Debates of Sept. 27th, 1995

Committees Of The House

[The Speaker]

Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have another motion.

I think that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That three members and two staff of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Manitoba, on Sunday, October 1, and Monday, October 2, 1995, in order to participate in the Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice.

[The Speaker]

Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

The petitioners allude to the tragic murders of Pamela Cameron, Jessie Cadman, and Melanie Carpenter, whose father Steve is organizing the public rally outside today for National Victims Day.

The petitioners ask Parliament to call upon the government to bring forward legislation to protect Canadians from dangerous and high risk offenders.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition from 32 petitioners of the riding of Halifax West who call upon the government not to change the present tendering process for moving in the Department of National Defence.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by 138 people from the four provinces of Atlantic Canada.

Whereas the Government of Canada has enacted legislation, the charter of rights, and whereas the rights of repeat sex offenders are given precedence over the rights of innocent children as in the case of Sarah Kelly of The Pas, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would make the safety of our children a priority.

They request changes to be made to the charter of rights which would enable residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are released into the community.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Transfer of Offenders Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move third reading of Bill C-45. This is a bill to update our corrections and parole system.

When I last spoke on this bill to open second reading debate, I noted that it was part of a strategic framework of initiatives that work together in order to carry out our red book agenda and demonstrated our commitment to safe homes and safe streets for all Canadians.

This is a goal this government takes very seriously. Over the past year this government has been working hard and has consistently delivered on this commitment.

We have brought forward amendments to the Young Offenders Act to respond to a number of concerns about it. Through Bill C-41 we have reformed the sentencing process by placing a new focus on better addressing public safety, ensuring more consistency in sentencing, and being more responsive to the needs of victims.

We have also made a lot of headway on preparing and presenting legislation on gun control, on a new witness protection program, and on DNA analysis. Also, legislation is being prepared within the government to take steps to deal with high risk violent offenders, which I will discuss further in my remarks.

There is a widespread desire to ensure that we have an effective federal corrections and parole system. This makes it all the more important for us to look closely at problems that are identified and seek concrete and meaningful solutions to these problems.

There may be some violent offenders who are unlikely to ever be able to lead law-abiding lives in the community. However, simply locking up more and more of the other kinds of offenders for longer periods of time will not achieve the long term safety of our communities that we all care about. Surely the United States experience proves this every day.

Where a sentence of imprisonment is considered necessary by the court, we must be mindful that the vast majority of offenders are given definite sentences with fixed terms. Therefore, they will eventually be released into the community. A conditional release of most offenders at a point in their sentence that is consistent with public safety, along with support and surveillance in the community during the balance of the sentence and programming while incarcerated, would appear to provide the best chance for the offender to be a stable, law-abiding member of the community. I submit that this offers the best prospects for the safety of our communities in the long term.

Bill C-45 is one building block in this government's response to the complex issues involved in having a criminal justice system that contributes to the overall protection of the public and the safety of our communities. Bill C-45 by itself is not the sole answer, but I believe it makes important reforms that demonstrate forward movement.

As I outlined to the House during second reading debate, the bill makes improvements in a number of substantive areas. There are situations where the protection of the public means the usual conditional release process should not apply. Therefore, the bill strengthens the detention process by responding to concerns about the early release of sex offenders who victimize children, which in the bill includes persons under the age of 18. The law will make it much easier for the parole board, at the request of the correctional service, to keep such persons in prison for their entire sentence. Where a further offence against the child is likely, such an offender can expect to serve the full sentence in custody without any period of conditional release in the community.

I would like to reiterate that this measure is not needed because we believe sex offences against children are considered more serious than those against adult victims, but because the current legislation has proven less effective in cases involving children.

The second main area of change in the bill relates to the accountability and credibility of the National Parole Board. There have been many changes in the board's operation in the past year. This government has placed an emphasis on recruiting experienced, knowledgeable individuals. I believe the government's record of appointments in the past year bears this out.

The members of the board have an extremely difficult job to do, one that few of us in this Chamber would willingly take on. I think we should recognize the challenges involved and the dedication of the members. The board makes thousands of decisions a year and sometimes, despite everyone's best efforts, unforeseen tragedies in the community do occur. These are sad moments and are clearly very painful for those who are directly affected by them.

Every effort possible is being made and will continue to be made to improve the quality of the board's decision making. To support this, the board has recently adopted a code of conduct as well as performance standards. Renewed emphasis has been placed on training and evaluation.

Where problems arise and no other resolution has been successful, Bill C-45 provides for a review of the board member's performance and a process for remedial action to be taken. This amendment in Bill C-45 is there to be used where a board member's performance has clearly fallen below acceptable standards.

