Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that you have to do as you are told if you belong to a certain party in this place. That is too bad because there are a lot of people on that side of the House as well as this side who would truly like to represent their people even when it comes to Bill C-55. They would like to hear their voices with regard to issues and would like to be able to express that through a vote in the House, but it does not work that way.
Three things bother me about Bill C-55. First is electronic monitoring. A provision in the bill states that a person only has to be a suspect in order to be monitored. This person does not need to have a conviction or a record or even been charged. The provision states that if we think you are he kind of a person who might commit this or that crime, you would qualify for electronic monitoring.
Many people would think that is a fairly strange process for a country like Canada to engage in. Some people would even go so far as to say we are moving toward a police state when we start electronically monitoring people who have neither been charged or convicted of anything. I find that rather strange.
I wonder if that kind of system would even come close to passing a charter challenge. Many things I thought should pass a charter challenge in this land never did, however, this one is very questionable. I imagine there would have to be some changes there. How can they go around this country and say that it is okay to put an electronic monitoring device on someone because they think they might do this or that? That is a serious flaw which needs to be addressed.
Second, I have a problem with the aboriginal clauses. They will go into a community where an aboriginal is released and do special things in order to make that release successful. I cannot say that is wrong in itself. I see nothing wrong with that. But if it is good for that community, then why would it not be good for another community?
Why is the government always so quick to identify a group in a piece of legislation, set them aside and say: "We're going to do something special because they are this or they are that"? If I were to suggest something like that in the House I am sure there would be screams of racism, prejudice and everything under the sun. That would happen if I would dare take a group of people and suggest we ought to do something special for them but not for the rest of Canadians. I find that rather strange. But if it is a good idea, which I think it is, and if it is found to be a good idea, then why stop there? Why not do it for community a , community b and community c ? Why not go through the whole list and do it? I believe that has to be addressed and I hope it will be.
The third point, which is probably the worst of all, bothers me. It is the provision that a criminal can be declared a dangerous offender six months after the time of sentencing. There will be six months after application to declare a convicted criminal a dangerous offender. At the end of the six months, if he is not declared a dangerous offender, then it is my understanding that it can never be done again. I find that really silly. I do not know any other word I could use.
When I was the principal of a school, the students would have loved to have a rule that would say: "In a 10-month year, we'll evaluate you in the sixth month, and if you've been good up until then, we'll pass you into the next grade". They would not have to worry about the next four months. I am sure that a lot of people in prison are thinking the same thing.
If government members do not believe for a moment that these convicts do not know how to play the game, how to avoid certain things, how to get certain favours, then I would suggest they go to the prisons and talk to the guards, talk to the caseworkers, talk to the frontline workers and find out just how wrong they are.
What is wrong with leaving the door open and being able to call them a dangerous offender at any time? Application can be made to do that.
I will go back two or three years to the family and friends of Melanie Carpenter and how they could have probably today been enjoying that young woman if there would have had something in place that would have said to her killer: "Auger, you are not getting out because you are a dangerous offender".
All the psychological reports, case reports, the frontline workers, the guards, the warden and everybody said: "This fellow should not be let out because he is not ready to go into society. He will hurt somebody". However, our hands were tied. Nobody could do anything about it because he had served his time. The result? Melanie Carpenter no longer exists.
What is wrong with leaving the door open? If they were able to discover after seven or eight years that this fellow Auger, who killed Melanie Carpenter, was a dangerous offender and would hurt people again, then why did they not make it possible to say that he was a dangerous offender? Why did they not do it in this bill?
The number one priority that I keep hearing from the social engineers on that side of the House is the protection of people by preventing crime. What better prevention is there than to keep a dangerous, violent person behind bars? However, we cannot do it if we are going to say we have to declare that within six months.
After a six-month period goes by and it has been decided the person being evaluated will not be declared a dangerous offender, what happens if all of a sudden he tells us where to put our rehabilitation programs and that he will not take treatment, which we cannot force him to do? We should be able to re-open the case since this guy is not going to take any treatment and never wanted to do anything about his problems. He is going to be released some day, he thinks. Let us declare him a dangerous offender.
I would rather see something at the end after a long period of time that might lift that classification, if it was deserving, rather than after a long period of time we could not put that classification on him because of Bill C-55.
If the government is so keen and so interested in prevention and protection then why does it not do that? I am sure the Canadian people would applaud that decision. As my colleague from Calgary Northeast knows after visiting a lot of prisons, the guards, the frontline officers, the caseworkers and the psychologists would all appreciate being able to have an influence on the decision makers who release these individuals. That is why we believe that the parole system should be placed in the hands of these people on the front line, those who know best.
I will go back to the school idea when I was a principal. It would been nice for my staff and I to have gone into the community, and because they were nice to us or because they did us favours, we could have appointed a pass and fail board from the community. At the end of the year we could just bring them in and bring the kids before them one at a time and they could decide what to do with the person. I know what the people would say. They would ask: "How can I know? You have worked with him or her all year. You should make that decision".
I believe that if someone is going to work for a number of years with a prisoner then he or she should be the one to have the biggest influence and say on whether that person qualifies to go back into society. It sounds like common sense to me. But no. The good old boys and the good old girls have to be appointed to serve on a board which I think at this time is doing a better job than in the past. In the past it was a dismal failure simply because the people in those positions were making decisions and they were not knowledgeable enough to know exactly what should be accomplished. Does that not make sense?
Just think, June 30 every year, I could have gone home, all my teaching staff could have gone home. We could have brought in half a dozen people from the community and they could decide whether the kids would pass or fail. We could dump a few papers in their laps and let them decide.
We have to stop shirking responsibility for our decisions. We need some accountability. Who is accountable for Melanie Carpenter's death? The killer? Yes. But he should never have been out of prison.
The government knows of many examples. It knows about Oatway, Auger and many more. Why will it not stop them? Why not fix the bill so that anyone can be declared a dangerous offender at any time?
Canadians are continually telling pollsters that 70 per cent of them want capital punishment. What is wrong with members in this place listening to the people and giving them the opportunity to express their feelings in a referendum? Give us a chance to find out. Let the people speak. But not the Liberals. They say they know best.
Let the Darlene Boyds, let the Debbie Mahaffys, let the victims and survivors of victims across the land know that we support what they as taxpayers want from us, that section 745 be abolished.
When Bill C-55 was introduced the minister had the police chiefs all around him. He was smiling, he had their support and that is good. I am glad he had their support. But where were they on Bill C-45? We did not see them then. I saw most of those people and Scott Newark, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association sitting up here waiting for us to vote to put section 745 out of business. When they saw the vote on the private member's bill which would have done that, they were very pleased and they felt that the voice of the people had been heard.
All of a sudden the miracle worker, the champion of the social engineers came out from behind closed doors and says: "This is better". The worst part about it is that he convinced all of his colleagues who initially wanted to abolish section 745. All of a sudden they came out as supporters of Bill C-45. I wonder if they really supported it or if they just continue to do what they are told? I am sure it is the latter.
When this bill goes to committee and the witnesses come before the group, I really hope there will be a genuine effort on the part of the government to allow those witnesses, most of whom are ordinary Canadians, to have their voices heard and be incorporated into the decisions that are made. That would be a nice change. I just hope that will be done.
There are flaws in the bill. It needs to be fixed. Give the Canadian people a voice and fix it.