Chuck Cadman

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be afforded the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today I would like to deal with four specific topics: first, the issue of the pay raise for our judges; second, the issue of the establishment of a judicial compensation and benefits commission; third, the Judges Act itself; and fourth, a particularly troublesome definition within the legislation.

On the issue of the pay raise I must state how disappointed I am. Once again we witness this government going to great lengths to look after what some might refer to as the upper class or the elite of our society. At the same time, what is it doing for the ordinary citizens other than taxing them into the ground?

Just a few weeks ago this government announced pay increases for the executive levels of the civil service. Those who occupy the upper echelons of our civil service were well looked after. Meanwhile, those in the trenches, the clerks and receptionists who form the first line of contact between the government and its citizens, are again expected to do without.

I would like to illustrate my point with a specific example from my own community of Surrey, British Columbia. When this government provided pay increases to the executive levels of the civil service it included the person who we in Surrey might refer to as our chief of police, even though he is with the RCMP and they do not use that title.

Chief Superintendent Terry Smith, the officer in charge of the Surrey detachment, the largest in the country, came within the qualifications for a raise in pay. In fact all chief superintendents, assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners, as well as the commissioner himself received raises in pay. The constables and the corporals did not. Those men and women charged with keeping our communities safe were passed over. It was not until this past Friday that the lower ranks obtained raises in pay after a five year freeze.

I would suggest that this raise came about primarily as a result of the leadership shown not by the government, but by the upper management of the RCMP itself. Chief Superintendent Smith and his colleagues, to their credit, had refused to accept their pay raises until those in the lower ranks received the long overdue and much needed increase in salaries.

I have spoken with Chief Superintendent Smith on several occasions and he has expressed concern over significant staffing problems within the Surrey detachment. If he has a problem, then the citizens of my community definitely have a problem. If my constituents have a problem, then it is my duty to bring it to the attention of those who are in a position to do something about it, namely the officials of this place.

What is happening is that experienced members of the RCMP are leaving the force in droves. They are being lured away by other police departments. The Vancouver Police Department and the Calgary Police Service are just two of the organizations which have been quite eager to obtain fully trained and experienced RCMP officers. In Vancouver an RCMP member can leave the force on Friday, start with the Vancouver Police Department on Monday and, in effect, receive a $5,000 a year raise. Some go to the special investigations unit of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and some go to B.C. Transit. Indeed, the Surrey detachment just recently lost a much respected and experienced member to the Municipal Bylaw Enforcement Department, one presumes for better pay, better hours and in all likelihood significantly less stress.

Chief Superintendent Smith is plagued with almost perpetual vacancies. He is forced to fill positions with either raw new recruits or with personnel of lesser experience. In fact, when last we spoke he estimated that between 25% and 28% of Surrey's finest were rookies. That has the effect of reducing the overall efficiency of the detachment.

I regularly go on ride-alongs and I can assure members that it is not an easy community to police, partly because Surrey has one of the poorest if not the poorest police-to-resident ratios in the country.

Where does this leave the residents of Surrey, a large, sprawling, diverse municipality with both urban and rural aspects and a very large immigrant community? Terry Smith has every reason to be concerned, as do my constituents.

Residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia will tell everybody who wants to hear about it that it is the most desirable place in the country in which to live, primarily because of the climate, although we would never know it the way the weather has been here for the last few days. However, there is a price to be paid, which is the high cost of living. For that very reason it is well known within the RCMP establishment that the lower mainland is not an enviable posting. Experienced police officers are not compelled to accept transfers to Surrey and they do not do so because it is just not a practical financial decision.

What did the RCMP rank and file receive after five years of waiting? They received 2.75%. They have to wait until next October to benefit from the whole package. Even then they will still be approximately $3,000 behind their Vancouver counterparts.

I compare the increase in pay received by the already well compensated judges with the increases afforded our RCMP officers. As I said, the Mounties get 2.75%, payable in increments, retroactive to January 1 of this year, while the judges get 4.1%, retroactive to April 1, 1997 and then get a further 4.1% compounded to their new 1997 salary figures, payable on April 1, 1998. They already receive, on average, in the vicinity of $140,000 per year. The government seems to believe that it needs to retroactively come to the aid of these poor, financially strapped judges all the way back to April of last year.

