STOPWATCH - 1996, Volume II

Changes to Early Parole Law Promised by Rock

Should murderers have the right to apply for early parole, based primarily on good behaviour?
Section 745 of the Criminal Code allows first or second degree murderers to apply to the courts for a reduction in their parole eligibility date.
Bill C-234 (formerly C-226) to repeal this law has been stalled in Parliament since December 1994.
Justice Minister Allan Rock claims he has heard Canadians loud and clear on this and other justice issues and action will be forthcoming.
CAVEAT demands swift and committed action by the governmentthe fate of this Bill lies in its hands.

Bill C-226 to repeal Section 745, the early parole law, nearly died when the Chrétien government decided to prorogue parliament in February of this year. Under this parliamentary practice, often used half-way through a government's term in office, all bills on the table are dropped and a new session of Parliament begins.

Fortunately, the government ruled in March to reinstate all bills that had already passed 2nd reading (see p. 6). Thus, Bill C-226, now reinstated as Bill C-234, is again before the Justice Committee, where it has been stalled since December, 1994. CAVEAT unequivocally supports the repeal of Section 745 and demands that the government move on this bill now.

We believe that murderers should serve the full sentence handed down by the judge at the trial when all the evidence was put before the jury.

We are not alone in our concern. Canadians are becoming outraged as they learn of the full implications of Section 745. Families who thought offenders convicted of first degree murder were locked away for at least 25 years are now discovering that this is not necessarily the case. Many families of murder victims have launched campaigns to alert the public to the potential impact of this law. Through petitions and news conferences, they have kept the issue in headlines across the country.

Darlene Boyd of Okotoks, Alberta, decided to go public when she discovered that the killer of her daughter Laurie will be able to use this loophole early next year to try to escape serving his full sentence. Laurie was abducted, raped and murdered in January, 1982 by Jim Peters and Bob Brown. The men were also found guilty of the abduction, rape and beating death of Debbie Stevens of High River, Alberta in December, 1981. Brown committed suicide in prison, but Peters' parole review date is February, 1997.

Ms. Boyd organized public meetings, met with Justice Minister Allan Rock, and attended press conferences, all in an effort to drum up public support for the repeal of Section 745. Boyd warns that everyone should be aware of the loophole, because more and more convicted murderers are becoming aware of the clause and taking advantage of it. Six hundred 'lifers' could apply for early parole within the next 10 years.

Every lifer has the right to a hearing under this section. Even Clifford Olson, one of Canada's most infamous serial killers, will be able to apply for a hearing and has apparently begun preparations. One hopes that no jury would allow someone like Olson to apply for early parole, but over 75% of applications for early parole eligibility have been successful. Even if he does not succeed in convincing the jury that he is a changed man and deserves a chance for early release, the very idea that Olson can apply is disturbing to many people. Victims are traumatized again as they relive the tragedies that have caused them so much anguish.

We hope Justice Minister Allan Rock is getting the message. He has expressed concern about Section 745, but has not agreed that it should be scrapped completely. In the past he has suggested that changes could be made to improve the law, and wants the entire sentencing process for murder examined.

At a news conference in Calgary on Saturday, February 17, Rock said that he has "heard people loud and clear" and will introduce a number of changes to the Criminal Code in the spring. He will consider repealing Section 745 or toughening the law significantly. However, mere tinkering with the law will not satisfy Darlene Boyd. "I want it [s. 745] gone and I made it clear to [Rock]." She urges the public to write or phone their MP to ensure the repeal of the parole review law. "One voice is a whisper; many a shout."

Priscilla de Villiers Presents SafetyNet Report in Ottawa

(Ottawa) CAVEAT President Priscilla de Villiers presented Canadians with what she called "a living document and a living testament" on February 22, 1996. In a press conference on Parliament Hill, she introduced the nation to the SafetyNet 1995 Final Report.

Speaking to reporters from all major national news organizations, de Villiers talked tough yet eloquently about accountability in the justice system. Ironically, she stood almost directly below the House of Commons, where legislators regularly pass their own sentence on laws that often mean the difference between life and death.

The report contains "great passion and great insight, but very practical solutions" as well, de Villiers stated. Also speaking at the press conference were Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Chief Brian Ford and Canadian Police Association Executive Director Scott Newark.

The Final Report is the result of SafetyNet 1995, a two-day conference held last November in Hamilton, Ontario. Over 150 experts gathered there from across the country to brainstorm on crime prevention, public safety and justice reform, with special focus on children's safety. SafetyNet 1995 resulted in 67 recommendations, and also expanded on the 146 recommendations of the first SafetyNet conference held in 1994.