Frankly, I think the provision will prove to be a success if it does not have to be used. This may seem paradoxical, but I say this because if it does not have to be used it will mean that we are appointing top-notch individuals, we are providing the necessary training and support, and that corrective action is being taken before serious problems arise in the performance of board members that would necessitate use of the new procedure. At the same time, if the House adopts this measure and it is adopted by the other place and given royal assent, which I hope and expect it will, then the procedure is in the act and of course it is there to be used if circumstances require it.

The third area of reform in the bill is the provision relating to calculating the sentences of offenders who commit multiple crimes or who reoffend while on conditional release during the sentence period. Clearly, tougher provisions are needed to deal with these repeat offenders. Bill C-45 will help eliminate the situation whereby many such offenders may be immediately eligible for parole, notwithstanding the imposition of a severe consecutive new sentence, something that is possible under the current law.

Bill C-45 will cure in large measure the problem of the merger of sentences which has been raised with a great deal of concern by many organizations of the community, including police organizations. I hope this will help bring about the support of the House for this measure.

A fourth area of reform will give the National Parole Board the authority to impose residency conditions on offenders being released on statutory release who pose some risk of committing a violent offence but who do not meet the detention criteria that would, if met, allow the National Parole Board at the request of the Correctional Service of Canada to detain a person until the end of that person's sentence. This amendment was brought by the government during clause by clause study of the bill in committee in response to recommendations by the Canadian Police Association, the Stephenson inquest, and the standing committee itself.

Bill C-45 was one of the first bills to follow one of the new routes for legislation I proposed to the House as House leader and which was agreed to early in 1994. I am talking about referral of a bill to committee prior to second reading.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs devoted a great deal of time and energy to reviewing this bill. In a little over three months the committee heard from over 60 witnesses on both this bill and Bill C-41, the bill on sentencing. Those individuals who testified represented 32 different organizations, including victims' groups, police organizations, professional groups, women's groups, aboriginal organizations, as well as a range of organizations from the voluntary sector.

During both the committee's clause by clause review and the debate during report stage in the House last week, a much broader range of motions was debated than would have been likely under the system of review of a bill in committee only after second reading.

While I know that some members may have been disappointed that not all the motions they put forward were adopted, this new process allowed members to consider and discuss issues that otherwise would have simply been ruled out of order. I want to thank the members of the justice committee for their work and I want to point out that at least some of the suggestions from members, including opposition members, have been accepted by the government.

I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks several other important legislative initiatives taken by this government to help provide safer homes and safer streets for Canadians. As my parliamentary secretary reminded the House last week, significant advances have been made by this government over the past two years to protect the basic rights of Canadians to live in peaceful and safe communities.

I want to conclude my remarks by mentioning some of the initiatives that were taken that did not need legislation to be adopted by this House.

In November of last year I announced a national information system based on enhancements to the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC. This will make more and better information available to organizations across the country to help them screen out convicted sex abusers applying for work with children. These improvements to CPIC have allowed organizations to more thoroughly screen the backgrounds of individuals applying for paid or voluntary work with children or other vulnerable persons.

This government made a commitment in the red book to help prevent the sexual abuse of children by people in positions of trust and the government has acted on this commitment. While the CPIC system is now in place, as I have said, these measures will only be truly effective if organizations working with children are aware of the changes and the need for screening in general and make use of the new system. We have a role to play in providing leadership, education, and awareness to make sure this happens.

Along with partners involving the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, and the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaus and Centres, work is under way to create educational materials and to deliver training to voluntary organizations across the country on screening volunteers and paid staff in positions of trust with children and other vulnerable individuals. These measures will help us to communicate the importance of screening to help prevent child abuse. I am sure this is a goal we all share.

Another positive example of this kind of co-operative effort is recent work in the area of high risk offenders. In January of this year the Minister of Justice and I met with federal, provincial and territorial colleagues in Victoria to discuss the report of our task force on high risk offenders.

Not only did we achieve consensus around the criminal justice recommendations put forward in that report, we also had the

opportunity to meet jointly with representatives from federal, provincial and territorial health ministers.

This allowed us to have a frank and useful discussion of those issues which crossed traditional criminal justice and mental health boundaries.

I believe we must take a comprehensive view in developing meaningful solutions to the issue of high risk violent offenders. This involves seeking effective answers which draw on the facilities of federal, provincial and territorial systems.

I think it was helpful that the task force looked at the system as a whole. It examined strategies at its front end as well as situations in which offenders are approaching release into the community. The report stressed and ministers endorsed a focus on improved measures at the front end of the system so we would hopefully have fewer problems arising at the eleventh hour when an offender is nearing the point of release.

Implementation of the report is under way and we will continue to fully involve our provincial partners.

