funding problems. Maybe they could meet on an airplane.

I have asked the solicitor general what he is doing about the problems with the violent crimes linkage analysis system in B.C. I have not received any answers. I see today in newspaper reports that the Minister of Justice is now concerned that her youth justice proposals may be in jeopardy unless she can pry some money out of the Minister of Finance.

She did not seem so concerned about that last spring when she unveiled her proposals amid much fanfare and glossy brochures. I have to wonder if this is just another example of a whole lot of talk and no action.

Now instead citizens are told that murderers are to receive life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years only to learn later that there is a chance of parole in as early as 15 years. They are told that the government is getting touch on crime by increasing sentences only to discover the same government is reducing the period of eligibility for parole to only one sixth of the sentence.

They are told that the government is seriously interested in attacking organized crime. Then they see drug dealing gang members serve their sentences at home.

I have serious reservations over some provisions of this bill. Some elements are long overdue and that is a travesty in itself. Other aspects are a result of this government's again changing its own legislation within months because instead of getting it right the first time it waits until there is a public backlash. And in some cases this government once again only goes half way toward addressing the problem.

Unless this legislation is amended in the areas of juvenile prostitution and conditional sentencing I will be opposing it.

[Justice, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a man has recently been charged for a rape committed two and half years ago while he was on bail for an earlier sexual assault. He could have been charged much earlier had the Burnaby RCMP not taken two years to report the first assault into the violent crime linkage analysis system.

I have asked the solicitor general in the past regarding problems with delays in reporting and data entry backlog for ViCLAS. Again, has he done anything and if not, why not?

[Victims Of Violence, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday night my wife and I presented our son's memorial scholarship to a young aspiring musician. Our son had similar dreams. His drums are now silent in the basement and we think what if? Young adults leaving the nest, a ritual he was denied.

On Saturday we attended the annual soccer tournament held in his memory. More than 300 boisterous young boys. His goalie gloves were cremated with him. We remember.

On Sunday his mother presented trophies and then attended a bridal shower for one of his friends. Pain only a mother can know. Soon we will mark the sixth anniversary of the evil which cut his young life short.

I am privileged to be able to speak in this place not only for my family but for thousands of other families that endure a similar grief in silent anonymity.

Our laws allow too many excuses for violence, everything from a disadvantaged childhood to drug abuse. Predators forget. Families do not. Our considerations belong with them, the silent ones.

[Young Offenders Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario's attorney general has been reported to be astounded over the Minister of Justice's proposals to further weaken the controversial youth justice laws.

Is the minister really planning to introduce mandatory release of young offenders after they serve only half of their sentences? Yes or no, please.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, may I just correct the last speaker. He referred to Burnaby. I would like to correct that to Surrey. Surrey is my town and I cannot let that go.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I admire the hon. member for Mississauga East for her tenacity toward this legislation. This is the third time she has attempted to bring this legislation to fruition. She has indicated that she has the support of 166 members of the House, including support from all parties. That would appear to be sufficient to reach a majority, but I will not be holding my breath. We have seen how government members soon forsake conscience and common sense once they receive the marching orders from the front benches.

In 1993 the Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in the government by providing MPs with a greater role in drafting legislation. More free votes were to be allowed. Now, almost five years later, we still do not have successful private members' legislation in the area of criminal justice. The House can appreciate my scepticism.

The House may also appreciate my concern over the inconsistencies of the hon. member for Mississauga East and many of her colleagues on that side of the House. In Bill C-41 in 1995, when they voted in favour of conditional sentencing, one must assume they did what the former minister of justice instructed them to do.

Just last week I note another sexual offender received absolutely no jail time for sexual assault and forcible confinement. This example is but just one of the most recent. There have been many other cases where sexual offenders have received the benefit of the Liberal Bill C-41 get out of jail free legislation.

On the one hand the proposer of the bill before us seeks increased sentencing for sexual offenders, but on the other hand she appears to say that it is okay for sexual offenders to serve their time at home. No wonder Canadians have lost faith in their politicians.

When this legislation was last debated in this place the then parliamentary secretary to solicitor general clearly put the writing on the wall for government members. He stated:

I am concerned that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, may take away flexibility and discretionary power from our courts and add to the already heavy burden of correctional bodies, when it comes to administering sentences.

He appears concerned about the administrative cost of keeping violent offenders in prison. We could only wish the Minister of Finance would express the same concern over the cost of administering the GST.

Later the then parliamentary secretary stated:

The proposed amendments, however, invoke punitive measures that far exceed the restrictions now set out in the Criminal Code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as threaten freedoms defended by the Charter, as I mentioned.

I suggest the word freedoms has no place in any discussion of sanctions for criminal activity. Here again we have an example of the Liberals' paralyzing fear of the charter.

Later on in his speech he added:

—the proposals now before us do not at this time reflect the best interests of the Canadian public.

