Chuck Cadman

[Viclas, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a number of weeks since I first asked the solicitor general about the violent crime linkage analysis system or ViCLAS that the RCMP computer system used for tracking serial killers and sex offenders.

Senior police officials say that it is only a matter of time before a preventable rape or murder occurs because there are thousands of crimes missing from the computer databank.

Just what is the solicitor general doing to ensure that this valuable investigative tool gets all the resources required to keep it running?

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of speaking to preventing the use of conditional sentencing for violent criminals and drug traffickers earlier today on our supply day motion. My comments in that speech are just as applicable here.

As I stated earlier, the former minister of justice erred when he refused to limit the scope of conditional sentencing. Through Bill C-41 it is available to even violent offenders and drug traffickers. At first the former Minister of Justice said the courts would of course restrict the application to non-violent offenders and they did not. Then he attempted to tinker with the wording through Bill C-17 and that still has not worked. He and the government for political reasons refuse to admit their error and correct it. In the meantime those Canadians affected are holding our justice system in disrepute.

To support these criticisms I will first of all refer to the Alberta Court of Appeal case of Steven James Waldner. Mr. Justice Berger made it very clear that conditional sentencing was open to violent offenders and drug traffickers when he said at page 6 of the decision “Parliament has made the legislative choice to exclude only those offences punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment from the regime of conditional sentencing”. At page 7 he said “Unless parliament has barred what would otherwise be an option, the starting point must be that all options are open”.

I will provide a case of drug trafficking and conditional sentencing. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia decided that Trung Viet Bui's conditional sentence was appropriate. Mr. Bui and his brother-in-law were in the drug trafficking business and undercover agents caught Mr. Bui. He sold approximately $3,000 worth of cocaine in the first transaction and about $35,000 worth of cocaine in a second transaction, not exactly a nickel and dime operation. Obviously these individuals were well connected to be dealing at this level.

We all know of the damage done to our society by the sale of drugs. Younger members of our communities are particularly susceptible to addiction and to criminal actions to support their habits. The court of appeal decided that since Mr. Bui had served a year of his conditional sentence without difficulty, he should continue. Little discussion occurred regarding deterrence of denunciation over high level drug trafficking and what it does to our society.

I will now move on to some sexual assault cases. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia in the Ronald Neil Scott case dealt with the issue of conditional sentencing. Mr. Scott was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching in relation to incidents with his step-granddaughter from when she was five or six years old until she was 10. His actions came to light when the victim told a school friend that Mr. Scott would offer money for touching his privates. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and placed on probation for two years. He was sentenced prior to conditional sentencing coming into effect but his appeal occurred subsequently.

The court decided that conditional sentencing was a lesser punishment available to the accused and he should be considered for its application. It also stated that parliament had formed the intention to provide for and encourage the imposition of conditional sentences and wherever appropriate the courts must carry out that intention. The court decided that the offender was not a danger to the community because he had only done these acts with his step-granddaughter. He obtained conditional sentencing even though it was not available at the time of his offence or at the time of his sentencing.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Regina v M.M. also took advantage of conditional sentencing. The accused was convicted of three counts of gross indecency with the three children of his girlfriend. He commenced his sexual activities with one victim when she was nine years old and with the other when she was 10. He was often left alone to babysit the three girls. The abuse continued over a period of nine years and involved countless acts of gross indecency. Evidence was presented that he often had sex with their mother in front of the three girls.

In deciding whether to accept conditional sentencing as a possibility, the court viewed the purpose of the reform to reduce the number of persons sentenced to prison. The court viewed a conditional sentence as still a jail sentence but one that is served in the community. The court decided that no sentence could right the wrong done to the three girls. The court agreed that sexual assault was a crime of inherent violence but recognized that parliament had decreed a scheme of conditional sentencing. A conditional sentence was applied.

