Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
Justice May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has made a designation and he has given us no definition of what non-violent offences are. With due respect to the member who responded to my question, he did not answer it. We are not any better informed than when I stood to ask the question.
What guarantee can the government give that the release of these offenders will not create a threat to members of society?
Justice May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, according to today's newspapers the justice minister, with the support of his provincial counterparts, plans to release all first time offenders from jail. The report indicates that the minister was emphasizing non-violent offenders.
I ask the minister's representative here today what constitutes a non-violent offence? Is drug trafficking non-violent? Is breaking and entering non-violent? What about white collar crime?
Young Offenders April 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the jury is in on many of the obvious reforms to the Young Offenders Act. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice explain to the parents of victims why the minister under Bill C-37 reduced the parole eligibility of a young offender convicted of second degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 7 years?
Young Offenders April 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question for the justice officials is why has the government ignored victims' pleas by refusing to publish the names of violent young offenders, abolish the minimum age of 12 for young offenders and hold parents financially responsible for children's criminal actions when appropriate?
Young Offenders April 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this week the justice committee has heard heartbreaking testimony about how the Young Offenders Act has failed Canadians. The chiefs of police association said yesterday that the YOA has done more to undermine faith-
The Budget April 15th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I commend the member for her very clear message.
There are two questions I would like to ask her. The first one centres on the child support payments and the changes there. I believe those changes will cause some concern across the country. The non-custodial parents who have contacted me are very concerned about something that is not mentioned in the proposed bill that will be coming forward, their visiting rights and access rights the courts grant them and which are not lived up to by the custodial parent.
I ask the hon. member if she believes that the visiting and access rights should be linked with the child support payments.
My other question is whether the member sees a danger in the rising debt inasmuch as the interest payments that we have to make on the debt are drawing away from the revenue dollars we need to support our social programs.
The Budget April 15th, 1996
Madam Speaker, we have seen governments over the years bring forward budgets that have expressed their concern about overspending and deficit spending, yet each year the debt has grown and grown and grown. Since 1993 we have heard exactly the same kind of rhetoric, that everything is fine, we are on track, be happy and do not worry. Yet the debt has continued to grow year after year after year. The finance minister will not tell us when he believes we will stop sliding into debt. In other words, he has not set a date like many of the provinces have for a balanced budget.
Seeing as how the interest payment on our debt is the greatest threat toward our social programs, including our senior citizens programs, that enormous amount of money we have to pay on an ever rising debt which is going to amount to approximately $50 billion by 1997, which is just next year, is the government prepared to tell Canadians when it expects to balance the debt? Would the member be prepared to offer an estimation of what the debt will be when the government finally reaches a point when it is no longer overspending and borrowing, but instead living within its means? What does the hon. member think that debt and the associated financial interest payments will be?
The Budget April 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. colleague has couched his remarks. He is a fine gentleman but I surely take issue with some of his comments.
The member talked about the seduction of governments which led us to this debt. To me that is absolute nonsense. Every family, every organizational group whether it be a church or community organization and every business in this country knows that we have to live within our means. They have done that for the last 25 years while this and previous governments have sunk this country into an enormous debt hole.
We talk about seduction. I think it is clear in the minds of millions of Canadians that it was a simple buying of the Canadian vote in election after election. That was the difficulty they had in pulling away from that kind of overspending and government waste.
We look at whether or not this government could have reached a balanced budget far earlier but in fact it has not even set a date for that. All we have to do is look at the provinces the hon. member referred to. All have placed themselves on track for a balanced budget. Provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have reached the point where they are now in a position to debate what they are to do with the surplus. They are deciding whether to reduce taxes or to plug some leaks in some of their programs through further expenditure of money and so on.
We are now approaching a debt of $600 billion. At the present interest rate, it appears that our interest payment on that debt is going to be somewhere near $50 billion a year.
I would like my hon. friend to address that issue. Can we deal with a $50 billion interest payment per year and still protect our social programs including our transfer payments to other provinces?
Justice March 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, much to the dismay of the Robert family of North Bay, Ontario, the Minister of Justice appointed Mr. John Desotti to the Ontario bench. The minister did so despite the fact that Mr. Desotti was still under review by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Mr. Reginald Robert died one month before his three year old complaint against John Desotti was to be resolved by the law
society. Just 17 days before his wife, Mrs. Valerie Robert, a senior citizen was to conclude this case on behalf of her late husband, the justice minister threw a cloak of immunity over John Desotti. This newly appointed judge was removed from the jurisdiction of the law society and moved beyond the reach of the Robert family.
What did the justice minister have to say about this reprehensible abuse of his power? "If Mrs. Robert doesn't like it, take Desotti to court", was his reply. It is time the Prime Minister stepped in and set things right for the Robert family and dealt with the justice minister who has run roughshod over the rights of a senior citizen of this country.
Dangerous Offenders March 25th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague who sits on the Justice committee with me. I wonder if he feels that lawyers are the ones who should do the psychiatric examination of people who have demonstrated by their actions that they are dangerous to our children and other people within society.
I rise to support my colleague's motion to amendment the Criminal Code. If Motion No. 116 is adopted, the section of the Criminal Code dealing with dangerous offenders will be altered to allow for the examination of sex offenders by two psychiatrists to determine their propensity to offend again.