Does it come to the same conclusion when compensating our police officers? No. The government throws a few pennies at them, retroactive to January, gives them a few more pennies in April and then tells them to wait until October for the remainder.

Another example is the violent crime linkage analysis system, or ViCLAS. ViCLAS is a computer database developed by the RCMP, used to analyze, research and search out potential links between violent crimes. It has the potential to save enormous amounts of investigative time and effort. More important, since it targets serial killers and sex offenders, the potential to prevent future victims is invaluable. Used by police forces throughout the world it has already been proven successful and is recognized as the best.

Yet in speaking with E Division ViCLAS representatives, the project is in serious danger of going under due to lack of funding and inadequate staffing. How ironic. This is a world class crime solving and crime prevention tool originally developed by the RCMP, but the RCMP will not be able to use it. Why? The government says it does not have the money, yet there appears to be plenty of money available to give judges a raise.

This government appears to have its priorities all out of sync. It falls over backwards to look after its friends, but fails to look after those who need it most. It likes to talk about public safety and crime prevention, but it seems to have a difficult time putting its money where its mouth is.

I will now move on to the issue of the judicial compensation and benefits commission. The government wants to set up yet another bureaucratic agency merely to concern itself with the salaries and benefits of judges. I see, as well, that the governor in council will appoint this new commission. The Minister of Justice gets to make another political patronage appointment. It is just what this country needs, more patronage, more friends of the government to carry out governmental responsibilities without being accountable to the citizens of this country. What we need is less patronage.

If we must establish a commission why is it not set up to conduct public hearings into judicial appointments? Yes, it could also govern pay and benefits, all subject of course to parliamentary approval.

How much is the judicial compensation and benefits commission going to cost Canadian taxpayers? What do we get for this money?

We are going to appoint three people at, no doubt, fairly attractive salaries to carry out their duties. They will be paid fees fixed by the governor in council. In addition, they will be paid travel and living expenses which are also fixed by the governor in council. There will be no parliamentary review or control of these salaries and fees.

It gets worse. Under section 26.2 as proposed by the bill the commission may engage the services of any persons necessary for the proper conduct of the commission.

Once again we are being asked to create a new agency of bureaucrats and provide them with all the financial resources to have others do the work for them. There are obviously other portions of this bill which deserve comment, but my limited time will not permit me to discuss them today.

I will now move on to the third issue I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Judges Act itself. This is the third time this act has been before the House in the last couple of years. Bill C-2 was passed in March 1996. Bill C-42 was passed in June 1996. We now have the Judges Act back once again for amendment. One must ask: Was the previous minister of justice so incompetent that he had to bring the same legislation before the House twice within a matter of months? Did he still not get it right as it is now back again?

I hope we do not have other acts of parliament like this. I am sure Canadian people would not be too impressed if it came to their attention how much time and debate is devoted in this place just to our judges. No wonder our country has a $600 billion debt. In the last two years legislation regarding judges has been brought before the House three times.

One must wonder about the misplaced priorities. Maybe we should not be too surprised. Last June, eight months ago, the Minister of Justice stated that the young offender legislation was her top priority. We have not seen it yet.

The former minister of justice promised almost two years ago to bring in victims' rights legislation. This past summer the present Minister of Justice told Canadians that it was also one of her priorities. Victims are still waiting.

But the Liberals are certainly wasting no time in looking after the judges. Imagine.

I will now move on to the fourth issue. As I mentioned earlier, a definition within the legislation causes me some difficulty. It appears at the first clause of the bill. It amends section 2 of the act to include the definition for surviving spouse. What attracts my attention is that the definition of spouse is limited to a person of the opposite sex. It seems to me that this Liberal government has gone to great ends to foist the whole issue of same sex benefits onto Canadians, but it would appear as though this legislation creates an exception for judges. Regardless of one's personal opinion, I have to ask why there seems to be one rule for judges and another rule for the rest of us.