I will now provide another case which goes to show how we permit and maybe even encourage criminals to move up the scale into more serious crime. The Court of Appeal in British Columbia in the case of John Paxton McEwen had to consider conditional sentencing. In 1997 at age 24 he attacked a 78-year old woman who was out walking near her home at 10 o'clock in the morning. When he stole her purse from around her arm she suffered a broken and dislocated arm. Surgery was likely required and she suffered serious psychological injuries. The experience had a very serious effect upon her life.

His previous record indicated that he had had a large number of second opportunities. In 1992 he was convicted of mischief and given a suspended sentence and probation for eight months. Also in 1992 he was convicted of impaired driving and fined. In 1994 he was convicted of driving while disqualified and fined. Also in 1994 he was convicted of assault, sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a year. In 1996 he was convicted of theft and he was fined. He was also convicted at that time of failing to appear and he was fined.

The trial judge gave McEwen a conditional sentence for one year for his attack on this elderly woman. He was also ordered to take drug and alcohol counselling and to stay away from the victim. The court of appeal decided that the trial judge's decision did not go far enough. It ordered the remaining portion of his one year conditional sentence to be served in custody but subject to any parole as if he had been incarcerated for the entire period.

When we look at his continuing record and the growing seriousness of his offences we can see that he is not getting the message. The conditional sentence will certainly do little to convince him of the error of his ways. More individuals will likely be victimized in the future.

I have to question just what messages are being sent to victims in communities by these conditional sentences. These cases show that you can traffic in cocaine at highly profitable levels and if caught, serve your sentence at home. You can sexually assault children in your care and serve a little time at home. You can even attack senior citizens while they walk in the community and be sent home for your efforts, even if you happen to hurt them badly or possess an extensive record.

That is just not good enough. The justice committee must be encouraged to fill the void which the Minister of Justice has refused to address.

Reducing the number of prisoners serving time in our institutions is one thing. Failing to deter or denounce violent crimes is something else entirely. The former justice minister brought in conditional sentencing to reduce the pressures on our institutions. Obviously little thought or consideration was given as to how the best interests of offenders and the corrections system would impact negatively on the interests of victims and society at large.

The concept of conditional sentencing is not at issue here. What is at issue is who should qualify to benefit from it. Violent and multiple repeat offenders as well as major drug traffickers should be excluded. I urge the government to fix this problem immediately.

[Justice, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it appears as though the government minister is becoming an expert in creating loopholes and finding technicalities.

Let us take her so-called firm measure to move 14 to 15 year olds to adult court. It is crafted so that there are so many exceptions, exemptions and loopholes that only 21 cases in all of Canada last year would be affected.

Does the minister honestly think that changing the law for 21 cases is a firm measure?

[Justice, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Canadians to understand just how insignificant the proposed youth justice changes are. I would emphasize they are just proposals. The minister still has not actually changed the law.

The 14 and 15 year olds involved in the initial beating of Reena Virk in Victoria would not be covered by these proposals. If this kind of violence is not covered just how serious are these proposals?

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minister mentioned that 25% of Canadians are afraid to walk the streets. That means that one member of a family of four is afraid to walk the streets at night. I would like to inform the minister that one quarter of my family of four walked down the street one night, unafraid, and I now have a family of three.

My friend Chris Simmonds had his family reduced from four to three by a man who was out on bail after shooting a man in the face.

Does the minister really feel that 25% of Canadians being afraid to walk the streets is acceptable?

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

My experience over the past number of years with victims groups and with individual victims certainly highlights the stresses imposed on victims, particularly the families of victims of homicide. These are cases that obviously inflict incredible trauma and stress among the families. The last thing they need is to not be told what is going on, and this happens time and time again. It does not happen all the time, I must admit. Through my own experience I am not afraid to basically go to the horse's mouth for the answers. But most people cannot do that sort of thing. It delays the grieving process. It is part of dealing with the issue to be kept informed and to be able to talk about these things.

I have heard of cases where a person takes an afternoon off to go to court because somebody who is accused is supposed to appear and when they get there they find out the accused appeared in the morning and nobody bothered to tell them about it.

I know of cases where an accused has been released on parole and their victim has come across them on the main street in town. It retraumatizes victims.