If the psychiatrists conclude the offender is likely to commit or attempt to commit another offence in the future, the attorney general of the province may direct that an application be brought to have the offender declared a dangerous offender.
On September 14 last year an article appeared in the Financial Post containing figures from Correctional Services Canada. I concur with the author's observations that these figures are worrisome and clearly indicate the system does not protect the public from convicted murders and other dangerous predators. These figures demonstrate the need for my colleague's amendment to the Criminal Code.
According to a chart furnished by the solicitor general to Diane Francis, editor of the Financial Post , between 1989 and 1994 no fewer than 78 people committed murder while on conditional release.
If we had in place legislation allowing for the designation of dangerous offenders prior to and following sentencing, if we had eliminated statutory release and if we eliminated the patronage appointment of parole board members, thereby ensuring only qualified people are making the decision regarding the parole of violent offenders, measures Reform has been advocating for well over two years, we would have saved 78 lives in this five year period, or at least the possibility of doing so would have been present. We would have saved 1.3 lives each month during this time.
We must move immediately to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the public is protected from potential repeat offenders who have demonstrated by their actions that they are a danger to our children and members of society.
The same figures reveal that some 4,960 persons convicted of lesser violent offences such as child molestation, manslaughter, rape or attempted murder repeated their crimes while on conditional release. These figures show we have a terrible record in terms of judging whether a person has been rehabilitated after they have demonstrated they pose a violent threat to members of society.
Ms. Francis concluded that those figures are awful, and I agree with her. Five thousand crimes against our children and other innocent victims could have and should have been deterred or prevented. Clearly the Criminal Code amendment my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has proposed will assist in the prevention of these types of assaults.
The examination of these offenders and therefore the indefinite incarceration of dangerous offenders will enhance public safety. Sex offenders, especially child molesters, have a high rate of recidivism. The only way to keep our children safe, the only way to prevent sexual predators from taking victims and destroying the life of another innocent child is to keep them locked up, to keep them incarcerated indefinitely until there is absolutely no risk of reoffending.
If we cannot protect society from those who have identified themselves by their actions as dangerous to others, what chance does our justice system really have?
A recent article in MacLean's reveals that psychologists and criminologists agree that the best way to reduce recidivism rates is by classifying offenders on the basis on the continuing risk they represent to society, and in those cases in which the risk of reoffending is high, classifying such offenders as dangerous.
Years ago the process of classification was fraught with guess work but today research in Canada has led to vastly improved techniques for classifying offenders. University of British Columbia psychologist Robert Hare has developed a widely used scale known as the psychopathy check list. Employing this list during intense interviews with offenders, psychologists can with 75 per cent to 80 per cent accuracy determine whether an offender is a dangerous psychopath.
This test is not only valuable in determining an offender's risk of reoffending for the purpose of classifying them a dangerous offender and thus providing for indefinite incarceration, it also assists correctional services in determining how they may, if at all, rehabilitate such offenders. Many experts agree the best way to reduce the risk of repeat offenders is through intense counselling.
If Melvin Stanton and Joseph Fredericks had been examined by psychiatrists, as recommended by my colleague, and if Daniel Gingras had been subjected to Mr. Hare's test, the parole board may not have had the opportunity to make such a disastrous decision regarding the temporary absence or parole of this convicted murderer and these two sex offenders.
In January 1988 Melvin Stanton, a violent sex offender, was granted a temporary absence from an Ontario penitentiary and within hours of getting out raped and murdered a young woman in downtown Toronto.
If Mr. Stanton had been classified a dangerous offender or if the risk of his reoffending had been known, the parole board never would have granted him leave and an innocent life never would have been so violently snuffed out.
If parolee Joseph Fredericks had been recognized by the justice system for what he really was, a sadistic pedophile, and incarcerated accordingly, 11-year old Christopher Stephenson of Brampton, Ontario would not have been abducted, raped and fatally stabbed in June 1988.
If convicted murderer Daniel Gingras was not given a temporary absence from an Edmonton institution in the summer of 1987, two lives would have been saved. I urge members of all sides of the House to vote in favour of this motion.
In the absence of such an amendment, Canadians will have to take measures to defend their own lives and those of their children. They will have to do what the mothers of Val-d'Or, Quebec have done to protect themselves. They will have to plaster warning pamphlets throughout their communities. They will have to keep their doors locked and they will have to keep their children within close range at all times; no bike rides through the park, no walking home alone after school because they live in constant fear for their children that they may fall victim to a sex offender.
Convicted sex offender Joe Cannon, who is serving six months for gross indecency and who has been convicted of six sexual offences since 1988, will soon be eligible for temporary leave from a prison in Val-d'Or. With no assurance from the justice system that this offender will not strike again, residents can only minimize, not eliminate, his chance of victimizing one of their children again.
In our judgment the only way the children of Val-d'Or can be completely safe from this sex offender is if he kept in prison until examiners, two psychiatrists, are absolutely certain he will not reoffend. My colleague's amendment could provide that assurance.
The main objective of any proposed justice legislation or amendment to the Criminal Code is to improve public safety. This amendment meets that criterion. It will enhance personal security by providing us with the assurance that sex offenders, those offenders labelled dangerous, will not be released from prison until there is an absolute sign that there is no risk of their harming our children.
I urge members on all sides of the House to support this motion.