That was a typical Liberal response that government knows best and the Canadian public is too stupid to decide for itself.

The parliamentary secretary was speaking for the front bench of the government. In this place there is little in the way of free votes for the government side. There is little likelihood of a substantive role in drafting necessary legislation by any backbencher, even those on the government side.

The parliamentary secretary once again used the charter as a reason for failing to respect the desires and needs of Canadians. It was noteworthy that he failed to explain just how the charter protects our most heinous criminals from receiving consecutive sentences. It was also noteworthy when he stated that these proposals did not reflect the best interests of the Canadian public.

Bill C-251 proposes to ensure that those offenders who commit sexual assault and another offence receive consecutive sentences. It ensures that murderers are not eligible for parole until they have served the sentence for the murder plus a stated minimum for any other sentence imposed.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the best interests of Canadians. I think he may only be thinking of the best interests of our criminals. He is certainly not thinking about the victims of those crimes and he is not thinking about the safety of our communities.

Just this past week another university study into sexual violence severely criticized our criminal justice system for not seriously dealing with this issue. It is more concerned with the interests of criminals than it is with the needs of victims or public safety. The study found that only 13% of child molesters and 30% of sexual assaults of adults result in sentences of more than two years. This was compared to robbers who in 53% of cases receive more than two years. Children and women are most often the victims of sexual offences but the government is doing little to address this anomaly. Perhaps this private member's bill will help to correct that failure.

Consecutive sentencing would provide incentive for our justice system to pursue a complete record of our offenders. Too often crown prosecutors proceed only with one or two charges against the accused. There is usually only one cumulative sentence so there is nothing to be gained from proceeding with multiple offences, but this results in a major travesty and injustice at the time of parole.

Parole is based strictly on convictions. For example, Larry Takahashi was granted day passes even though he had admitted to sexually assaulting up to 30 women and police believed he was responsible for up to 100 sexual assaults. As far as the parole system was concerned he was responsible for 11 sexual assaults on seven women. When it came time to review his record for day parole purposes, only the convictions were considered.

Consecutive sentencing would bring about truth in sentencing. Multiple offenders would be distinguished from the one-time offender. There would be more honesty in sentencing. Presently our judges impose, for example, a one year sentence for a sexual assault. The victims and the public are deceived into believing the offender actually serves one year in custody, but as we all know parole takes place for every offence.

Offenders such as in this example often get out in a few days or a few months. The judges say they do their job by applying an appropriate sentence for the crime, but then the parole system gets involved and officials have the responsibility to get the prisoner out of incarceration at the earliest legislated opportunity.

The parole system states that they are just doing their job of following the rules toward release, but there is no truth in sentencing. Few if any actually serve the full court imposed sentence of incarceration. Even our most heinous murderers get reviews of their life sentences at 15 years pursuant to section 745. A notorious child killer whose name I will not say in this place murdered 11 children but was sentenced as though he had killed but one.

As we speak, a section 745 hearing is in progress in Vancouver for a man who killed three bar patrons and then drove to an RCMP detachment where he murdered the constable behind the counter. He too was sentenced as though he had taken but one life.

If I might add, in that case the killer allegedly shot another constable in the police detachment but was never prosecuted for that because there was no reason for it as there would be no difference in the sentence. The message to the criminal: kill as often as you wish, only the first one counts, the rest are freebies. The message to the victims: only the first life is important, the rest are inconsequential.

As to the specifics of Bill C-251, I wonder why the hon. member restricted her bill to section 271, the sexual assault offence. If her bill is successful I can only wonder how things will work when we have an offender who commits a sexual assault with a weapon pursuant to section 272 plus other offences. Will the crown proceed with the lesser offence of mere sexual assault with the hope that the sentence will be added to those for the other crimes or will the crown proceed with section 272 and hope that its sentence alone will meet society's objective? It appears as though our crowns may become professional gamblers in our courts.

I also wonder why the hon. member proposing this bill restricts it to sexual assault and murder. She does not include manslaughter, instances of use of a firearm in the commission of an offence and she does not include aggravated assault.

To sum up, I will support this member's initiative but I seriously question whether her own party members will have the fortitude to support their conscience rather than meekly following the orders from the front bench.

I support this bill as a start. It is certainly a long way from providing sufficient protection within our communities. It is a long way from being totally honest with our citizens. It is also a long way from attending to the interests of victims. However, I urge all members of the House to support this bill.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by approximately 800 citizens requesting parliament to amend the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an adult from 14 years to 16 years.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first is a petition signed by approximately 200 citizens requesting parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act by lowering the age limit, by providing for the automatic transfer of violent offenders to adult court and by providing for the publication of names of violent offenders.

[Commissioner For The Rights Of Victims Of Crime, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Motion No. 386 proposed by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

While I am in support of the concept of creating a position of commissioner for the rights of victims of crime with a role similar to that of the correctional investigator, I have some reservations and some concerns.

