Val Meredith

[Petitions, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before the House and introduce a petition on behalf of some members of my constituency who are asking that this Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.

I wholly concur with this petition and submit it to this House.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, June 10th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon this House why I believe this private member's Bill C-240 must be supported by all members of this House. I will start by relating one offender's history as outlined by Ian MacLeod of the Ottawa Citizen .

On the night of June 17, 1988, 11-year old Christopher Stephenson was kidnapped from a Brampton shopping mall. His kidnapper was 45-year old Joseph Fredericks. Fredericks took Christopher to his nearby rented room, walking right by Christopher's house. Once in the room Fredericks proceeded to torture and rape Christopher over the next 24 hours. The next evening Fredericks took Christopher into a wooded area where he choked him into unconsciousness and then stabbed him in the neck. Christopher bled to death.

As terrifying as this story is, it is made doubly worse by the fact that Fredericks was a known and convicted pedophile. Prior to his murdering Christopher Stephenson, many psychiatric and corrections officials believed it was only a matter of time before Fredericks struck again. Despite this belief, officials felt that there was little they could do and there was little that they could do, until he killed Christopher Stephenson. With the crime committed, Fredericks was quickly arrested, convicted of first-degree murder and received a life sentence without parole for 25 years.

Today society can rest somewhat easier knowing that Joseph Fredericks will never pose a threat to any more children. However, this assurance is not due to any law or court decision or efforts by Correctional Services Canada or by the National Parole Board. No, the threat posed by Joseph Fredericks was removed in January 1992 by another inmate at Kingston Penitentiary who stabbed Fredericks to death.

The death of Christopher Stephenson could have ended there like so many unfortunate murders of other children. But due to pressure by Christopher's parents, Jim and Anna Stephenson, a coroner's inquest was called to examine how Fredericks could have been walking the streets of their community and in a position to kidnap their son. For five months in 1992 the inquest heard testimony about Joseph Roger Fredericks.

Fredericks' background is not a pretty one. Born in Ottawa in 1943 Fredericks was handed to the Children's Aid Society nine months after his birth. For the next nine years he bounced from one Ottawa area foster home to another. By the summer of 1953 after a brief stint at St. Joseph's Training School for Boys the 10-year old Fredericks was a constant runaway and in trouble with the police.

By the time he was 11, Fredericks had committed his first sexual assault. Between 1954 and 1959 Fredericks committed several sexual misdemeanours with younger children at the Ontario hospital school in Smiths Falls. In addition to the sexual misdemeanours, Fredericks also escaped and sexually assaulted an 11-year old girl. On another occasion he threatened a 9-year old boy at gunpoint.

In April 1959 Fredericks was shipped to the maximum security Oak Ridge unit at the Penetanguishene mental health centre after being diagnosed as a psychopathic homosexual pedophile. He would spend most of the next 24 years there.

When he turned 20 Fredericks was transferred to a minimum security facility, but he escaped within a month. While on the loose he sexually assaulted a 6-year old girl at knifepoint and committed buggery on a 15-year old at gunpoint. Since he was already incarcerated under the Mental Health Act Fredericks was not criminally charged for these acts.

After being transferred back to the maximum security facility at Oak Ridge he told a doctor he wished he had killed that little girl. For the next 16 years Fredericks remained at Oak Ridge undergoing drug therapy. For 18 months beginning in late 1979 he received heavy doses of a tranquillizer to control his sex drive. However doctors believe he was taking the drug only to appear well enough to be transferred to a lower security institution.

In September 1980 Fredericks was transferred to a more open psychiatric hospital in St. Thomas. While there he sexually assaulted a mentally handicapped childlike female patient. This attack got Fredericks sent back to Oak Ridge. Diagnosed as a sociopath and a violent homosexual pedophile Fredericks was certified as an involuntary patient under Ontario's Mental Health Act. However, since psychopathy is not considered a mental disorder it became more and more difficult to keep him certified.

There were only two ways that Fredericks could have been confined indefinitely: by being unfit to stand trial, or found not guilty by reason of insanity. For that he could have been kept indefinitely at a psychiatric hospital, or he could have been declared to have been a dangerous offender under the Criminal Code. Either way Fredericks would first have to commit another criminal offence.

