Mr. Speaker, after the news we just heard about Mr. Bouchard's illness, I can assure you that I will do my duty as I am expected to do as a member of Parliament.
Bill C-240 is a prime example of a philosophy that is both reactionary and repressive. The Reform Party is pulling out all the stops to give the impression that this is a crisis and they are the only ones who can save us. The bill introduced by the hon. member does not provide any realistic or practical answers to the problem of repeat offenders.
In fact, it favours a drastic and simplistic response to a complex problem. The bill consists of two parts. The first part concerns the conditions to be met for conditional release, in the case of an offender convicted of sexual assault involving a child. Under the new conditions it would be easier to continue the detention of such offenders by denying them a conditional release.
They would have to serve their full sentence. The second part of the bill concerns new regulations that would permit danger-
ous offender findings to be made after sentencing. The concept already exists in the Criminal Code. At the present time, the dangerous offender finding can be made at the time of sentencing. In the bill before the House today, this finding could also be made just before the end of the sentence.
Once a dangerous offender finding has been made, the offender's prison sentence may be extended for an indeterminate period, irrespective of the original sentence. I will first consider that part of the bill that concerns individuals convicted of sexual offences involving young victims. These are among the most repugnant crimes we can imagine. As I have said before, society must protect itself against this kind of individual.
Bill C-240 has the advantage of preventing the premature release of these offenders. However, similar provisions already exist in Bill C-45, whose purpose is to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In fact, Bill C-45 provides that in the case of a sexual offence involving a child, the National Parole Board would not have to establish the existence or probability of serious harm.
The Board must be satisfied that an offender is likely to commit a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of his sentence. These provisions may be found in section 43(1) of the bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C-45 has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where it is now under consideration. Since the amendment proposed by the hon. member is in all respects identical to the amendment from the Department of Justice, I think it would be premature to comment at this stage.
The second part of the bill presented by my colleague deals with finding an offender to be a dangerous offender. Clause 26 introduces an important amendment to the Criminal Code, which would make it possible to detain in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period an offender found to be dangerous. It would be post-sentencing detention since this penalty would be imposed after sentencing.
By presenting a bill of this kind, the Reform Party member shows to what extent repression and vengeance underly that party's policies with respect to criminal law. Looking at this bill, I have the feeling that Reform members have never heard of the principles of fundamental justice, procedural fairness, and presumption of innocence. These are the principles which make our society free and democratic.
To undermine these principles puts our society at risk. As members of this House, we must be on guard and defeat rightist proposals, which are taken up by a press eager to make us believe that we are still in the midst of a crisis. Before commenting further on this, let us first look at what constitutes a dangerous offender.
Section 753 of the Criminal Code allows the court to find to be a dangerous offender an individual convicted of a serious personal injury or sexual offence. These offences are listed in section 752 of the Criminal Code. Once the accused is found guilty of any one of the offences listed in section 752, the court hears the evidence presented by the Crown and hands down its decision based on the following factors, as listed in section 753:
A pattern of repetitive behaviour showing that the offender is failing to restrain his behaviour; the offender is showing a substantial degree of indifference respecting the consequences of his behaviour; the behaviour associated with the offence is of such a brutal nature that it is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of restriction of freedom.
The decision of the court is given after the offender has been convicted, but before sentencing. The court finds the offender to be dangerous and, instead of imposing a regular sentence, imposes a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment. This is the harshest sentence that can be imposed by a court, since the offender is not eligible for mandatory parole.
The case of the person is reviewed three years after the conviction and every two years thereafter. In practice, these are pro-forma reviews, since officers of the National Parole Board never hesitate, except in a few rare cases, to recommend the continuing of the sentence.
In her bill, my colleague proposes that the whole judicial process be repeated just before the end of the sentence of a given offender. Bill C-240 proposes nothing short of a new trial, with new evidence and a new sentence. Let us remember that this new procedure would not apply to a crime already committed, but to a crime that might be committed.
In fact, it would amount to convicting again someone who has already served his sentence. May I remind this House that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals against double convictions. Section 11(h) says, and I quote: "Any person charged with an offence has the right- if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again".
As we can see, this bill would not withstand a constitutional challenge. It also seems incompatible with the principle of basic justice to go after an individual by reopening the investigation and introducing new evidence on which the initial verdict could not be based.
Another issue raised by this bill is that of relevance. The hon. member herself admitted in this House that her bill only affects
a very small number of inmates. The problem of repeat offenders is much broader and requires more comprehensive solutions than those proposed by my colleague.
She even wildly exaggerated an isolated case, arguing that her bill would solve that kind of problem. The truth is that Bill C-240 suggests only partial solutions and affects only dangerous offenders representing 0.5 per cent of all Canadian inmates now in federal correctional institutions.
If we look at the statistics a little more closely, we will see that, as of December 17, 1992, there were 121 offenders designated as dangerous in Canada. Interesting enough, none of them were in Quebec, the vast majority of them being found in Ontario and the Western provinces. Between 1985 and 1992, the number of dangerous offenders on parole was limited to one per year, a number which has always remained constant.
There are no facts which justify such drastic action. The reactionary measures proposed by my colleague are also superfluous, as the courts already have tools to identify as dangerous any offender before them. Judicious enforcement of the Criminal Code could solve many problems.
It is not enough to respond to public opinion as conveyed by tabloids trying to boost sales and it is not enough to go after a very small number of individuals. From now on, the Liberal government must decide, in co-operation with the provinces, on a global approach to identify repeat offenders and ensure that society is better protected.