The official objective of the office of the correctional investigator is to act as an ombudsman for the federal corrections service.

It is to ensure an independent review and investigation of problems of federal offenders related to the decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner of corrections, his servants or agents, in relation to the administration of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In simple terms, his office is the complaint department for federal inmates.

We may from time to time question the validity of some of these complaints, but that is another issue.

As has been said by many, there seems to be a definite inequity in our justice system when for years we have had an advocate for offenders but not for victims of crime. This inequity only adds to public scepticism that we appear to be far more interested in the rights of criminals than we are in the rights of the law abiding and the innocent.

Mr. Ron Stewart has occupied the correctional investigator position for a number of years and Canadians have indeed been fortunate to have his independent management. He has never been hesitant to publicly criticize the government for its failures and deficiencies. Obviously, he has not been a political patronage appointment who merely goes through the motions on behalf of the interests of government.

I am concerned that Canadians feel confident that any such commissioner for the rights of victims of crime retain similar independence. The position must go to an individual who will do the job for Canadians and not merely for the government.

As I have said, Mr. Stewart has shown an independence. For years now he has been boldly reporting correctional failures. However, there is one glaring shortcoming and that has to do with the power or, more precisely, the lack of power of his position.

Each year he reports many of the same faults and inadequacies and each year the government fails to properly remedy the problems. It will do us little good to have an independent commissioner for the rights of victims of crime unless we also have a mechanism in place to ensure that investigations and reports are acted upon.

It does little good to continually have recommendations being made without some legislative requirement to act upon those recommendations and some form of accountability.

Assuming we provide the proposed commissioner for the rights of victims of crime with the full independence to do a proper job and assuming we appoint someone who will have the intestinal fortitude to take on the government as necessary, we would then have to consider the mandate of that position.

What responsibilities would be assigned? Would they include the ability to investigate national parole board or correctional service decisions whereby individuals are released from our institutions only to violently reoffend within days?

There have been a number of recent incidents. The parole board decided that armed robbery with a gun was not a violent offence because no shots were fired. It granted parole and the offender promptly went out and killed three people.

Another killer was paroled, but nobody bothered to tell the woman he moved in with about his past, and he killed her.

A man is given statutory release, despite warnings that he is a high risk to commit violence, and 50 days later he participates in the torture and the murder of a young man right here in Ottawa.

At present the departments of corrections and parole investigate themselves when their decisions are called into question. I do not know whom this government thinks it is fooling, but this conflict of interest certainly does not add to the credibility and trust of our citizens in the process. Obviously, we need an independent review. Perhaps this office could undertake that responsibility.

The motion suggests a role similar to that of the correctional investigator. It is noted that the budget for the correctional investigator is in excess of $1 million per year. In 1996 he had 17 people on staff. I would hope that something similar to this might be allocated to a victim's advocate, especially if the office gets involved in investigating the actions of other departments.

I am concerned that the justice minister, who has stated that she is open to this development, may be just making a token gesture toward victims to make it appear that the government is interested in their issues. If an office is to be created, it must be set up correctly and it must have a meaningful role within our justice system. A token effort, another bureaucracy or another opportunity to reward the faithful with patronage plums will certainly not satisfy our citizens. It will only add to their angst and disenchantment with the criminal justice system in general.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is presently reviewing the victim's role in the criminal justice system. We have already heard that victims have different rights depending on which province or territory they come from. We need universal standards so that all Canadians obtain the same rights.

Perhaps the proposed commissioner's office could be assigned the responsibility to lobby and co-ordinate toward common benefits right across the country. It could also be utilized to provide national education programs to our citizens so that everyone is advised of what assistance and resources are available to victims of crime.

It could also be used to advise and assist the government to make appropriate amendments to our laws to provide improved rights to victims. It could become the resource centre for our various victims groups. There would appear to be a multitude of opportunities for such an office.

As I have stated, the standing committee is studying the issue. There will also be a forum on victims' rights next week and I am sure we will obtain input on what is desired by Canadians.

The motion of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough only proposes the creation of the position. Should the government see fit to accept the proposal, the nuts and bolts will of course have to be hammered out as to what the commissioner will be set up to do.

I support this motion even though I have some reservations and concerns. The idea certainly has merit, but it must be set up properly. The motion suggests a role similar to that of the correctional investigator and, while the correctional investigator's independence is valued, I am sure we can propose an even better operation.

There must be some teeth provided to the office of the commissioner of the rights of victims of crime. It will do little to set up an office, proceed with annual reporting to parliament as to its activities and recommendations, and forget to include some form of accountability toward acting on those recommendations.

I thank everyone for the opportunity to speak to this worthwhile endeavour. I also thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for proposing this motion. It is unfortunate that this motion has not been deemed a votable item. Therefore, I propose a motion to this House for unanimous consent to make Motion M-386 votable.