Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today at third reading of Bill C-45 to address the principles, objectives and effects of the legislative changes proposed by Bill C-45.
From the outset, let the record show that the people of my riding of Central Nova support the principles and objectives of Bill C-45. My constituents appreciate the government's response to the legitimate concerns of all Canadians who are demanding a higher standard of public protection from high risk, violent offenders.
The proposed government reforms as set forth in Bill C-45 will restore public confidence, close gaps in the corrections system and respond directly to identified shortcomings in our present system to give further protection to our children.
The legislative changes introduced in Bill C-45 require amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. The legislative changes in Bill C-45 are clearly in the best interests of all Canadians.
In my riding of Central Nova, many constituents, the police, parents, the public at large and organizations, including the newly formed organization of Child Safe of Pictou County, have raised time and time again legitimate concerns regarding sex offences against children. The purpose of Child Safe of Pictou County is to educate the public, to promote a sexual abuse free environment for children and to enhance the services for sexually abused children. These services are provided by an organization that certainly has the best interests of our children at heart. Therefore they applaud this legislation.
For the information of my constituents, Bill C-45 introduces legislative provisions that will make it easier to detain sex offenders who victimize children in penitentiary until the end of their sentences by removing the requirement that serious harm must be established as a criterion for detention in these cases.
Let me emphasize the government recognizes that all sexual offences are serious. The current Corrections and Conditional Release Act already authorizes the National Parole Board to detain offenders beyond the normal statutory release point if they are considered likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm before the end of their sentence.
The vulnerability of individual victims is an important consideration in any release or detention decision. However the effectiveness of current legislation is limited because the serious harm criterion is difficult to establish in cases involving children.
Experience has shown that unlike cases involving adult victims, it is often difficult to establish serious harm where the child victim must provide the evidence because often the child cannot articulate the personal impact of the experience. Further, research has shown that the impact of such a crime on a child may not always become evident until many years later.
The legislative changes in Bill C-45 are in keeping with the government's desire to improve the protection of our children from high risk violent offenders and sex offenders. Bill C-45, in its treatment of the definition of serious harm for sex offences against children, will require the National Parole Board only to establish that a sex offence was committed which victimized a child and that a further sexual offence against a child is likely to be committed after release. This legislative change is long overdue and is welcomed by our Canadian families which hold sacred the security and protection of the person of all children in our country of Canada.
In addition to the prolonged detention of sex offenders and high risk violent offenders the government has introduced a legislative change to enhance and expand treatment programs for child sex offenders while in penitentiary. Correctional Service Canada presently carries out institutional treatment for sex offenders but resources are limited. The introduction of additional resources would strengthen treatment programs and are intended to improve public safety.
Speaking of public safety, in my capacity as member of Parliament I had the opportunity in May to visit the maximum security penitentiary in Renous, New Brunswick. For those who are familiar with this institution, it was here in May 1989 that Allan Legere escaped custody, committed four murders in the community and was then recaptured in November 1989. This was certainly a tragedy for that community.
Since 1989 considerable improvements have been made to this maximum security facility. The present warden, Mr. Jon Klaus, provided me with an opportunity to meet the correctional services staff, to visit with inmates and to see firsthand the maximum security institution. I was impressed with the high level of security and the latest surveillance technology being utilized at that facility.
The penitentiary concentrated on rehabilitation, upgrading, training, counselling, and there was segregation of high risk violent offenders from the other inmates. There is no question about it, Renous is a maximum security penitentiary that is state of the art. It provides the inmates with comfort, security, and every opportunity to rehabilitate their criminal behaviour. At the same time, it exists to protect the public from high risk offenders.
The criminal justice system and the penal correction system are interrelated. The general public must come to understand that it is the judiciary that has judicial discretion to impose sentences upon high risk and dangerous offenders, while Correctional Service Canada and its officials and staff are charged with the custody and rehabilitation of the high risk violent offenders while incarcerated. Then it is the National Parole Board that has the authority to release these offenders from detention.
The success of our criminal justice system and our penal correction system does not primarily rely on legislation. The fundamental success of our criminal justice system relies on the ability of man to administer justice without abuse of authority and power and the ability of man to administer justice coupled with equity and mercy.