Well, it did not take him long. Within days of leaving the Oak Ridge facility in 1983, Fredericks sexually assaulted a 10-year old boy and a 15-year old girl at knifepoint. Despite all his previous sexual assaults he had no official criminal record. Therefore, he only received a 22-month sentence and was sent to a minimum security provincial jail in Brampton. Within a year he was sent to the maximum security Millbrook Correctional Centre near Peterborough because of behavioural problems.

In August 1984 Fredericks was granted day parole and sent to an Ottawa halfway house. For the first time in 30 years he was living outside an institution. Even though a condition of his parole was to receive treatment for pedophilia at the Royal Ottawa Hospital arrangements were never made at that hospital. Despite warnings that Fredericks would continue attacking children, parole officers were never told of the dangers he presented.

Only 10 days after arriving in Ottawa Fredericks came across an 11-year old boy and sodomized him. After his arrest the crown attorney wanted to have Fredericks declared a dangerous offender. He certainly had the evidence. Dr. John Bradford from the Royal Ottawa Hospital and one of the country's leading experts on sexual offenders called Fredericks the worst and most sadistic and most impulsive pedophile he had seen. But the sexual assault victim's parents did not want their son to go through the ordeal of testifying, so the crown accepted a plea bargain from Fredericks lawyer for a 5-year sentence. The dangerous offender application was abandoned. Three years into a sentence Fredericks was transferred to a halfway house in Toronto. Once again, none of the sexual assaults that occurred while he was a psychiatric patient appeared on his criminal record.

Part of Fredericks' release plan included his participation in a hospital sex therapy program, the taking of a sex drive suppressant drug and an order to stay away from children. His parole officer was unaware that Fredericks was trying to coach a children's sports team at a nearby security centre. However before anything could happen another parolee at a different halfway house raped and murdered a Toronto woman.

In response to public outrage the federal Solicitor General ordered that all violent and sexual offenders on parole in Toronto halfway houses were to be removed. Three weeks later Fredericks was released again, this time on mandatory supervision and he chose to move to the Brampton area.

Prior to his release all four members of the case management team believed there was a high probability that Fredericks would commit another crime. Three months later Fredericks picked up a knife, headed for the local mall and spotted Christopher Stephenson.

In January 1993 the coroner's jury made 71 recommendations to help prevent such tragic deaths as Christopher's. Chief among the recommendations was a call for a new law to keep violent predators behind bars after their prison terms expired if they still pose a public risk. Then Solicitor General Doug Lewis announced that he hoped to have such a law in Canada by the end of June 1993. The legislation was never introduced by the Conservative government as its leadership convention disrupted the legislative agenda.

One year later the need for this legislation has not decreased. The recent release of Larry Fisher from a British Columbia prison is another example of the need for such legislation. Here we have an individual who was sentenced to a total of 23 years for raping seven women.

While incarcerated he refused to participate in any treatment programs. The National Parole Board considered him to be such a threat to society that they denied him statutory release.

Larry Fisher served every single day of his 23-year sentence. Two weeks ago his sentence was over. Larry Fisher walked out of a prison a free man, a completely free man. He is not under any form of community supervision. He does not report to a parole officer or the police. He does not have to inform anyone where he is living or travelling to.

He is creating a lot of frightened people. This past weekend he was spotted in Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and very quickly citizens' groups sprang up to get him out of their town. Four thousand homemade posters with Fisher's picture, criminal record and a description of his vehicle were displayed at grocery stores, gas stations, convenience stores and restaurants. Schools were asked to make the students aware of Fisher's presence. On Sunday Fisher was on his way out of town apparently on his way to Edmonton.

These are just two examples of individuals who should have been designated dangerous offenders, but since it was not done at the time of the original conviction it could not be done later. In one instance they had to wait for Fredericks to commit another crime and it was a fatal one. With Fisher only time will tell.

Some may ask how widespread will this legislation be. Not very. This legislation is designed only for the most dangerous inmates in our system. There are currently about 13,000 federal inmates incarcerated in Canada and another 9,500 on some form of community release programs.

According to the correctional service only 111 are classified as dangerous offenders. In addition there are currently 115 offenders who are being detained; that is, they have been denied statutory release. It is these individuals who this legislation is targeting, individuals who are not designated as dangerous offenders at the time of their original sentence, but their behaviour subsequent to incarceration coupled with their criminal record has led the Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board to deem them too dangerous to be released into society.