Victims rights legislation and dealing with those kinds of issues regarding specifically notification and the victim's role in the criminal justice process is long overdue. I am happy to say the justice committee is finally starting to hear testimony on this. We will keep our fingers crossed and see what the government plans to do. Like I said in my speech, I am not going to hold my breath for a long time.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is an important question.

Before I became a member of this place I spent a lot of time in the schools over the past five years talking to young people about violence, trying to work with them and trying to make them understand the ramifications. It certainly has been my experience over those years from the number of young people I have talked to in the schools that there is fear among our youth. They are the majority of victims of youth crime.

I dare say that when a class full of high school students is asked what it would do with the Young Offenders Act I find that most students would be far more harsh than anything members have ever heard from the Reform Party.

That explains the kind of fear students experience in their schools. It is not only something I have seen in my riding or the hon. members has seen in his. I have seen this throughout B.C. at every school and youth group that I have had the pleasure of addressing on these issues.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to such a worthwhile motion today.

While I have not been here as a member of parliament for very long, I have been here long enough to understand that today's debate will likely not encourage the government to pursue meaningful changes or improvements. The government does not appear to be too interested in changing the status quo. In fact I would go so far as to say it is primarily responsible for most of the ills and complaints that our citizens have today.

This motion makes three specific recommendations: one, to strengthen the Young Offenders Act; two, to abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and three, to introduce a victims bill of rights. These three issues are prominent reasons why I became a member of parliament.

Previously I had been actively involved in pursuing improvements to the Young Offenders Act. I was able to review the proposals made by the member for Crowfoot in his minority report subsequent to the 10-year review of the Young Offenders Act. His proposals helped me to choose the Reform Party as being the most likely opportunity to achieve improvements to our laws.

Just days ago the Minister of Justice finally announced her youth justice strategy. After almost a year on the job we expected some comprehensive legislation in response to last year's justice committee recommendations to significantly change laws regarding young offenders. Instead of legislation the minister produced a strategy. The minister has become so fond of the term “in a timely fashion” to describe her intentions regarding change that I believe she may have difficulty in understanding what that term actually means.

The Young Offenders Act was first made law in 1985. The 10-year review was not completed until 12 years later. It then took a year for the minister to ignore some of the key recommendations and merely announce what she hopes to do in the coming fall session. Meanwhile she intends to spend many more months studying, reviewing and analysing. I have heard that law professors are known for studying and analysing. I guess those among them who come to this place have difficulty in understanding that a minister has a responsibility to do something about a problem, not merely study it to death.

I appreciate that these comments may sound somewhat harsh but young offender legislation is of particular interest to myself and my family. Each day the minister reacts “in a timely fashion” means that additional victims in communities have to live with what even she has admitted to be seriously flawed legislation. And it is seriously flawed in spite of the attempts by her predecessor to address the failings of the Young Offenders Act, but I will save further comment in that regard for a future date.

On the issue of victims rights, I introduced Private Members' Bill C-294 last December. It is intended to balance the rights of victims and the rights of criminals. For years Canadians have complained that this government falls over backward to ensure that criminals receive all their rights and all their freedoms while not being nearly so vigilant as to ensure that victims and society at large also receive due consideration for their rights and freedoms.

My bill would provide a formal recognition of victims as a party to the criminal justice system. The system would be mandated to keep victims informed of developments in their case. There would be provision for the broader use of victims impact statements and restitution could be ordered for psychological harm done to victims.

Over two years ago the former justice minister promised to address his government's failure to properly amend our laws and to fully recognize the interest of victims. At that time he stated “Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”.

Almost a year ago the present Minister of Justice stated: “We have not done enough to accommodate the interests of victims within the criminal justice system”. Canadians are still waiting. Our laws are still inadequate and the government still has done nothing to address the interests of victims within the criminal justice system.

The justice committee has finally begun to consider the issue, but will the government have the fortitude to act? Only time will tell. Hopefully for the sake of victims of crime and society at large it will approach victims rights in a responsible manner, but I know better than to hold my breath.