"We looked at the practical needs and practical problems within the administration of the criminal justice system," de Villiers explained. Two major areas addressed in the 1995 report are "the breakdown of communication in the justice system... and the targeting of funds where they would be most useful," she said.
De Villiers then touched on certain recommendations in the report, including the creation of high risk offender legislation.

"We desperately need high risk offender legislation to capture those people who don't fall under dangerous offender legislation," she said. The report calls for "indeterminate incarceration" and "intensified supervision" of high risk offenders.1

Chief Ford said the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) supports SafetyNet's recommendations to repeal s. 745 of the Criminal Code.

Ford said the CACP will continue to lobby fiercely for the repeal of the law. "[Convicted murderers] are the kind of people we do not want on our streets, nor do the people of this country," he said.

Scott Newark said s. 745 is costly to taxpayers and re-victimizes the families of murder victims all over again. "Eleven families are about to be put through hell again," he said, referring to the upcoming s. 745 review of mass child killer Clifford Olsen this summer.

A week after the press conference, Justice Minister Allan Rock said he would introduce a bill by the end of March to change s. 745, but didn't specify exactly how he would do it. Rock told Ottawa Sun Parliamentary Reporter Sean Durkan on February 28 that he hadn't decided yet whether to repeal 745 altogether, or somehow modify it "to make it obviously more intended for the exceptional cases."2

Rock also said he will introduce a bill to establish a DNA crime data bank, which will operate much like the fingerprint data bank currently in place. Setting up a DNA data bank was a recommendation from SafetyNet 1994.

Newark said the federal government has taken steps on gun control, DNA testing, the parole system, and deporting immigrants with criminal records, but said there is still much that needs to be reformed in the criminal justice system.

"Canadians are fed up with the justice system saying one thing and doing something else," Newark charged.

Public awareness, anger and outspokenness about crime and the criminal justice system are increasing, and so is the demand for government action, de Villiers said. "How long are we going to have to wait?... Each day we delay jeopardizes the life and safety of another human being."

Sources:
1 SafetyNet 1995 Final Report p.48.
2 Ottawa Sun Feb. 29, '96.

It's 11 O'Clock Do You Know Where Your Parolee Is?

As part of a plan by the provincial government to cut costs and reduce the population in provincial jails, certain Ontario inmates will begin serving sentences at home. The Toronto Sun reports that eligible prisoners low risk people who pose no threat to the community will be required to wear a tiny battery-operated ankle bracelet. This electronic device will allow corrections officers to monitor the inmates 24 hours a day. The bracelet sends a signal, alerting officials if the inmate moves more than a certain distance from his home or tampers with the device.

Solicitor General Bob Runciman has said that only offenders who pass a rigorous, strict assessment would be allowed to take part in the program. They will be drawn from the provincial correctional centres' inmate population which includes parolees who were returned to these centres when the government closed Ontario's halfway houses last summer as part of its cost-cutting measures.

Several jurisdictions, including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and the Yukon, are already using electronic monitoring, but always in conjunction with halfway houses. An official from B.C. says that inmates still have to be properly supervised and that the system should not be considered just a method of cutting costs.

CAVEAT is disturbed by a recent study, carried out by the United States National Institute of Corrections, which shows that offenders often disappear from their homes and that electronic monitoring often fails to ensure public safety. We will be watching this experiment very carefully.

Alternative Measures for Violent Youth

The subject of young offenders is one of increasing concern to all Canadians. Youth crime of a violent nature is on the rise. Since 1992-3, statistics show that violent crime among youthful offenders has increased eight per cent. It is clear that something must be done to reverse the trend in an effort to eliminate the problem. The question that remains to be answered is how to address the issue while considering the needs of the community and the victim and the special needs of the young offender. It has been recognized that incarceration is not necessarily the answer to preventing criminal behaviour among youth. It has long been argued that sentencing youth to detention centres for non-violent crimes is counter-productive. The atmosphere in these centres is often conducive to future criminal behaviour.

Many groups and individuals attribute the problems of rising youth crime to the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Arguments suggest that with the enactment of the YOA, sentencing provisions became too lenient and in some cases inappropriate. Critics also suggest that problems are exacerbated by the absence of parent accountability, a lack of responsibility on behalf of the young offender and that person's knowledge that a sentence is less stringent under the YOA.

