House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jury.

Topics

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Reform

Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It is an honour because if the government acted on this motion, another loophole in our criminal justice system would be closed. With every loophole we close as legislators Canadians are safer and Canada is a safer place to live.

What does the motion seek to accomplish? The motion would require that anyone convicted of serious sexual assault against an adult or any sexual assault against a child be examined by two psychiatrists. If the psychiatrists conclude the offender is likely to

commit similar crimes in the future the attorney general would be compelled to proceed with a dangerous offender apprehension.

Sexual predators would be identified by the system after their first conviction. Instead of getting back on the street after serving a specific sentence they would be held indefinitely until we can be assured they would not offend again.

Before Reform is criticized for being too tough on crime, let us reflect for a moment. I imagine everyone in the House has had the experience during our lives of knowing or reading about a crime which if the system had worked the way it was designed would not have happened. All of us can recall incidents when a crime was committed by someone who but for our lenient parole system, a miscommunication between officials or failure to arrest a person on an outstanding warrant would have bee locked up.

My friend from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley in a speech she delivered on this motion on March 25, 1996 cited several such examples in relation to rape and murder. The matters she described to House are not out of some murder mystery movie or some crime thriller paperback. They are real situations, real people, real Canadians who were raped and murdered by people who should have been in jail.

Recently I attended a victims rally in Abbotsford of over 2,000 people who were waiting for the government to do something to prevent many of these crimes from happening again. Canadian taxpayers, law-abiding citizens, cannot understand why their elected members of Parliament are not changing the system to correct the errors of the past and protect our children from crimes committed by those who should have been kept behind bars.

Melanie Carpenter of British Columbia would be alive today if Fernand Auger, who kidnapped, assaulted and murdered her, had been identified after he had committed his first offence.

Did our justice system fail Melanie? Yes. Auger had been convicted of two brutal sex assaults 10 years earlier of teenaged prostitutes. His sentence for those crimes was two years less a day. When Auger was closely observed by psychiatric professionals five years later after being convicted of a robbery charge and receiving a federal sentence, what was their finding? These professionals realized Auger was a danger to the public, that he was a walking time bomb. What did they do? Nothing. Under our current laws Auger had to be released.

If Motion No. 116 had been in place at that time the legal system could have dealt with him and he would not have been out of the streets to look for yet another victim, in this case Melanie Carpenter.

Should we have done something to prevent offenders from committing crimes again and again? Yes. That is part of our responsibilities as MPs, a major part of why we are elected and given the trust of Canadians to enact legislation, to make the laws which our professionals can then enforce.

Debbie Mahaffy was at the victims rally I attended. I wish the members of the House had listened to her talk, listened to the pain and anger in her voice, listened to how her life and the lives of her family will never be the same again because of what a sexual deviant did to her daughter Leslie.

What of all the parents and loved ones who became victims of such a madman as Clifford Olson? After a history of criminal activity this dangerous offender could have been identified and his killing spree which left 11 Canadian children dead might not have happened.

What of Gary McAstocker, convicted of raping a 21-year old woman and sentenced to seven years in prison? He was released 36 months later and while on parole rammed his car into a vehicle driven by a 48-year old widow. He grabbed her, beat her and threatened her before she escaped.

In 1988 McAstocker was sentenced to four years and three months. In 1992 and 1993 the parole board concluded that if released McAstocker was "likely to commit an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person". Nevertheless, in February 1994 he was freed again. Four months later, on June 14, 1994, 14-year old Tina McPhee left her home in Edmonton to walk to school. She disappeared and McAstocker became the prime suspect. Just before he was to submit to police questioning he hanged himself.

If Motion No. 116 had been in effect and two psychiatrists had examined McAstocker, Tina McPhee would likely be alive today.

The justice system needs the tools to complete the job if it is to protect citizens in our country. That is what our laws are for, to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Motion No. 116, put forward by my colleagues from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley and Calgary Southeast, would simply ensure a dangerous offender description would be designated to those individuals who have already been convicted of sexual offences and who two professional psychiatrists feel will reoffend.

These dangerous offenders would be kept in custody until the parole board is convinced the offender does not pose a serious threat to society. Parole eligibility would be after three years and then every two years. As my colleague said, if rehabilitation and treatment were successful, the offender would not be incarcerated forever.

Yes, Reform has taken a tough position on crime and punishment. Somebody has to, and certainly there is no point in waiting for the government to act. Canadians demand action and that is what this motion will give them.

Why do I not trust the government will move in this direction? Just witness the government's action this past week in response to the wishes of the people of Canada that the opportunity for early parole for murderers be eliminated.