There is another reason to be concerned with legislation which proposes to give judges an increase in pay. Recent surveys have shown beyond a doubt that Canadians have lost confidence in the courts; not just the justice system, but the judiciary itself. That is extremely troubling. Canadians are telling us that they have no faith in judges to uphold the law.

There are those who will undoubtedly argue that people who say such things do not understand the system. There is that elitism showing through again. Certainly most citizens are unfamiliar with the intricacies and the vagaries of the justice system. My goodness, I know lawyers who become confused. What the public does understand, however, are dubious decisions which come from the bench, like decisions to sanction violent offenders by sending them home on conditional sentences. Even the Alberta court of appeal was extremely critical of some of their peers in this regard.

What about this one? A man suspected in the kidnapping and forcible confinement of two young women while fleeing from the police attacks a third woman, puts a plastic bag over her head and wraps a length of wire tightly around her neck. The judge ruled that this could not be viewed as an attempt to kill her. The man was eventually convicted of not only the initial offences but two murders in another province.

What Canadians also understand are outrageous comments from the bench, comments suggesting that a three-year old child was sexually provocative, implying that she was in part responsible for an assault against herself; comments suggesting that rape is acceptable in some cultures; comments implying that the sexual assault of three young girls by their teacher was not as serious as the “buggery of little boys”.

We know that most judges conduct themselves in an extremely responsible and thoughtful manner, but in this climate of public mistrust to grant our judiciary such a generous increase while other public servants receive nothing or a pittance at best merely invites more cynicism.

With that note, I will end my comments on this legislation.

[Petitions, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition containing the names of some 285 citizens who are calling on parliament to remove the goods and services tax from all books, magazines and newspapers.

The petitioners cite the taxing of reading material as being not only unfair and wrong, but also as imposing an impediment to the promotion of literacy in Canada.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, March 30th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-388, 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 would like to thank my colleague from Wild Rose for seconding this bill.

I am privileged to introduce this private member's bill which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The present act not only permits offenders to make application for parole, it also allows them to withdraw that application at any time with little if any repercussion. They can then reapply almost immediately.

A great deal of time, effort and money is expended by authorities to prepare for these parole hearings. Arguably even more troubling is the fact that victims expend enormous emotional and perhaps financial resources in preparing to attend these hearings which frequently take place far from their homes. Not only does it make little sense, it is just not good enough to permit offenders to have complete control over a process that burdens the taxpayer and revictimizes the victim.

These amendments will place a consequence on offenders who withdraw applications for parole at the last moment. Unless there are reasonable and valid grounds for withdrawal, the offender will be barred from reapplying for a period of two years.

I urge all members to give careful consideration to the support of these amendments.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Young Offenders Act, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has been promising for months to amend the young offenders legislation. Many of the provinces have already indicated exasperation over the delay.

Last June the minister informed Canadians that young offender legislation was her top priority. Eight months. Some priority.

When can we expect the long overdue fulfilment of her promise? The minister often uses the word “timely”. Canadians deserve and expect better than that.

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, section 745, the faint hope clause, is alive and well in Ottawa. Brett Morgan was convicted of murdering Louise Ellis. He also killed an Edmonton woman and is a suspect in another murder. An Ottawa judge recently sentenced him to life with no opportunity for parole for 25 years.

Yesterday I had lunch with Susan Ashley whose 16 year old sister, Linda Bright, was murdered by Donald Armstrong 16 years ago. Like Morgan, Armstrong is believed to have killed before. Like Morgan, Armstrong was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 25 years.

Linda Bright's family was shocked and angered when Armstrong applied under section 745. I expect Louis Ellis' family will also be shocked.

It is time for the government either to scrap section 745 or be honest with Canadians by admitting it believes that murderers should serve no more than 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole.

We all know what our Canadian police have been saying in our offices this week: “Scrap section 745”.

[Petitions, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition of some 2,000 names requesting Parliament to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an adult from 14 years to 16 years.

These petitioners are concerned, as are all Canadians, about the increasing sexual exploitation of our young people. They look to us and this place to do something about it.