In reaction to the public outcry against criminal youth and the YOA, the federal and provincial governments have authorized numerous committees and task forces to address their concerns. With the enactment of the YOA in 1984, courts have been allowed to choose alternative measures to custodial dispositions in sentencing. Since then many suggestions for alternative measures programs have been tabled. In an attempt to break the cycle of criminality, alternative measures where intervention in the correctional process begins as soon as the youth has committed a crime are being studied. It is suggested that if youths encounter rigorous training and skills acquisition programs early in their criminal cycle, it will prevent further criminal activity and teach them a more acceptable behaviour.

In November, 1995, the Solicitor General of Ontario, Bob Runciman, appointed a task force to "develop a strict discipline program for Ontario young offenders." The ultimate goal of the committee is to establish a program which focuses on rehabilitation, skills training, and teaching responsibility by utilizing discipline concepts. Thus the youth will not simply sit in a detention centre, but will participate in activities that teach cooperation, accountability, positive decision making, trust and anger management.

The task force is following the example set by the Manitoba and Alberta governments who already have such programs in place.

For example, at the Shunda Creek Camp, 20 kilometres west of Red Deer, Alberta, correctional staff put hard core male offenders between 16 and 18 years old through a rigid regime of hard work, physical fitness and learning programs geared to teaching the youngsters who are at a high risk to become repeat offenders the skills to leave the criminal justice system and become law abiding, productive citizens. Shunda Creek is not a full scale boot camp where the person is broken and then fixed according to a military plan.

Our National Membership Drive--"We need your help now!"

Do you know anyone that would be interested in supporting CAVEAT's work? We urgently need to boost our membership numbers now!

Since February, we have been conducting our first National Membership Drive. As we grow, we are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of our numbers. Often when making submissions to governments on specific legislation, we are asked how many Canadians we represent. It is therefore crucial that we increase our numbers to strengthen our voice.

We are requesting that you help us by encouraging people you know to take out memberships in CAVEAT. Memberships can be purchased by calling 1 800-6-CAVEAT (our 24-hour answering service) or by completing the form on the back of this STOPWATCH. For convenience we have also printed pads of membership slips that can be torn off for easy distribution to friends and co-workers. Please contact us if you would like to receive one of these pads.

With regards to memberships, we are frequently asked two questions:

1) What am I obligated to do if I become a member?
2) How is a membership different from a donation?

By purchasing a membership you are under no obligation to become actively involved, although you are certainly welcome to if you wish. Financially, funds from memberships and donations both go equally toward our work to end violence. However, by taking out a membership you are specifically saying, "I support CAVEAT's work and would like to do my part to help strengthen CAVEAT's voice by allowing myself to be counted in CAVEAT's membership numbers."

Court Examines Future of Videotapes

In February, 1996, the French and Mahaffy families found themselves in court yet again, this time to ask that a section of the Criminal Code dealing with public access to courtrooms be declared unconstitutional. Their aim is to make sure that the trauma they endured as they listened to the voices of their daughters during the Bernardo trial, not be repeated in future hearings involving Homolka and Bernardo and that future victims be spared similar anguish. "We have an absolute obligation to do everything within our power to ensure that no one experiences what we have experienced." stated Mrs. Donna French.

Canada's Charter of Rights guarantees an accused "a fair and public hearing." However, Section 486.(1) of the Criminal Code states that while the accused is to be tried in "open court," the presiding judge does have the discretionary power to exclude the public from the courtroom in the interests of "public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice." In the Bernardo trial Justice Patrick LeSage decided that while the public and the media would not have access to the video portion of the tapes depicting the rape and torture of Kristen and Leslie, they would be able to hear the audio portion or the soundtrack. However, the public and the media were not excluded from the courtroom; instead, the television monitors were placed so that only the jury, judge, accused and counsel were able to see the screens.

The French and Mahaffy families were appalled that a judge had the power to make public such horrific evidence and want the law changed so that in the case of pornography (in their case, child pornography), the discretionary powers of the judge are removed and that the public and the media are barred during such evidence. The families say that Justice LeSage's ruling violated their privacy and security rights, as well as their religious freedom. It was also claimed that the playing of the tapes in open court violated the dignity of their daughters.

The families are also seeking proprietary rights in the tapes which would give them some say into how and when the tapes may be used in any future proceedings.

Catherine MacKinnon, a law professor and anti-pornography activist, testified that exposure to such videotapes can desensitize the public to the horrors of rape. She illustrated the further damage that can result by referring to the book Lethal Marriage, written by a Toronto reporter who covered the trial. The book, purporting to be a factual account of the girls' deaths, is a highly dangerous, pornographic mixture of fact and fiction.

The families and the public are still awaiting the judge's decision in this very important and complex issue.

Ontario to Get Victims' Bill of Rights?

