Motions Nos. 14 and 15 deal with a very important clause of Bill C-45. Clause 45(3) of the bill amends section 132 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by adding subsection (1.1) regarding the determining by the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board of the likelihood of the offender committing a sexual offence involving a child.
Under the current legislation, a dangerous sexual offender who is likely to commit, at the expiration of his sentence according to the law, an offence causing death or harm to another person, harm
being described as serious physical or emotional injury, can be maintained in detention.
With Bill C-45, clause 42, the National Parole Board would not be required to establish the existence or likelihood of injury, in the case of a sexual offence involving a child. It would need only be satisfied of the likelihood of the commission of a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence according to the law.
In other words, where the board believes the risk is too high, the prisoner remains behind bars. The onus is substantially reduced.
The message is clear: when in doubt, do nothing.
In the case of sexual offenders in particular, it seems to me that the rule is sometimes applied in reverse. Release should not be statutory; it should always be based on the absence of any likelihood that a prisoner convicted of a sexual offence involving a child will commit a further offence.
There is no sexual crime more contemptible and loathsome than one involving a child. The very thought of it disgusts me.
Bear in mind that an individual who is eligible for parole or statutory release was properly tried and found guilty by a court of law and has exhausted all possible grounds of appeals.
This is an offender who has been jailed for the monstrous things he has done. We are not talking about a defendant at this stage. This is an individual serving time for the crimes he has committed. He is paying his debt to society and to his young victim. As far as I am concerned, this is not high enough a price to pay; he could rot in jail.
The role of the parole board was questioned on several occasions. I myself disputed in this House the validity of certain decisions made by commissioners.
Repeat offenses must be denounced as unacceptable. The board is duty-bound to make the right decision concerning those convicted of sexual offenses involving children who are likely to re-offend: keep them in jail. The safety of the public, and children in particular, prevails over any right a prisoner may have if he or she poses too great a threat.
However, and this is the reason I tabled Motions Nos. 14 and 15, it is necessary to specify the admissible sources of "reliable information" which can be taken into consideration by the Correctional Service and which are referred to in clause 45 of the bill.
Police forces, prosecutors and probation services are examples of "recognized and dependable sources", as suggested in Motions Nos. 14 and 15. If the bill is not specific in that regard, there is a risk that mere allegations could turn into conclusive evidence and create a despotic regime or, conversely, and this is what I fear most, encourage an interpretation which greatly favours the suspect and which could therefore result in a premature release. This is why I ask the House to support Motions Nos. 14 and 15.