Some of the matters in the report require further development before they can be put into operation, while we have been able to move more immediately on others. For example, I announced the implementation of a flagging system which will assist prosecutors in identifying cases which would be appropriate for a dangerous offender application.

The House will recall that if the court at the time of conviction and sentencing rules the accused to be a dangerous offender, that person can be imprisoned indefinitely. In a large country such as Canada where there is a high degree of mobility it is not always easy for a provincial crown prosecutor in one corner of the country to have all the information available which would have a bearing on how a case may be prosecuted. The flagging system which also makes use of the Canadian police information centre will help make that information link.

Similarly, a research project, the crown files project, is nearing completion. This project will provide concrete information about the factors which are significant predictors of dangerousness and which are central to successful dangerous offender applications.

The Minister of Justice and I are also working on legislative changes to make it easier for provincial crown attorneys to make more frequent and more effective use than is the case at present of the existing dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code. One key element involves making an indefinite sentence of imprisonment the only sentencing option for those found by the courts to be dangerous offenders. Another would provide for new expanded presentence risk assessments in place of the current requirement for the evidence of two psychiatrists, one for the prosecution and one for the defence.

Another important amendment we are working on in line with the task force report is to change the Criminal Code to create a new category of long term offender which would give the courts a new sentencing option. This would require long term supervision of the offender for up to 10 years following the end of the offender's penitentiary term.

In May the Minister of Justice and I convened a forum involving constitutional and legal experts, including those working with police and with victims groups, to tackle the matter of those offenders who remain dangerous at the end of their court imposed sentence. The forum was a productive session that is assisting us in addressing some very fundamental issues such as constitutional questions and how we identify those offenders with the greatest risk of reoffending in a violent manner.

We are working to develop further legislative action to deal with this important and troubling aspect of the matter of high risk dangerous offenders.

We must recognize the criminal justice system is a system. Activities and events in one part of it have a ripple effect through all the other parts.

More vigourous law enforcement places increased demand on courts and corrections, prosecutorial policies can direct more or fewer offenders to community or prison, the availability of community programs may determine what sentences courts view as realistic.

Actions seen as positive from one perspective may have unintended negative side effects. Clearly the criminal justice system is very complex. Moreover, the various segments which make it up come under the authority of different levels of government.

Nevertheless, it is truly one which can work best only if it is well integrated and co-ordinated. It is clear all levels of government, all sectors of the system, social policy groups, police and victims groups must work together. That is one reason last year the government created a national crime prevention council.

I believe we have made an extremely good beginning on improving the criminal justice system in the interests of all Canadians over the past few years. I thank members of the House for all their efforts on the criminal justice front and I look forward to our continuing good co-operation.

I ask that the House give full and speedy approval to the bill in this third reading debate so its useful aspects, every part of the bill, can go into effect very soon to help ensure all Canadians have safer

homes, safer streets and the best possible communities for themselves and for their children.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last spring in this House we debated Bill C-41 on sentencing. That bill was given royal assent on July 13. Bill C-45 is the legislative cousin of Bill C-41; it is a logical continuation to the bill on sentencing. One cannot function without the other, without placing the cohesion of our penal justice system in jeopardy.

Bill C-41 has now become a sort of road map for judges in determining sentences. Bill C-45 attempts to do likewise for the members of parole boards. It lays out the path to take, the modus operandi to be followed.

Today, we begin third reading of Bill C-45, a new step toward its passage by this House. This bill is wide-reaching in that it modifies the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

Bill C-45 does not reform the key principles underlying the detention of offenders, and that is a great pity. Despite its obvious shortcomings, however, Bill C-45 represents at least a baby step in the right direction. The Bloc Quebecois has always had protection of the public at heart, particularly the protection of child victims of sexual offenders.

That protection requires a more rigid approach to parole, to the calculation of eligibility in consecutive or concurrent sentences, and to the conditions for release. A totally new tack is needed, but Bill C-45 veers only slightly off in a new direction, far too little.

Public safety must no longer be jeopardized by efforts to rehabilitate offenders. The solicitor general has caught the germ of compromise from his colleague at justice.

In its red book, the Liberal government promised to enhance public safety. Bill C-45, however, remains silent on protecting a specific category of victims.

Let me explain. The bill will change the criteria used to determine whether the perpetrator of a sexual offence involving a child should serve his full sentence. At the present time, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits the National Parole Board to detain, until the end of their sentence, sex offenders and other high-risk offenders who are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm after their release.

When the victims are children, the serious harm may not become apparent for a number of years. The victim may be too young to express the impact of what was done. It is therefore difficult for the Parole Board to prove that a child has suffered serious harm, to justify keeping an offender in detention.