Traditionally, victims have not been afforded recognition in the justice system. The court process involves only the Crown, who represents the State, and the defendant Regina vs the defendant. The victim has not been a part of that equation other than as a witness and has been described as the forgotten person of the justice system. While every safeguard is taken to protect the accused, very little is done to help the victim. Priscilla de Villiers has said that there has been "an extraordinary callousness and indifference shown by people in the justice system." The result has been a severe imbalance between the rights of the accused and those of the victim.

Due to the tireless efforts of victims advocacy groups such as CAVEAT, however, a need for change has been recognized. Effecting this change is a slow process. Victim impact statements and new services such as Victim/Witness programs have been introduced, but victims and their organizations continue the struggle to establish their rights to social services, information, legal aid, compensation and representation in the judicial process wherever victims are affected.

Inequitable access to resources has made the struggle an extremely difficult one. While very generous provincial legal aid plans enable offenders to pursue their cases all the way to the Supreme Court, no such right is afforded victims. The fact that they are given little legal advice and no legal aid distances them even further from the legal process.

Almost every province has passed or introduced victims rights legislation which recognizes that the criminal justice system must be responsive to the needs of victims. At the federal level, there has been no such initiative on the part of the government. However, on Feb. 29, 1996, Reform MP Randy White launched a proposal for a national victims' bill of rights, and on the same day Reform organized a victims' rights rally in Abbotsford, BC which was attended by 2,000 people.

Ontario is the latest province to table legislation aimed at addressing the concerns of victims. However, it is important to examine this VICTIMS' BILL of RIGHTS carefully. Is the government of Ontario prepared to take concrete action to address victims' needs as identified by the legislation, or are false hopes and expectations being raised?

The Act establishes a set of principles that specify that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy. It states that victims should have access to information about services and remedies available to them, and should have access to information at all stages of the criminal justice process. The Bill also supports the provision of better information about the conditional release of offenders from custody, including parole, temporary absence, or escape, if such information is requested by the victim. To implement these principles, the government may make regulations prescribing standards to be followed.

The Ontario Bill of Rights is an acknowledgment that victims should have certain rights but it does not guarantee these rights. The Act does not compel the government to see that measures are taken that will give effect to these principles. Furthermore, there is no legal recourse if the principles are violated. "Rights", unenforceable by law, are hollow, empty rhetoric.

Another highly significant qualification emasculates the Bill even further. The principles are subject to the availability of resources. In times of financial restraint, it is unlikely that resources will be designated to implement the provisions of this legislation. The Act can, therefore, be seen as a sop to groups that have been seeking meaningful, effective legislative action.

The Victims' Bill of Rights is significant in that the government acknowledges that victims are an integral part of the judicial system and that they have rights just as the offender has rights. However, while the offender's rights are protected most jealously by the judicial system, the rights of the victim are qualified. While CAVEAT appreciates the intent of the legislation, we are interested in action, not just words. The goal of parity of victims' rights with those of the offenders' still has not been realized.

CAVEAT Protests Possible Cut in Ontario's Crown Attorneys

by Priscilla de Villiers

Fears of looming chaos in the Justice System are being voiced by many as a 33% reduction in the Crown Attorney System is being considered by the Ontario Government.

A serious backlog of cases in Ontario, due to the overcrowded, understaffed disorganization of the courts in Ontario, was glaringly apparent in light of the Askov case in 1990. In the Askov decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a person charged with a criminal offence had a right to have the case heard within six to eight months of the charge being laid. This decision ultimately resulted in 50,000 criminal cases being dismissed, allowing a seriously backlogged system to function. Another backlog of cases, this time caused by too few crown attorneys, will result in more unreasonable delays.The Askov decision may rear its ugly head once again.

The Yeo Inquest, which examined the failure of the criminal justice system to protect my daughter, Nina, and Karen Marquis of New Brunswick from a dangerous sexual predator, allowed a rare glimpse into the court system. The disorganization, the lack of standard practice from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the spectacle of inexperienced assistant crown attorneys with case loads of 130 cases per day or more, showed with dreadful clarity a system that had broken down.

The Martin Committee and the recommendations from the Yeo Inquest led to some restructuring, improved training, and 60 contract crown attorneys being hired to prevent another backlog. Now, the government believes that the solution to the disabled system is to reduce the number of crown attorneys by 33%, not to improve the system, but to reduce costs.

The Coroner's jury at the Yeo Inquest directed 35 recommendations to the Attorney General of Ontario, and of those, seven were either rejected or unresolved. Reading through the recommendations again, we see quite clearly that the improved training of the crowns and the attention to address the needs of victims, for example, will almost certainly be lost.