[Justice, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are concerned about earthquake victims in Afghanistan but 10 days ago near my home two 15 year olds were shot. Last week the father of one of them buried his young son. I am angered because I know that pain.

What we hear from this justice minister are warm and fuzzy words about youth violence like partnerships and stakeholders. Without a sermon on gun control would she please tell us how many more parents must put their children in the ground before this government stops tinkering and does something?

[Customs Act, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation which is long, long overdue.

The constituency I represent, Surrey North in British Columbia, is situated between the city of Vancouver and the U.S. border. My home is a mere 15 minute drive from one of the busiest border crossings in Canada. I have had the opportunity to frequently come into contact with customs personnel at our border points to the state of Washington.

It is my understanding that in just the past couple of years our customs officers have encountered more than 8,500 impaired drivers, approximately 200 suspected child abductions and more than 2,000 people wanted on warrants of arrest. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how previous governments could be in possession of this type of information and not immediately act upon it in the interests of public safety both here in Canada and abroad.

Imagine, 8,500 impaired drivers crossing our borders with the potential of wreaking havoc on our streets and highways. Meanwhile our customs officers, government employees and our first line of defence being fully aware of the danger posed by these impaired individuals find themselves in a position where they are virtually powerless to do anything about it. Astounding.

This lends new meaning to the phrase “only in Canada”. This bill will provide increased powers for the apprehension of those who would enter this country to break our laws. As the justice critic for the official opposition, I cannot help but be in favour of this type of legislation.

Customs officers will now be able to effect Criminal Code arrest warrants and they will be permitted to administer the preliminary roadside screening test on motorists they suspect to be under the influence of alcohol. Canadians can only be better off now that finally something is being done. In the past our customs officers were restricted to reporting incidents to the police who would hopefully arrive on the scene in time before offenders moved on.

It is my understanding there are approximately 2,500 customs officers who will be provided with these additional powers. This is a significant improvement to what can best be described as law enforcement responsibilities within our country. But as usual, everything can never be all rosy with this Liberal government.

Every year at the crossing near my home, customs officers confiscate large numbers of firearms of all descriptions. Some I have no doubt are seized from travellers who are merely unaware of our laws regarding the transport of firearms. However I suspect others are being brought into Canada for more sinister purposes.

As I have previously stated, these officers will now be effecting arrest warrants and we all know that will, in all likelihood, involve unpredictable individuals and potentially dangerous situations.

This government in its wisdom will in the process of adding to the duties and responsibilities of our customs personnel be putting them at increased risk when dealing with dangerous persons. However, it will not be providing them with side arms with which to protect themselves when apprehending these people.

I believe at one point there was some mention of issuing bulletproof vests. I suppose that is better than nothing but sometimes I wonder whether the ministers in this government and the bureaucrats in their departments are aware of the conditions that really exist for enforcement personnel who are actually on the line when it comes to protecting our citizens.

My second concern is another common occurrence with this government which is the offloading of costs onto already overburdened areas of responsibility. Our customs officers will require additional training to carry out their duties. Detention facilities at border crossings will have to be upgraded. However this government has not seen fit to provide additional resources. Canada Customs will have to find the finances within existing budgets to accommodate these additional requirements.

It causes me to wonder whether this government is trying to convince its employees to shut up and to not make any noise. The government was forced to act because customs personnel complained loudly about crime proceeding unheeded through our border points, but the customs departments will have to pay the consequences and find the money to fund the added responsibilities from within already restricted and limited budgets.

Is the government really trying to coerce its departments into remaining silent, leaving citizens at risk all in order to protect their individual budgets? I hope not because we continually witness the passing off of financial responsibility. I cannot help but be concerned that a hidden and perhaps a very dangerous message is being sent that at some time in the future will become apparent, to the detriment of us all.

There is a third concern. It is related to the one just mentioned in that it is a result of the government's offloading. The customs department has been forced because of limited resources to automate some points of entry and to hire more part time employees. Both these developments will seriously limit the ability of customs to properly effect the aims of Bill C-18.