Clause 42 of Bill C-45 would, in the case of a sexual offence involving a child, relieve the National Parole Board of the need to establish the presence or likelihood of serious harm. It would be enough for the Board to be convinced of the likelihood of a further sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence according to law.

In other words, if the Board is convinced that the risk is too great, the offender is kept behind bars. The burden of proof is substantially reduced.

As I said earlier, this is a small step in the right direction. However, this measure only affects sexual offenders whose victims are children.

What about adult women who are sexually assaulted? Are they not entitled to the same protection? When we talk about harm assessment, could the real harm possibly not become apparent until many years later in the case of women as well? If the individual assaulted a woman, it will be easier for him to get parole than if he assaulted a child.

The entire public needs protection, children of course, but also women, the other victims of sexual abuse. The solicitor general should reread the preamble to Bill C-72 which is about the problem created by the use of self-induced intoxication as a defence in cases of sexual assault, for instance. The victim in the Daviault case was 67 at the time of the assault.

For the benefit of the minister and those who have again overlooked women as victims of sexual assault, this is what it says in the preamble of what is now Chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995, and I quote: "Whereas the Parliament of Canada is gravely concerned about the incidence of violence in Canadian society; whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence has a particularly disadvantaging impact on the equal participation of women and children in society and on the rights of women and children to security of the person and to the equal protection and benefit of the law as guaranteed by sections 7, 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; -whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to promote and help to ensure the full protection of the rights guaranteed under sections 7, 11, 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians, including those who are or may be victims of violence''.

That is what this government has to offer the public. Hollow sounding words that mean nothing except to Liberals suffering from acute navel-gazing.

The Liberal government says it wants to protect victims and potential victims, but when we look at the means it proposes to achieve this, we see the government still does not take this seriously.

I ask the solicitor general to go and recite this magnificent preamble to women who are victims of sexual aggression. I think he would have very attentive listeners.

What victims of sexual aggression should be getting from the solicitor general is the assurance that their aggressors will remain behind bars as long as possible and not return to haunt them through premature release.

What the solicitor general is telling them today is that they will not enjoy the protection the law should be giving them, because they were adults at the time the sexual aggression took place.

In 1994, 31,690 cases of sexual aggression were reported in this country. The victims may be divided as follows: approximately one third of them were under 12 years of age; another third were between the ages of 12 and 17. This leaves us with more than 10,000 adult victims. Are they not entitled to the same protection? Will the solicitor general finally have the courage to say that his promise of safer homes and safer streets applies to only one category of victim and not to others?

The solicitor general confided to this House on September 20, 1994, and I quote: "Turning to the bill itself, I believe it is important because it addresses significant issues of public protection in the area of corrections and parole. These are issues on which this government promised action in that same red book as part of its agenda to bring about safe homes and safe streets for Canadians. With this bill we are delivering on these promises".

When the solicitor general said his government was delivering on its promises, I wonder what promises he is referring to. Certainly not the one about everyone being entitled to the same protection at home and in the street. The government did not deliver on this promise. Bill C-45 is merely the beginnings of a solution.

I will give the solicitor general only a passing grade, because this is not the only failing of the bill.

The solicitor general promised on September 20, 1994 as well, and I quote: "We will also be making other improvements in the availability of treatment for sex offenders in the community and in prison".

In theory, gradual supervised reintegration into the community and the provision of help and support services constitute, according to some, the safest way for criminals to be released. I say in theory because, unless he agrees to undergo treatment, the offender may be a time-bomb just waiting for an early release to explode.

Another major flaw of Bill C-45 is that it says absolutely nothing about the kind of treatment individuals found guilty of a sexual offence involving not only a child but any adult victim should be given. It is wrong to say that the mere fact of making treatment more easily available will automatically reduce the risk of repeat offences.

Let me explain. At present, section 88 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act states that treatment shall be conditional and dependent upon the inmate voluntarily giving an informed consent thereto and "an inmate has the right to refuse treatment or withdraw from treatment at any time".

The treatment referred to includes the care of a disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that significantly impairs judgment, behaviour, the capacity to recognize reality or the ability to meet the ordinary demands of life.

In most cases, this treatment is for the very behaviour disorders that have landed the offender in prison.

If treatment remains elective and dependent upon the good will of inmates, those who refuse treatment are in fact refusing to change their behaviour and will not have changed a single bit by the time they are released.

The fact that Bill C-45 remains silent on this subject is disquieting to say the least. Remaining silent when it comes to tackling the real problem and boasting about keeping promises is the kind of attitude that is the trademark of this government. With respect to public safety, the solicitor general certainly did not deliver.

We have every right to wonder why Bill C-45, whose provisions affect thousands of inmates who are released into our communities, remains silent in this respect.