The Krever Inquiry into delivery of blood by the Red Cross all too clearly illustrates the tragedies that result from a blinkered approach to the bottom line.

This impression is reinforced by the Victims' Bill of Rights announced by Attorney General Charles Harnick on November 23, 1995. Section 2 (vi-xii) of the Victims' Bill of Rights addresses many of the real inequities in the treatment of victims. However, the section entitled, 'Limitations', states, "The principle set out in subsection 1 are subject to the availability of resources..." Bill 23 was first read approximately eight weeks before the government's proposal on the Crown Attorney System. We can only consider the Victims' Bill of Rights as a cynical attempt to appease victims of crime.

However, as the crown attorneys have difficulty with their case load at the moment, the extra time required to consult victims and keep them informed at all stages of the case of all significant proceedings, trial arrangements, and plea bargains, etc., would obviously place too heavy a burden on such a seriously depleted work force.

CAVEAT accepts the financial realities facing our province and recognizes the need to cut government spending. However, the financial initiatives that are being considered in the Crown Attorney System show a naiveté and lack of intelligent planning which flies in the face of the Conservative government's preelection commitment to law and order. The mandate that we, the taxpayers, gave to our elected government is that they make the best possible use of our tax dollars.

Costs have been raging out of control for several years now. The Conservative Party of Ontario has, in its 10 years in opposition, had time to study the situation. Unfortunately, they have zeroed in on the Crown Attorney System, but they have missed several other areas of inefficiency which could easily be corrected and, in the process, result in reduced costs not only for the government, but also for some beleaguered clients who often believe that they are being gouged by their lawyers, but who feel trapped, with no recourse but to continue taking their advice in the hope of a fair settlement of their claims.

For example, they could have looked at the endless remands, judge shopping, crown shopping, offenders changing lawyers several times, each time taking up valuable court time.

There is little evidence that the present Government of Ontario is considering solutions to the problem, other than stripping the Crown Attorney System of its ability to function efficiently.

The Harris Government must reexamine our court system in a comprehensive and intelligent way.

Stalking Legislation to be Reintroduced

In December, 1995, Federal Justice Minister Allan Rock tabled Bill C-119, an act amending the Criminal Code with respect to stalking, juvenile prostitution and female genital mutilation. The bill died along with several others that were not passed before the last session of Parliament prorogued earlier this year.

Rock will reintroduce the bill in the new session, a Justice spokeswoman confirmed.

Under Bill C-119, killers who stalked their victims before slaying them would automatically be charged with first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years upon conviction.

Stalking has been a criminal offence since 1993, carrying a maximum penalty of five years.

The bill would make being under a restraining order an aggravating factor in a stalking conviction.

Before the 1993 stalking law, charges could be laid only if the stalker threatened or assaulted the victim. Since 1993, stalking has been defined in the Criminal Code as following someone, communicating directly or indirectly with them, or watching them at their workplace or home, creating a situation in which the victims fear for their safety. A year after the law was passed, 2,600 stalking charges had been laid in Canada.

Hilary McCormack, an Assistant Crown Attorney in Ottawa who helped draft the original 1993 stalking law, says it has made an important difference.

"Police find it very useful to have, to lower the threshold at which intervention can occur." McCormack says, pointing to the fact that charges can be laid more easily with the stalking law.

"Some stalkers knew exactly how far they could go (before being charged) and they used it to harass women and make their lives very difficult" before the current law came into effect, she explains.

According to Statistics Canada, between 1974 and 1992, 1,435 women and 451 men were shot, strangled, smothered or stabbed by their partners, an average of about 13 women and 4 men killed each year. More than one quarter of slain women were separated from their partners when they were killed, and in many cases stalking played a significant role. This Bill would reinforce society's condemnation of this most serious of offences.

How a Bill Becomes Law

PROCLAMATION AS LAW
/\
ROYAL ASSENT
/\
SENATE (Committee and 3 Readings)
/\
THIRD READING
/\
REPORT STAGE
/\
HOUSE OF COMMONS JUSTICE COMMITTEE
/\
SECOND READING
/\
FIRST READING
/\
DRAFTING OF BILL

A proposal, known as a bill, is introduced into the House of Commons by a minister of the governing party or by any M.P. acting on behalf of his or her constituents who feel certain issues need attention.

The introduction of a proposal into the House is called the "first reading" which is an announcement of the bill. It is given a number, sent for publication in both official languages, and finally placed on the House agenda for debate.