I will now move on to the issue of abolishing conditional sentences for violent offenders. It is distressing that we even have to resort to a motion in an attempt to convince the government to do what it should have done over three years ago. The former government brought conditional sentences into the Criminal Code in 1995 through Bill C-41. Reform has no difficulty with the concept of alternative measures and conditional sentences, but we did argue to limit them to non-violent offenders.

The former minister in his infinite wisdom decided that he would not and could not give credit to the Reform Party for exposing his failure to appreciate the ramifications of unlimited conditional sentences. He initially held the position that of course the courts would not apply conditional sentencing for violent offenders. We all know the courts did use these lenient provisions for violent criminal acts.

The court said that if parliament intended to limit the provision it should have said so in the statute. What did the minister do? He pretended that it was a problem of interpretation by the courts and to assist them he again tinkered with the legislation. In Bill C-17 which passed in 1997 he made minor changes to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to try to direct judges as to when to permit conditional sentences.

He should have said something more to the effect that thou shalt not use conditional sentences for violent offenders and drug traffickers. I guess that was too direct and uncomplicated.

What kind of mess are we in? For one thing the former minister has definitely helped his colleagues in the legal profession. A little legislative issue has generated millions of dollars for those at the legal bar. It has cost taxpayers in many different ways. Cases have to be appealed, justice is delayed until cases are finally adjudicated to closure, appeal courts are clogged with matters that never should have been an issue, and our crowns are tied up with arguments and cases which should have been straightforward. After three years of outstanding government ineptitude the minister of timely fashion has announced that maybe we should study the issue of conditional sentencing to determine why it is being used for unacceptable violent offences. Perhaps she should review some of the decisions of the various courts of appeal. She will soon realize how our justice system is being thrown into disrepute over this provision.

Derek Anderson Austin, convicted of cultivating marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, received a conditional sentence. He had a long record, including possession, trafficking, four failures to appear, driving while disqualified, unlawfully at large and obstruction of police. On appeal the court of appeal stated: “We are very surprised that such a person would be given a conditional sentence”. What happened? Nothing, because the sentence had already been served.

There are those who receive conditional sentences together with community service. The lawyers ensure that some or all of the community service is completed before an appeal can be heard. At that point the hands of the appeal court are tied as the offender has already been punished and it would be illegal to incarcerate them. The former minister of justice solved the problem of our growing prison population by providing even those who deserve to be imprisoned with this lenient and abused conditional sentencing provision.

Court cases are brimming over with examples of individuals who obtained conditional sentences in appropriate circumstances but the courts of appeal were barred from rectifying matters because some or all of the sentence had in effect already been served.

Ronald John Schmidt received a nine month custodial sentence for sexual assault. He told his seven-year old victim not to tell anyone or he would do it again. He appealed for a conditional sentence even though none existed at the time he was sentenced. He was granted a nine month conditional sentence. There are a number of cases of sexual assault by persons in positions of trust over children where conditional sentences have been imposed. Conditional sentencing does not carry with it society's denunciation for these offences. Deterrence will not be effected by such leniency. Parliament's support for these inappropriate sentencing provisions will only reduce the standards of our country.

There are hundreds of other cases of improper and questionable use of conditional sentencing for violent offences but my time will not permit me to go into them in detail. We have a flawed Young Offenders Act and a minister who is taking forever to do what she could have done years ago. We have promises upon promises to address victims rights issues but the government wants more studies. We have a sentencing regime which permits violent offenders to serve their sentences at home.

Yes, the House should condemn the government for its inaction and for its failures with respect to our criminal justice system.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister admitted that her mere promise for change did not have caucus approval for funding and did not have provincial support in a cost sharing scheme.

Is it not obvious we still have months or even years to go before we receive effective legislation?

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister admitted that the Young Offenders Act was seriously flawed. The act was amended in 1995 by her seatmate in the House so her comments would appear to be a reflection on her predecessor and indeed the government.

The minister appears to have a keen grasp of the obvious. I ask her why after five years in power Canadians still do not have effective legislation.