For example, in 1993, 10,317 inmates were granted full parole by national and provincial parole boards. Full parole is a form of conditional release, granted at the discretion of parole authorities that allows an offender to serve part of his sentence in the community.

Parole boards are administrative tribunals with powers to grant, refuse, amend, end or revoke parole for inmates.

Bill C-45 corrects a shortcoming that I have denounced several times in this House. The Federal Court has a general power of supervision over the National Parole Board. This is not enough. There was a need to develop some safeguard mechanisms within the framework of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Bill C-45 provides for disciplinary or remedial measures against commissioners who do not follow good practices with competence and diligence.

Under new clause 155.2, the chairperson may recommend that a member of the board be investigated. The investigator reports to the solicitor general and may recommend removal or suspension without pay if he thinks that the member in question is unable to do

the job properly, for example, because he or she is guilty of misconduct or has failed in the performance of his or her duties.

The National Parole Board is an administrative tribunal with significant discretionary powers; the solicitor general had a duty to act on our repeated demands. For once, we got our message across to the other side of this House.

As for the Reform members, it does not augur well. They continue to swagger about and think of themselves as gladiators in the parliamentary arena.

It is easy to behave like a cowboy when discussing parole and conditional release. Our western cowboys do so every day with their thundering comments on sad cases which, I agree, still affect too many victims and their families. But it is easy to make political mileage at the expense of these people.

We realize that our criminal justice system is not perfect and that there will always be room for improvement. Bill C-45 is flawed in certain respects, but it is nevertheless a step in the direction which the Bloc has always advocated.

However, our reform cowboys would rather get rid of the whole system to bring justice to the victims. The wild west has a way of its own. The member for Wild Rose best exemplifies that way of doing things. During the debate at report stage, he invited the solicitor general's parliamentary secretary to visit his riding and to explain the government's ideas regarding Bill C-45. The member for Wild Rose said, and I quote: "You want to sell my people in Wild Rose all your wonderful solutions to crime? You are welcome and good luck. If you think I am loud, wait until you get out there".

As you can see, Reform members have innate knowledge and they know what is good for Canada. This is yet another reason for Quebecers to distance themselves. Quebec uses a different approach because it does not deal with the same type of criminals. The results conclusively show that we are on the right track and that our system should serve as an example.

In 1994, Quebec had the lowest rate in Canada for violent crimes of any category, including sexual assault, assault and kidnapping. Quebec also has the best record for other types of offence to the Criminal Code, including the violation of conditions for release on bail, crimes against public order, arson, prostitution and use of offensive weapons.

Western solutions are not adequate for Quebec. Quebecers are peaceful people. They advocate civic-mindedness, tolerance and balanced solutions to their legitimate concerns regarding public safety. Although not perfect, Bill C-45 deserves the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member who just spoke gets her information about the west. Perhaps she might want to visit out there. I live out west and I do not in any way meet the description which she has given the House. I am a little bemused by that kind of simplistic labelling. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to see other parts of the country one day.

Today we are debating Bill C-45. It has been introduced in the House, examined by a committee and is now at third reading which means that if it passes third reading, it will become law very shortly. Therefore, I would like to give a bit of an analysis of this bill and whether it could be improved.

As the House is aware, the Reform Party introduced quite a number of motions to this bill, none of which were accepted by the government. Those motions in our view would have gone a long way toward achieving the stated aim of the bill which is to make our justice and corrections system more effective, particularly in protecting the public. As most members know, there have been 78 re-offences by people who were out on parole in the last year. These people have killed, terrorized and invaded the homes and lives of innocent people.

Canadians have been asking for many months that something concrete and decisive be done about this situation. Therefore, we looked anxiously at Bill C-45 to see whether that had in fact been the result of this bill. Unfortunately we find that it is not.

Bill C-45 is very technical. It has a lot of administrative details about the transfer of prisoners, the calculation of sentences and the figuring out of when people are eligible for parole and when they are not. However, there are some real flaws in the bill. It is interesting to note that the bill was floating around the Department of the Solicitor General in the last Parliament when the Tories were governing. It has now been introduced by the Liberals in a watered down version. It is not even as effective, as strong or as decisive as the original bill. We find that extremely unfortunate.

We feel a number of the provisions in this bill should have been and could have been made much stronger and given a lot more teeth. We wish the government had listened to those proposals. Unfortunately it did not.

For example, we talk about the detention of people who commit offences while on parole. When people are on parole, given a chance to go back out into society and be upright citizens, they have been told: "You do not have to serve the whole sentence you have been given. Now you can go back out into society". We do not have in the bill a requirement that when people abuse that privilege

they have to serve the rest of the sentence they should have served when they were out on parole and the entire sentence for the new offence. Again they are eligible for parole on the second offence they committed when they have already abused the privileges and the opportunity they were given as parolees. We really object to that.