The bill is given "second reading" in the House, at which time the basic principle of the bill is explained and defended by the proposing member. When discussion is complete, a vote of the members present is taken on the unaltered bill, and if approved, the bill is sent to committee for thorough examination.

The appropriate committee, whether standing, such as justice, special or other committee deemed necessary, begins deliberations, calling expert witnesses and the public to critique the essence of the bill and to assist in the clause by clause examination of the fine points of the bill. A bill initiated by the government is ensured passage by a committee because a majority of members of the committee and the chair are from the ruling party, but amendments are moved, debated and voted upon at this stage. A private members bill is much more difficult to drive because it may not have the necessary support to ensure that it passes each stage of the legislative process.

After committee examination, the bill is returned to the floor of the House for the "report stage." The bill is discussed, committee amendments are debated, and further changes are recommended, while keeping with the basic principle of the original proposal. Each proposed amendment is put to a vote and finally the whole bill is voted upon by the House. If the bill is supported, it goes to "third reading." At this stage, no further changes or amendments are considered and members must either accept or reject the bill as presented.

With the approval of the House at third reading, the legislative process involving the House temporarily ends, and the bill is sent to the Senate for a similar process. The Senate can recommend amendments, but informs the House of any Senate proposals, and the House must vote on any new amendments. To be passed, the bill must be accepted in exactly the same form in both the House and in the Senate. If a bill has reached the Senate stage and is defeated, there is no other recourse but to reject the bill. It is defeated, and the vote cannot be overridden by the House.

If a bill is passed by the Senate, it is sent to the Governor General's office where it receives "Royal Assent," an endorsement signalled by a nod from the Governor General or one of his representatives. The bill becomes an Act of Parliament with the Governor General's approval, and finally, it becomes law when it is proclaimed.

Depending upon circumstances, such as the priority attached to a bill by the government, the urgency of public concern or the amount of work before the House, the speed with which a bill passes through the process varies. For example, bills have been passed in as little as five hours or as long as several months.

Source: Gibbins, Roger. Conflict and Unity: An Introduction to Canadian Political Life. 3rd ed. Scarborough ON. Nelson Canada, 1994.

Update on Bills

Much of the following information on bills provided by Steve Sullivan, Executive Director, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Ottawa

Bill: C-37
Purpose: To reform the Young Offenders Act.
Status: Proclaimed Law Dec. 1, 1995
Notes: Law includes increased youth court penalties for murder and allows 16 and 17 year olds accused of serious crimes to be tried in adult court.

Bill: C-68
Purpose: Gun Control, including banning of certain weapons, measures to cut down on gun smuggling, and the registration of all firearms in Canada.
Status: Awaiting Full Proclamation as Law
Notes: Sentencing provisions proclaimed as law. The implementation of the registration and licensing provisions delayed one year.

Bill: C-78
Purpose: The Witness Protection Program Act to be administered by the RCMP.
Status: Awaiting Third Reading
Notes:

Bill: C-119
Purpose: Child prostitution/ Stalking/ etc.
Status: Awaiting to be re-introduced
Notes: The Bill had passed first reading on Dec.14, 1995. Parliament prorogued in Feb. '96 and so the bill must now be re-introduced. This will probably happen soon.

Bill: C-205
Purpose: An act to prevent an offender from profiting from a work (eg. book) based on the offence.
Status: Lottery stage to move on to 2nd Reading
Notes: A private member's bill introduced by Tom Wappel, Liberal MP for Scarborough West. The bill was introduced Feb. 29, 1996 (first reading). The Committee of Private Members Business has deemed it "votable" and it will go to second reading.

Bill: C-234 (formerly 226)
Purpose: To repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows murderers to apply for a reduction in their parole eligibility date.
Status: Before Justice Committee
Notes: A private member's bill introduced by John Nunziata, Liberal MP for York South-Weston. The bill passed 1st and 2nd reading and was then stalled at the Justice Committee stage for over a year. The bill died when government prorogued in Feb. '96, but was re-instated in March '96 as Bill C-234.

Bill: C-240
Purpose: Would allow dangerous offender designation after sentencing; would allow detention of high risk offenders past their warrant expiry date.
Status: Before Justice Committee
Notes: A private member's bill introduced by Val Meredith, Reform MP for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.

Bill: C-316
Purpose: Amends Immigration Act to make it easier to deport non citizens convicted of serious criminal offences.
Status: Citizenship and Immigration Committee
Notes: A private member's bill introduced by Janko Peric, Liberal MP for Cambridge. Immigration is a separate ministry.