An automated customs port, by definition, means that customs personnel are not available to make arrests on site. Part time personnel, by definition, means less experience and capability to detect the criminal element or to conduct a proper investigation or inquiry and to effect appropriate arrest when required. Inexperienced personnel will also be exposed to increased risk if and when dangerous situations arise.

To sum up, I will be supporting the legislation because it provides better security of Canada's borders. Unfortunately once again the Liberals have taken years to do something which is relatively simple to accomplish but their efforts fall short. They go half way and then attempt to spin into the minds of Canadians that the problem has been fully addressed. I do not know why they simply go through the motions and refuse to provide adequate legislation and resources which are sorely needed.

I encourage my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-18 for the good of all Canadians, but I also call on the government to address the shortcomings regarding funding issues and the safety of customs personnel.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-211, the private member's bill presented by my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford. His amendment to the Criminal Code would permit peace officers to arrest parolees who are found to be in breach of their conditions of release.

One of the primary responsibilities of parliamentarians is to enact laws to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. For too long there has been a technicality or in essence a gaping hole in our laws which the legislation attempts to address. It is most distressful to be in this place and learn that it takes years to solve a simple problem.

As we all know, Canada is a large and diverse country. We have many large urban centres and we have many isolated communities. In most cases criminal offenders are able to move with relative freedom within the country once they have served their time and are released from prison.

Throughout the country one of the primary means of security and safety of our citizens comes with the presence and the skill of our valued police officers. They are the individuals who protect us 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in all parts of the land.

Because of concerns over public safety and because criminals are known to often reoffend, our laws permit a series of steps toward full freedom. Most offenders are released through a process of escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences and/or statutory release.

These steps normally involve the offender being required to abide by a number of specific conditions. Some must refrain from attending alcoholic establishments because their past criminality was often influenced by their inability to consume alcohol in a responsible manner. Others must refrain from associating with specified criminal elements or specified individuals, usually because those elements or individuals are rationally seen to be a bad influence on the offender. In other cases those individuals may require the security of being isolated from the offender.

To the public at large it seems ridiculous that our police cannot independently arrest, remove and detain persons found to be in breach of release conditions. Supposedly the release conditions have been rationally and extensively considered. Supposedly the release conditions have been imposed to protect law-abiding citizens. It makes no sense for us to require our police to attempt to contact parole officials in order for a warrant to be issued authorizing the arrest of an offender who is clearly in breach of his or her conditions.

As many in this place are aware, I came here to advocate the protection and interests of victims of crime. I become greatly concerned when I can think of many examples whereby the present legislation is so limited in scope as to inhibit the ability of police to provide that protection. It complicates procedures to the extent where additional crime is a very real possibility and it provides an opportunity for further victimization.

We all are aware of the strain on our resources at this time. Police officers and departments have for years been increasingly required to do more with less.

I certainly can foresee the possible situation where a pedophile is released back into society and quite reasonably as a condition of release is prohibited from hanging around school yards and playgrounds. He will almost surely also be prohibited from being in the presence of children while unsupervised.

If the police become aware of a breach of one or more of these conditions, what can they do? Up to this point there has been no crime committed and there may not be sufficient evidence to believe that one is about to be committed.

Under present law police are limited to reporting the incident to the National Parole Board. We know National Parole Board personnel are not readily available in all parts of the country. These personnel will want to establish the bona fides of the infraction because in most cases they will not be familiar with the particular police officer. They may well require an extensive report of just what is occurring. They may not always be available at all hours of the day.

Is it reasonable to expect a police officer to remain on site until some unknown bureaucrat or parole official approves the arrest? It is not as if the police have nothing else to do. What if the officer has other priority calls to handle at the time? Are we to put our children at risk because of technicalities and procedure? Our police need the tools to protect us. They need the power to arrest the individual found in breach of release conditions. The parole officials can always decide later whether to revoke the release or impose additional restrictions.

I will provide another common example. It is most unfortunate but many of our citizens run afoul of the law because of their problems with alcohol. When they drink they drink to excess and they commit crimes. In an attempt at rehabilitation we release many criminals back into society with the condition to refrain from using alcohol.