When offenders have shown once that they have no respect for the privilege of parole, an early opportunity not to have to serve their full sentence, why should they be given the same consideration the next time out? How many times do they have to be sentenced and not have to serve their full sentences before we start sending the message that we really mean business about people who violate the rights of others?

That was not done in the bill. It should also have demanded full term detention for all dangerous offenders deemed capable of repeating their offences.

As justice critics we visited prisons over the last few weeks to familiarize ourselves with aspects of the justice system. One of the questions I like to ask when we talk with prison administrators, representatives of guards and prisoners is: "If there were one thing you could change about our justice system, what would it be?" Quite often the answer includes some demand or plea.

Officials and frontline workers in prisons know the offenders who are likely to reoffend. They know these people. They work with them every day. They know their attitudes. They know the way they think. They know the way they operate. They know how they respond to opportunities they have been given. They say: "When we know good and well that these people will reoffend, please let us keep them off the streets and out of our communities".

The bill was a golden opportunity for the government to allow that to happen. It did not do it and it did not support a Reform amendment that would have allowed it.

There are administrators and guards in our prisons who say: "Please do not make us put these people who are a danger to society back out on the streets". Our government says that it is all right and out they go. There has to be something wrong with our justice system. It is no wonder the people who work in the system are as frustrated as the citizens and the victims of repeat offenders.

Other people have mentioned the concern in society that sexual assault is not deemed in and of itself to be a danger or to cause harm to adults. Clause 129(3) of the bill states that the parole board may order an offender not to be released from imprisonment before the expiration of his term if the board is satisfied that the offender is likely, if released, to commit an offence causing serious harm to another person or a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of what otherwise would have been the offender's sentence.

We are very unhappy with the distinction made in this clause between serious harm to another person and sexual offence involving a child. We would have thought that offenders who were deemed to be likely to commit a sexual offence against anybody should be made, at the very least, to serve their full term. Never mind going on, as we have suggested, and being incarcerated indefinitely if they are deemed to be likely to commit a sexual offence.

Sexual offences against children are the only crimes that would make a person serve his full term. We just wonder about that. The government makes very loud noises about caring and compassion, particularly for women, and then it says that a sexual offence against an adult woman may not be deemed to be causing serious harm. It has to be shown that a sexual offence against an adult woman involves serious harm.

Sexual offence against any female whether she is eight or eighty is by definition a serious harm to the individual. I am very surprised the government would make a distinction and say that sexual offences against children will keep somebody incarcerated and not be too concerned about sexual offences against any other woman of an older age. I object to that and I think all Canadians should object to that. I find it a very unacceptable distinction in the legislation.

Much is made by the government side about holding the parole board more accountable. All the bill does is allow the chairman of the parole board to call an inquiry when an offender released on parole by the board reoffends. Can we imagine a chairman of the board who let an offender out who reoffended being the best person to decide when the actions and the decisions made by the parole board should be investigated? Is that not a bit like asking the fox to guard the hen house?

If we have a parole board that has screwed up, that has let somebody out who has hurt other people, should the chairman of that body decide whether the particular decision should be investigated?

One of our amendments was to mandate an investigation of the parole board decision in any case where an offender was let out into the public on parole and reoffended. Here we have a situation where only the chairman of the parole board can mandate that kind of investigation.

When Liberal members applaud the bill as putting restrictions on the operations of the parole board, the public should be aware of how toothless those restrictions really are in that the power to hold the board accountable can only be exercised by the chairman of the board. Certainly that is not what the public has in mind when it talks about holding the parole board more accountable and having its foul-ups reviewed.

There was an opportunity in the bill to do a number of things that the public has been asking for. Yet we see that the bill has fallen far short. We in the Reform Party are in a real dilemma about the bill. The weak, almost ineffectual steps taken in the bill will not necessarily hurt anything. The government should have done much to help straighten out the system and get it more decisively and solidly on the side of making sure that our justice, corrections and parole systems really do the job for Canadians. The bill just does not do it.

What do we do? There is nothing here we could not support because there is really nothing in there at all, except a bunch of administrative add-ons that may or may not make very much difference. How can we support a bill that should have done something substantive for Canadians, for the criminal justice system and for the reforms that the Liberals are so fond of talking about, promising and saying are a piece of the action, when it just does not deliver?

On balance, when the government introduces a bill that should have done the job decisively, strongly and effectively and fails miserably, how can we support that? How can we say this is something worthy of support? We cannot do that.