Bill: C-364
Purpose: The elimination of not only early parole (s. 745), but all parole for people serving life sentences.
Status: 1st Reading
Notes: A private member's bill introduced by Art Hanger, Reform MP for Calgary Northeast.

NEWSWATCH

Manitoba Inquiry Looks at Domestic Violence

An inquiry began in February, 1996 to examine the events that led to the January, 1995 deaths of Rhonda and Roy Lavoie in a murder/suicide and the justice department's handling of domestic violence cases. Ms. Lavoie's decision to leave her husband to escape an abusive marriage led to an assault that resulted in Mr. Lavoie's being charged with abduction and assault. Lavoie was out on bail and forbidden to contact his wife at the time of the murder/suicide. The inquiry is to determine if the Criminal Code should be amended to provide greater protection for victims of domestic violence. The effectiveness of police response as well as Crown practices in such cases will also be examined. The inquiry continues.
(Winnipeg Free Press)

More On the Drunkenness Defence

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that judges and juries only need to find reasonable doubt about a person's ability to form the intent to kill someone. As a result of this March 21, 1996 ruling, it will be easier for people who kill while drunk to argue they should be convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter rather than murder.
(Hamilton Spectator, 22 Mar. 96)

Prohibiting Sex With Minors in Foreign Countries

The federal government will look at changing the law so police can charge Canadians who have sex with child prostitutes in foreign countries, Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy said.

Mr. Axworthy said he was prompted to consult Justice Minister Allan Rock as a result of a one-hour meeting with child activist Craig Kielburger.

"We find the presentation made about the issue a very important one and I'll be talking to Mr. Rock and we'd have to do something jointly," Mr. Axworthy said. "They showed us that there's legislation in several other countries already in place that does provide that protection."

Craig Kielburger said he wants to see legislation that would hand out the same punishment to Canadians who buy sex from foreign children as exists for molesting minors in Canada.

The United Nations is calling for member countries to close loopholes that allow their citizens to purchase sex from children in other countries.

Legislation would take aim at the tourism industry that promotes trips for men to Third World countries to have sex with minors.
(Hamilton Spectator, 21 Feb. 96)

Cracking Down on Trial Delays

Amid the blizzard of talk in legal circles about waste and redundancy, one acid-tongued judge has tried to do something about it.

In a dressing-down, Mr. Justice John O'Driscoll of the Ontario Court's General Division blasted Glen Orr, a Toronto defence lawyer, for seeking repeated, unjustified adjournments of a murder trial.

"Contrary to some wide spread popular myths, an accused is not entitled to bring a halt to the whole justice machinery because the lawyer of his choice is not available until some future date," the judge said. "The record shows that not one bit of contingency planning was done by Mr. Orr."

The criticism came on the date set to start the much delayed trial of Chinh Truong Lam and A. Bau Diu, both of whom are charged with two counts of first-degree murder.

Mr. Orr seemed intent on delaying the case until he could finish another trial that is scheduled to last until March, Judge O'Driscoll said. Mr. Orr's position on the matter suggested he thought he was irreplaceable, the judge said, "which is a total fallacy on the part of any lawyer."

The shooting took place December 18, 1993, and the accused men were committed to trial August 12, 1994. Several court dates followed, with the trial targeted for mid-January, 1996.

Judge O'Driscoll continued, "Mr. Orr, you should be ashamed of yourself...I would say that as an officer of the court, you have treated the court in a very shabby fashion."

He ordered the defence lawyer either to be ready for trial March 25 or to have a junior lawyer prepared to conduct the case.
(Globe and Mail, 1 Jan. 96)

Assault Charges Dropped Due to Backlog of Court Cases

A man walked free in Walkerton Provincial Court January 28, 1996, after nine different charges, including assault and sexual assault, were dismissed by Judge F.W. Olmstead because they were cluttering the case list.

Court was set to hear the preliminary hearing of the case, but Assistant Crown Attorney Denise Scapinello asked that the hearing be rescheduled because the alleged victim was ill and could not be present to testify.

The hearing had already been postponed twice: once in June, 1995 because of absence of documentation and again in November for reasons neither the Crown nor the defence could recall.

The charges dated between May 1993 and January 1995.
(Goderich Signal Star, 1 Jan. 96)

Justice Committee Line-up

"The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will soon hear witnesses on Bill C-240 [high risk offenders], Bill C-226 [Section 745], and Bill C-78 [Witness Protection]. VoV hopes to appear on each of these bills. The Committee has a new chair, Morris Bodnar. Warren Allmand, the previous chair, was kicked off the Committee for not toeing the party line. New Liberal members are Geoffrey Regan, Gar Knutson and Maurice Couchon. They replace Tom Wappel and Derek Lee who were both veteran members who could always be counted on to ask tough questions. Now the Committee looks, feels and smells like a rubber-stamp exactly what Chrétien wants."
(Victims of Violence, Vol. 2 #10, Oct. 95)

FEEDBACK

Tell us what you are doing to help reduce violence in your community. We will try to cover it in future issues.