Our police come into contact with alcohol in many ways. They are called to break up fights. They patrol bars and night clubs and they patrol our highways and our back alleys. They may well come across individuals who are violating their release conditions regarding alcohol.

Are they to await direction from parole authorities which may take hours or days, or are they to effect arrests in the interests of the safety of all and leave it to be ironed out in due course? Surely it is more desirable to err on the side of caution.

The mere act of drinking does not provide the peace officer with sufficient grounds to arrest without warrant. Workload demands make it impractical to maintain surveillance for long periods of time. Who will be to blame when the police officer moves on to other responsibilities and the offender continues to drink, gets behind the wheel and ends up killing innocent people in a car accident? Who will be to blame when he staggers through the front door and assaults his wife and children?

An additional example comes from Mr. Ian Russell, the chief of police for the town of LaSalle in the Windsor, Ontario, area. He has had an extensive career in law enforcement having retired from the metro Toronto police department. He was quoted as stating: “There is no power of arrest for a police officer who finds a person in violation of a condition of their parole”.

He cited the example of a convicted wife beater who was released from jail with the condition to stay at least 1,000 metres away from the home of his victim. Nevertheless he goes to her home and stands on the public sidewalk. The frantic victim calls the police. Officers arrive but the man is not trespassing. His behaviour cannot be called stalking. He is obviously violating his parole conditions but the police cannot arrest him or remove the apparent threat until the National Parole Board issues a warrant.

Mr. Russell is frustrated. He is also concerned because the criminal has now been put on notice that he may be reincarcerated because he was seen to be breaking his parole conditions. Mr. Russell is concerned the offender may decide to commit a serious crime to make a return to jail worthwhile.

My concern is for the very real possibility that the offender may retaliate against his victim for notifying the police in the first place. Mr. Russell in his vast experience at one time chaired parole board hearings. He is well aware of the limited resources and capability of the parole board to assist the police under the present legislation.

One previous argument opposing the legislation cited the lack of statistical proof that the present system imposes unreasonable time constraints on the police. Frankly this does not surprise me. This is the old let us wait until somebody dies before we decide if there is a problem attitude. It is so typically Liberal it is reprehensible.

Another argument suggests that parole and release conditions are intended to assist the reintegration of the offender into society. Therefore it is argued that parole supervisors are better situated to determine whether an offender's behaviour warrants apprehension.

There we go again. Let us consider the best interests of the offender and public safety be damned. What hogwash. The very fact that a parolee wilfully breaches his conditions is a pretty strong indicator that he is not responsible enough to be entrusted with his freedom in the community. Who is in a better position to assess the immediate situation? Is it the parole officer wiping the sleep from his eyes at three o'clock in the morning as he picks up his bedside phone or the cop confronting the offender in an alleyway?

In order to highlight the fallacy of the laws as they currently exist I ask the House to consider the following. A prostitute found to be in breach of a court ordered condition of probation by standing on a corner where she is not supposed to be is subject to immediate arrest, removal and detention. A pedophile violating his parole by lurking around children is not. Just who are we trying to protect?

The safety of Canadians is at risk because of weaknesses in our law. Canadians continue to be victimized, some again by the same individuals, once on the initial charge and again on their release from jail. Our police are available and ready to do the job of protecting us. They need to be provided with the tools to do so. I urge hon. members of the House to seriously consider fulfilling this need.

[Violence Against Women, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow 14 families will grieve the eighth anniversary of the tragedy of l'Ecole Polytechnique. This government has been free with its rhetoric on protecting women and children, but how far have we actually come?

Last month 31 year old Tony Pitcher received a four month conditional sentence to be served at home for sexually assaulting a young girl over an extended period of time. He can go to his doctor, his dentist, his work and his counselling, all on his own.

Has anybody considered his victim? Has anybody considered the community? How does this sort of inappropriate sentencing do anything to denounce the crime and deter similar attacks?

This government's record on conditional sentencing is abysmal. Many of those opposite helped pass this into law in 1995. It was never restricted to non-violent offenders in spite of over two years of incident upon incident of violent attacks on women and children. Punishment to the offender? To be sent home.

In memory of all victims of violence, I call on this government to rectify this most serious mistake.