For some of the reasons I have mentioned and some of the reasons my colleagues will be mentioning, we say to the government that the bill is not good enough for Canadians. It is not something the House should support. It is not something we can even in any way suggest does the job that should be done.

We ask the government to take back the bill and give us something that does the job. Then we will support it 100 per cent.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today on the motion for third reading of Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes.

Recent polls and letters received from constituents indicate that crime is a major concern among Canadians today. Among other vital issues such as national unity and the health care system, individuals are greatly concerned with crime. Only matters relating to the economy and the deficit seem more important to our fellow citizens. It is clear that the government must assume leadership in this area.

We have already made a commitment to address the issue. The red book stipulated our commitment to fight crime and violence by more effective measures and social reform. Last fall the solicitor general introduced the bill as part of a strategic framework of initiatives for safe homes and safe streets for all Canadians.

I will address the second main area of change resulting from Bill C-45, the accountability of National Parole Board members. However first let me briefly explain the concept of parole.

Canada's discretionary conditional release system is based on the principle that a gradual, controlled re-entry to the community better serves the interests of public safety than does direct release. It is a way of managing with supervision and conditions the transition from incarceration to life in the community. The numbers support the principle.

Clearly the performance of the National Parole Board is only as good as the decision it makes. Consequently the credibility and accountability of the board are directly linked to the qualifications and judgment exercised by its own members and to the quality, completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the board for review. The requirement for board members to have the relevant skills and knowledge to make sound decisions is essential in order to perform their responsibilities professionally.

Board members face the difficult task of making decisions about the timing and conditions of an offender's release in a manner that contributes to the long term protection of society. It is therefore only logical that the individuals who make those decisions are chosen from the best qualified candidates.

As mentioned by my hon. colleagues, there has already been considerable progress in this area and in others. Over the last several months a number of important events and activities have taken place which have helped to shape a renewed course for the National Parole Board.

This was largely brought about with the appointment of a new chairperson, Mr. Willie Gibbs, who brought to the board impressive knowledge and experience in the criminal justice system. Mr. Gibbs was chosen after a comprehensive selection process, and a similar system is now in place for all member appointments. Already new board members have been recruited under these provisions. It should be noted also that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has the ability, which it has been using, to call new appointees before the committee for questioning.

Let me explain these measures in more detail. These appointment provisions include a set of revised criteria which all applicants must meet, emphasizing experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system and in particular corrections and conditional release systems in Canada.

National Parole Board vacancies are now advertised in the Canada Gazette and include the qualifications and abilities required. After a screening process those who ranked highest in meeting the criteria are interviewed by a committee chaired by either the chairperson or the executive vice-chair of the National Parole Board. A list of successful candidates is then submitted to

the Solicitor General of Canada. That list is then reviewed and sent to the Privy Council Office for the final appointment.

In all regions of Canada applicants have gone through the process and new part time and full time board members have been selected.

The revised appointment process does not preclude the fact that current board members are competent, but it does underscore that the Government of Canada recognizes the difficulties of being a board member and ensuring the challenges are met with the kind of knowledge and competence these positions demand.

In addition to the improvements I have already mentioned, the National Parole Board adopted a code of professional conduct and performance standards to guide all board members in their duties. The specific provisions of the code of professional conduct cover such areas as promotion of integrity and independence, general conduct, conflict of interest, decision making, conduct during proceedings, continuing professional development, and disqualification and reporting, to name just a few.

These standards and the code of conduct were created to better articulate board members' individual accountability as decision makers and to preserve the integrity of the board itself. They represent the members' acceptance of the highest ideals of professional conduct and the responsibility of board members for decisions that directly affect the interests and safety of entire communities as well as individual victims, offenders, and their families. Most important, these high standards promote respect for the law and will help to improve public confidence.

The proposed amendments for the adoption of a disciplinary system for board members were made in order to correct a board member's performance if it has fallen below acceptable standards. The enactment authorizes the chairperson of the National Parole Board to recommend to the minister that an inquiry be conducted by a federal court judge to determine whether a board member should be suspended without pay, be removed from his or her office, or be subject to other disciplinary or remedial measures. This measure is not intended to second guess board members or to respond punitively where a case has gone wrong despite everyone's best efforts. Rather, this would be a review mechanism available where a member is clearly not performing up to acceptable standards.

The solicitor general has stated that he hopes this provision will never be used. I am confident this is a hope all of us share on all sides of the House, as it will mean that the renewed appointment process and proper training are working well.

The solicitor general also mentioned the need to improve the quality of decision making at the National Parole Board. This is another area in which the board continues to adapt to changing needs to ensure the best possible decisions are made. These measures have already been implemented and I name here just a few.