Barbara J. Smith of Stoney Creek responded by sending us a copy of a letter she sent recently to her Member of Parliament, other government officials, and Kraft Canada Ltd.

"I am writing to register my objection to the advertising of the James Bond 007 Golden Eye movie plus a video collection offer on the enclosed Shreddies Cereal box. It wasn't until our 8-year-old grandson requested Shreddies for breakfast that I noticed the reproduced scenes from the recent movie and video collection of previous movies, showing the James Bond characters holding a total of 13 guns. I consider this advertising totally inappropriate, particularly for children, and I would expect some legislation to prevent it appearing in the future."

It is very important to voice our opinions. We encourage everyone to inform their representatives at every level of their concern about issues of violence.ed.

What's New

Submissions

In March, CAVEAT made a submission, to the Government of Ontario, which examined the Auditor General's 1995 report on the Ontario Parole Board.

CAVEAT soon expects to make a submission on the subject of young offenders to the federal government during Phase II of its study of the Young Offenders Act. Phase I included Bill C-37 to reform the Young Offenders Act. Phase II will be a study of the whole youth justice system

CAVEAT is on the INTERNET!

Why not pay us a visit at our new web site on the Internet:

http://www.caveat.org/

Keep up to date on the latest in CAVEAT news, events, and press releases.
Browse through an archive of our past newsletters.
See and hear clips from our public service announcements.
Take a tour of the CAVEAT photo gallery, containing 25 photographs of CAVEAT in action.
E-mail us with news of what's happening in your area

(info@caveat.org)

Help spread the word. Tell your family, friends, and co-workers about CAVEAT's new Internet site.

Upcoming Events

April 13, 1996, Burlington, Ontario

The 4th Annual Chris Pridham Invitational Tennis in support of CAVEAT will be held on Saturday, April 13, 1996, at Cedar Springs Athletic Club in Burlington. This year's event will feature tennis great Ken Rosewall, holder of 18 Grand Slam titles, Chris Pridham, Helen Kelesi and Jana Nejedly. Tickets are $40 for adults and $20 for youth and are available through Cedar Springs or the CAVEAT office in Burlington (905) 632-1733. Activities will include the popular live and silent auctions, a cash bar and lots of doubles entertainment throughout the evening. Buy your tickets today!

Thank You for Supporting CAVEAT...

Kelsey's Restaurant (Rymal Rd.) in Hamilton, Ontario, recently presented CAVEAT with a contribution of $600.00 raised from a volleyball tournament in August, 1995. Pictured left to right are CAVEAT President Priscilla de Villiers and Danielle Duffy of Kelsey's Restaurant.

Burlington's Holiday Inn was the site of the 4th Annual Ontario Table Hockey Championships in support of CAVEAT, February 3, 1996. The event, organized by Mike Pope, raised $420.00 for CAVEAT's work. Congratulations go to Mr. Pope for winning this year's event and regaining his championship title.

From February 23-25, members of the Burlington Racquets Club took to the squash courts for the second consecutive year to raise much needed funds for CAVEAT's work. CAVEAT wishes to thank tournament organizer Bob Mundy (left photo, in the middle) and all of the players for their generous support.

CAVEAT's New Gift Catalogue

We are about to embark on a new fund-raising project that will benefit both CAVEAT and the many Canadian artists, craftsmen and home business people who believe in CAVEAT's goals.

We are hoping to have available by Fall '96, a top-notch gift catalogue to be mailed right across Canada. Incredibly, just by word of mouth, the response from potential suppliers has been tremendous.

Our gift catalogue will have limited edition prints, fleece clothing, jewellery, personalized shirts, photographic reprints, hand-painted stationery, mini-prints, jewelled boxes, scarves, appliqued shawls ... and lots more.

Talented people from across Canada will have the opportunity to sell their products through our catalogue and all of us will be winners!

We are looking to include items which will be interesting, unique, reasonably priced and easy to ship. Perhaps you or someone you know would be more than thrilled to be part of this project. Let us know right away. Call, fax or write to Maddy at CAVEAT, Burlington, Ontario. Include as many details as possible. We will follow up on your leads. And next year, we will be saying, "Thank you for shopping at CAVEAT!"