What does the government do? It says "if you can keep it down to one murder, no matter how premeditated, no matter how gruesome, you can still get early parole". Being soft on one time murderers and tough on repeat murderers is hardly my idea of strong, forceful leadership on this issue. That section of the Criminal Code should be repealed, and that is that.

A government soft on murder can hardly be expected to be tough on those who may be repeat sexual offenders. That is why this motion has to come from this party, but hopefully it will win support among the Liberal backbenchers, among those who have a feel for the needs of Canadians and who care about the safety of Canadians.

When this motion was debated on March 15, the Bloc member for Saint-Hubert, the justice critic, raised two arguments against the motion, which I would like to address now.

She claimed the motion allows psychiatrists to usurp the roles of the prosecutor and of the judge. That is false. All the psychiatrist may do under the motion is determine whether the person convicted might reoffend. That is their role. Then the attorney general must bring in an application to have the person declared a dangerous offender. It is up to the prosecution how vigorously this is pursued. It is up to the judge to make the declaration.

The Bloc justice critic believes this is tantamount to turning the justice system totally upside down. If protecting Canadians from the threat of sexual assault by repeat offenders is turning the system upside down, allow me to be the first to turn the crank.

The other argument raised by the member for Saint-Hubert is that statistics show violent crime is on the decrease in Canada and therefore, in the member's opinion, there is no need for a change in the Criminal Code. This member is certainly selective in her statistics.

We are talking today about how the law deals with sexual assault offences. I wonder if this member is aware of the poll done by the Reader's Digest Roper. The question was: ``How good a job do you think each of the following groups or institutions is doing to protect the public against violent crime and criminals?''

It is interesting that the people of Canada have absolute support in their police; 68 per cent feel they are doing a good job; only 23 per cent feel the courts are doing a good job; 19 per cent feel the prison corrections system is doing a good job; 15 per cent feel the parole system, which releases all these reoffenders, is doing a good job. This means that 85 per cent of Canadians feel our laws are not good and do not save or protect Canadian people. In other words, we need Motion No. 116.

Does the member for Saint-Hubert suggest the decrease in the number of rapes and murders, according to what she has reported, means we cannot improve the law that deals with these offences? We are talking about the law. Surely this is not the case.

If a loophole or an oversight in the law is found which may result in harm to innocent Canadians, it is our duty to address that fact. That is why we were elected, why we sit in the House and why we receive our paycheques. We are supposed to be doing the work Canadians have asked us to do.

We also cannot ignore the examples of those who slip through the system, who continue to wreak havoc as they search out new victims. I support Motion No. 116 and urge other members to support it as well. If we save one life through such a measure our time and efforts here will be worth it.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There being no other members rising to speak, under Standing Order 44 the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley is permitted to briefly sum up. No one is to speak after her.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of this motion and I wish to clarify some comments made by members of the Bloc and the government.

The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam pointed out that opposition to the motion implies that the job of declaring dangerous offenders would be transferred from the judicial system to psychiatrists. That is definitely not the case.

When an individual has committed serious, indictable, sexual assault against an adult or any sexual assault against a child, the individual must be tested by two psychiatrists. The reason I introduced the motion is that, like many other Canadians, I am concerned that our system does not take seriously individuals who have shown an inclination or a pattern for this kind of serious sexual assault against an adult or children and does not incarcerate or force them into treatment to make sure these situations do not arise again.

The motion is putting into place that those individuals after being convicted of those crimes must be seen by psychiatrists who would determine whether the individual is likely to reoffend.

After that determination has been made by the psychiatrists, who are really the only people who have the tools to make that kind of assessment, it forces the courts to look at a dangerous offender application. They do not have to declare them dangerous offenders, but simply that the courts have to determine whether the individual is a dangerous offender.

We are not at all taking it out of the judicial system. We are not suggesting psychiatrists replace the judicial process. We are suggesting that because of past experience of people slipping through the system it is important to eliminate those areas where an individual may not be identified. We are talking about preventive measures, changing our laws in such a way that the emphasis is put on early identification of pedophiles and psychopaths, people who are likely to reoffend, and to deal with with them in a direct, upright and serious way.

If my colleagues in the House are really concerned about the protection of women and children, as the red book promised, and if they are really concerned about the safety of Canadians on the streets and in their homes and about the commitment to protect society from predators who do not hesitate to use children as their victims or intimidate and threaten women, I urge them all to support Motion No. 116 and show Canadians the House is prepared to do something to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question on the motion is deemed to have been put, a recorded division deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, June 18 at 5.30 p.m.

Is the House ready for the question?

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House stands adjourned until Monday, June 17 at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 1.45 p.m.)