Evidence of meeting #38 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Chief, the accused have both been convicted now. They're being incarcerated. Will they ever be placed in the general population?
12:05 p.m.
Woodstock Police Service
I would have my doubts. Even inmates have their standards, and I don't think these two will ever see general population.....
I know Rafferty will not see general population, I wouldn't expect. McClintic is in a slightly different environment. I think she'll be in a controlled environment inside the institution.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
So even among people who are incarcerated, this is a very heinous crime. They wouldn't expose them to the risks of being in the general population, because even the convicted people don't accept this. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
Woodstock Police Service
That's right. They see them as the pitiful misfits that we see them as. As I say, even criminals have their standards, and child abduction, child rape, child murder is the very bottom of that cesspool.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Given that, it is fair to say that the average, ordinary Canadian would think that the minimum sentence on this would be pretty much acceptable to Canadian standard. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
Woodstock Police Service
I absolutely believe so. If you polled parents with children, I think you'd be talking about much higher numbers than we're talking about at five years.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you for being here today to discuss this very important private member's bill.
Mrs. Dunahee, I thank you in particular for being here today. I can't imagine the courage it takes not just to be here but to get up every morning and get dressed and go about your daily life. So please don't feel that you need to give long answers or answer at all. I will ask questions, but if they're too difficult for you to answer, I think we'll all understand.
As the mother of two teenagers myself, I can only say that I can't imagine.... You go through trials and tribulations every day, and I'm very sorry that you will never know that for your son Michael.
You mentioned that your nightmare is every day, and I hope and pray that it will be over one day. I think it's great that you celebrate his birthday. I want to wish you a happy birthday on May 12 for your son Michael as a 26-year-old. I saw the composite sketches of him online, and he surely is a handsome young man.
I want to say that we talked about this legislation as providing some measure of comfort. Madame Boivin said she thinks that part of this is just offering ourselves measures of comfort rather than doing the right thing. I would suggest that in some ways that's not a bad thing; that if the law does bring comfort by doing the right thing, it's a good law. So if the aim of this law is to protect children—if that's your main goal—would you say that it would bring you some comfort, as the mother of a missing child, if we were to implement this law?
I can go on. It's okay.
12:10 p.m.
President, Child Find British Columbia, As an Individual
As Chief Rodney Freeman stated, any parent out there would prefer a longer time. I don't know that five years is enough. I can see the difficulties that the members are having implementing that, with lawyers taking a minimum five years as acceptable.
In a parent's eyes, I don't believe that timeline is acceptable. It should be longer.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
I think it was MP Côté who said that he might be amenable to a longer period of time, which was very reassuring to me. In your remarks earlier, I noted that you said five years might not be enough and that ten might be more appropriate. So you would agree with that. You would say that not only would it bring comfort to you but that if keeping children safe is your main goal, this would go toward it.
I guess my point here is that Madame Boivin said something else. She said: “I'm looking and I don't see a problem” with regard to sentencing and judges.
I disagree completely. I look around and I do see a problem, because from what I can tell and from what Chief Freeman said earlier, the judges are rarely implementing the maximum sentences.
So my question to you, as a mother and as someone who knows this issue well and who I'm sure knows the law well, do you see a problem and do you think it's a good idea for judges to be given this directive and to be given a minimum, knowing that it doesn't mean that they would impose only the minimum. I think we can give our judges more credit than that. They know that a minimum is a minimum.
Do you think it's important for us to be doing this?
12:10 p.m.
President, Child Find British Columbia, As an Individual
As some of the members have pointed out, I believe any terms that have been put out there have not been for less than five years. They've been for anything higher than five years, so putting five years in there.... I don't know to be quite honest, because as I said, judges are already going beyond that, and by putting in five years it now brings down that eight-year sentence to a minimum of five years, so I don't know if that is the message.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want my colleague Ms. Ambler to misinterpret my words. When I refer to much harsher sentences, I am referring to maximum sentences, not minimum ones. I agree fully with my colleague when it comes to kidnapping, depending on the circumstances. Judges should decide. I wholeheartedly support life in prison.
I want to thank our witnesses for being courageous enough to appear before us and somewhat relive the terrible things they went through.
I want to come back to you, Ms. Dunahee. Forgive me, I am not trying to pick on you. Unless I am mistaken, you've succeeded in bringing the AMBER alert system to British Columbia.
12:15 p.m.
President, Child Find British Columbia, As an Individual
I wasn't 100% involved. I did voice my concerns that we needed to have it in British Columbia because we didn't have it.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
That is wonderful, congratulations.
I don't mean to presume what my colleagues think, but I would say they share my concern about giving the public a false sense of security.
I want to discuss something other than the law with you. I have more of an economics background. I am not trying to criticize any government specifically. This situation goes back nearly 20 years. The federal government shirked a fair share of its responsibilities when it made significant budget cuts, to the detriment of the provinces and municipalities. This means that the other levels of government had fewer resources in these areas. That is a very unfortunate consequence, one that requires our communities to make very tough decisions every day. We must never forget that, when applied, a single provision in the Criminal Code can prove ineffective in terms of solving certain problems, if it is not accompanied by a whole set of extrajudicial measures.
Mr. Surprenant, you are in a perfect position to comment. You mentioned deterrence and you articulately described how a sexual predator is driven much more by instinct than by thought. I cannot see, then, how a five-year minimum sentence will deter a predator from committing an act, since basic instinct is really what drives them.
12:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared
The five-year minimum sentence is a minimum safety measure. I was listening to what you said, and I have a suggestion for you. If you don't feel five years is acceptable, why not propose ten years?
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Surprenant, the reason is simple: I genuinely believe that minimum sentences are not the answer. On the contrary—
12:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared
Sorry to cut you off, but a minimum sentence is necessarily a deterrent. However, it should never be the only method used.
12:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared
It must be accompanied by other measures. Earlier, I mentioned bracelets. From what I know about how an offender is monitored every two weeks, there isn't much to it. The person just signs a log, and that's it. There are no safety measures and no real follow-up. When a sexual predator strikes, in the first few days, they are still feeling the rush of adrenaline. There may be a way to obtain information at that point because they still have a sensitivity. But, two weeks later, they have accepted their crime, they have come to terms with it. They can be in a situation and remain calm. If the probation officer questions them about their recent comings and goings when the crime happened two weeks ago, it does absolutely no good.