Justice, law and morality are inseparable. If a moral society existed there would be no need for criminal sanction. It is a requirement of this criminal sanction in our society that necessitates this government to deter, to punish, to rehabilitate its members of society.
It is the human element that determines the success or failure of our criminal justice system and our penal correction system. The human element includes ourselves as individuals who are expected to be law-abiding citizens; the community at large, which develops public opinion; the role of our law enforcers, which is to enforce law; the role of our prosecutors administering justice within the system; the role of defence counsel defending and protecting the rights of the accused; the role of the judiciary rendering a decision; the role of our probation officers, psychologists, social workers, health care professionals, penal institution employees, our clergymen regarding the rehabilitation of the accused; and the role of us here today, the legislators enacting the law.
In my 18 years of practice as a litigation lawyer I have experienced firsthand the oppression, manipulation, and abuse of many people arising from the abuse of power, abuse of authority, and abuse of the process within the systems of government. These abuses I am referring to not only are in relation to the victims of crimes, but also in many cases the accused defendant as well.
It can be legitimately argued that the system of government is not working as it should. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches of government require reform from time to time to ensure justice and equity are meted out to all Canadians.
With respect to the legislative branch of government, it is time we as legislators put responsibility and morality back into the law. Justice, law and morality go hand in hand. They are inseparable.
With respect to the executive branch of government, which administers the law, it is time to diminish the authority, power, and discretion of the bureaucracy and make it more accountable for decisions and attitudes that affect individual Canadians.
With respect to the judicial branch of government, which interprets and enforces the law, it is time that consideration be given to electing our judiciary. The people must live with the decisions of courts. Therefore, it is time we give consideration to electing those who make these decisions.
Constituents of Central Nova have also raised the issue concerning the jurisdiction, power, and authority of the National Parole Board, an administrative tribunal with immense power and authority in relation to our high risk offenders. It is submitted that the government should seriously give consideration to ensuring maximum public input in the selection process of the National Parole Board members and that this selection process should be opened to public scrutiny. This legislation is not intended to address this issue.
Bill C-45 does establish a mechanism for the discipline of the National Parole Board members. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is to be amended to allow the chairperson of the National Parole Board to report situations to the solicitor general that cause concern about the appropriateness of a board member's conduct or performance. Then if the minister agrees, a judge will conduct an inquiry focusing on whether the board member had met the responsibilities of the position. Grounds for the inquiry include incapacitation, misconduct, failure to execute duties, and being placed in a position incompatible with the execution of the member's duties. A judge could recommend that a member be suspended without pay, be removed from office, or he could recommend other remedial measures. This recommendation would be put before the governor in council.
The proposed mechanism will be modelled on a process found in the Immigration Act for the Immigration and Refugee Board. This enhanced accountability will be supported by increased training for the National Parole Board members in risk assessment and management of high risk sex and violent offenders.
Presently it should be noted that there is no formal mechanism for the discipline or removal from office of any National Parole
Board member in specified circumstances. Therefore, Bill C-45 is implementing legislation that is necessary in Canada today.
It is respectfully submitted that this discipline mechanism is imperative. However, it is further submitted that until a procedure for appointments to the National Parole Board is subject to maximum input from the general public at large in the selection process of appointees, there will be continued problems and a continual public outcry for the decisions that are being made by the National Parole Board. Likewise, it is submitted that it is time we give consideration that our judiciary-the decision makers, the interpreters of law, the imposers of sentences after conviction-should be elected to their positions by the public at large.
I further support the additional legislative proposals in Bill C-45 and in particular the legislative change that will modify the system of sentence calculation to ensure that all offenders on conditional release who receive new custodial sentences are returned to custody and that all offenders serve at least one-third of a new consecutive sentence before being eligible to be considered for release.
In addition, I support Bill C-45's expansion of the list of offences for which an offender could be referred for detention until the end of sentence. These offences would include serious drinking and driving and criminal negligence offences that result in bodily harm or death, criminal harassment, also known as stalking, and conspiracy to commit serious drug offences.
A further legislative proposal in Bill C-45 I support is to broaden the authority of Correctional Service Canada to make deductions from an offender's income to help offset a portion of an offender's room and board costs.
It is without question that the positive changes proposed to be implemented in Bill C-45 have my support and the support of my constituents. I am urging all hon. colleagues to lend their support at third reading to Bill C-45.