First, the board has created a national training framework. Board members require comprehensive orientation and continuous and continual training and development to keep abreast of changes in law, policies and procedures, risk assessment and management, and generally to improve their performance.

Second, thorough reviews of specific case audits in national investigations are used as training tools to ensure procedures are followed and duties are performed in accordance with the law. Investigation findings and recommendations may also be used in performance appraisal systems.

Third, all board members are currently subject to annual reviews of their performance. The first round of appraisals is now completed and has provided the board with an opportunity to address any weaknesses identified, provide the needed training, and take appropriate corrective action in certain cases.

Fourth, a new training package is provided to board members, which addresses the area of risk assessment alone. This cohesive training package focuses on how current research, theory, and opinion in the human and social sciences can assist National Parole Board members in their decision making relating to risk management and risk reduction.

It is obvious that despite the most recent and precise risk assessment tools available, tragedies can and do occur. These tragedies affect all of us deeply and we must react by seeking solutions to prevent further tragedies. However, we have all come to recognize that each case represents different and often complex challenges and that even the best research can yield less than perfect predictions of reoffending. Our corrections and conditional release system is based on human assessments of fellow human beings. Even with all of the available information, predicting human behaviour has never been and will never be an exact science.

I think it is important for Canadians to have a clear understanding about the success of parole as measured by recidivism rates. A successful parole is measured by completion of sentence time without revocation of parole. Follow-up studies done for the parole board over the last few years have shown a success rate of approximately 70 per cent for full parole releases granted by the board. Studies showed that some 15 per cent of full parolees were returned to prison because of breach of a parole condition, while 13 per cent committed a new crime.

Primary consideration of any parole board decision revolves on the concern always for public protection. We should also note that the average annual cost to incarcerate an adult in Canada is $46,000, while supervision of an adult in the community costs on average $8,500 per year.

There are other areas in which we can work together to minimize the risk posed by offenders. Bill C-45, including its changes to the National Parole Board, clearly represents a step toward the government's commitment to public safety and security. The changes dealing with the National Parole Board have not been created and will not be carried out in a vacuum. They are only as good as the criminal justice system in which they operate. Every effort must be made to work in partnership with other agencies and with the communities we represent so that use of the limited government resources is maximized to ensure public safety at every stage in the offender's contact with the criminal justice system.

As the MP for London West, I have spent time in my city visiting the facilities and the people involved with our parole system. As the solicitor general has stated, the system will work best if it is well integrated and co-ordinated.

I am sure we all seek an efficient, professional corrections and conditional release system. To this end, I join with my other colleagues in the House in urging all members of the Chamber to support the amendments reflected in Bill C-45.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do have one question relating to the statistics and the demographics the hon. member has put before the House.

I constantly hear from the government, in particular in the last speech, about success rate, how successful the parole board has been and how successful the management of crime has been as far as the government is concerned. I would like to ask what the member would do or what the government would do with the unsuccessful circumstances. For instance, I got a telephone call in my riding from a parole board member who went on and on about the 87 per cent success rate. I reminded that individual that this means there is a 13 per cent failure rate and that it is the failures that are affecting family after family.

When will the government look at the failure problem and not rely on statistics from the government department that has the problems? Those statistics are typically about success rates. Could the member please respond?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The parole system is very difficult to understand if you have not been involved with it personally or if it has not been thoroughly explained.

Failures will always occur in any system invented and dealt with by humans. Unfortunately, we are not clones of one perfect being on this planet and there will be error. We have to strive to create the best system we are capable of.

The law will change and will continue to change. I do not think any of these ministers who are trying to accommodate the concern of the public and the reality of our system of justice in the country will stop providing better and better legislation as time goes on. We move forward one step at a time. What I want to point out to the member though, is that what this act talks about are sections dealing with the parole decisions. It is a fact that we do have more successful interventions by our justice system with the parole system where people get conditional releases than if they just hit the wall where they are released into the public, where there is no parole given.

In actual fact, our success rate is much higher than if somebody comes to the end of the time they have to serve by law and walks onto the street, because there has been no management in the community with the assistance and the tools that we can provide, and this act provides, if we just say the time is up and let them go. Our success rate is better with this parole system. Fortunately for Canadians, these are the statistics and they are correct.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I read with great attention the speech by the hon. member. I found it interesting, especially when it comes to improving the parole board. I think there is a need to improve the way the board operates as well as the appointment process. I hope that the government will keep its word because we were also promised that there would be no partisan appointments to the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, that appointments would be based on competence, but we are not quite there yet.

My question has to do with the application of this bill. Why does it not apply to sexual offenders whose victims are adult women? As the hon. member for Saint-Hubert said, last year, over 10,000 cases involved adults and not only sexually abused children.