In essence, this legislation is designed for only the most dangerous 1 per cent of the current federal inmate population. What will this legislation do with these individuals? It gives us an opportunity to prevent further tragedies. It gives us the ability to obtain post sentence detention orders.

The process uses every conceivable check and balance. First, as an offender nears the end of his sentence, the correctional service shall refer the case of an individual it deems to be dangerous to the National Parole Board.

Second, after reviewing the case and if in agreement with the referral from the correctional service, the National Parole Board may in turn refer the case to the attorney general of the province in which the offender was most recently sentenced for a serious personal injury offence. This referral cannot take place more than one year prior to the expiration of the offender's sentence.

Third, if the attorney general is in agreement, then a dangerous offender application can be made. The requirements for an application will be the same as they are for current dangerous offender legislation under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

Fourth, on hearing the application the court may find an offender to be a dangerous offender.

Under this legislation before an individual is deemed to be a dangerous offender, one needs the unanimous agreement of the Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, the provincial attorney general and the court. I suggest that if all these four bodies together come to the conclusion that an offender is a dangerous offender the individual should be declared one.

Members may be asking what happens to an offender once he has been labelled a dangerous offender. The court may make one of the following orders; first, that the offender be detained in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, second, that at the expiration of the offender's current sentence, he may be detained for a determinant period and then may subsequently be released under community supervision for a period of not more than 10 years, subject to any conditions that the court may prescribe.

Third, he may be released under community supervision for a period of 10 years and subject to any conditions that the court may prescribe. Thus there is a great deal of judicial discretion on how the offender is dealt with. What we would avoid happening is what occurred in the Fisher case where he was kept until the end of his sentence and then released with absolutely no supervision.

There is one other major aspect to this bill. For an individual to be declared a dangerous offender today, the crown must show that the offender is likely to commit an offence causing the death or serious bodily harm to another person. Bill C-240 would remove this necessity in those cases that involve sexual offences against children.

The reason for this change is twofold. First, the actual harm to child victims of sexual assault may not be apparent for several years and second, given a child's limited ability to clearly communicate the effects of a sexual crime, serious harm is very difficult to detect.

I have outlined the problem and in true Reform fashion I have provided the House with an alternative. I believe this bill is fair and balanced. It cannot be used in a haphazard manner or on a whim. While some may argue that it infringes on the offender's charter of rights, I respond that this bill does not create new dangerous offender legislation. It only changes the timing when it can be applied.

The change as it applies to pedophiles where there is no longer a need to prove serious harm I believe is long overdue and is a significant step in protecting our children. For those who argue that this is just another Reform Party attempt to lock them up and throw away the key I remind them that the indeterminate sentence is only one of three options. Quite frankly, there are people in our prisons who deserve to have the key thrown away on them. But most important, I believe that this bill adds to the level of protection of society. It corrects what has been a flaw in the system and unfortunately it has been a fatal flaw.

I believe that if this bill can save even one life then it is worth it.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents. They are asking this government not to repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow doctor assisted suicide or euthanasia.

[Clifford Olson, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the underlying causes of crime is that the justice system does not work.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is prepared to ensure Canadians that a victim's lifestyle will not be considered a determining factor of whether criminal charges should be laid.

[Clifford Olson, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

On New Year's Day 1981, serial killer Clifford Olson picked up a 16-year old female hitchhiker, pulled out a gun and then proceeded to repeatedly rape her over a 12-hour period. This incident took place two weeks after the first of 11 murders Olson committed.

The victim reported the incident to the Squamish RCMP detachment and Olson was arrested. When it was learned that the victim was a prostitute there were no further proceedings. As the RCMP were the police force involved in this incident, is the minister prepared to tell Canadians why this case did not proceed?

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, nobody is suggesting to ignore some of the causes of crime. However to suggest that all poor people are potential criminals, to suggest that all single parent families are creating criminals is totally unfair. These groups are getting very tired of taking the blame for producing the criminals.

As I mentioned in my speech, crime crosses all socioeconomic boundaries. One man who killed his wife was an engineer. Many of the people in our jails have very well established professions and have crossed the bounds. Yes, drug and alcohol abuse is a cause of crime. We should be treating that not by locking people up in a prison but by treating the illness from which they suffer. Yes, poverty does put people in a vulnerable position but it is not the only cause of crime. To pretend that it is and to hide by saying: "Let us attack the root causes of crime and ignore the symptoms", is foolhardy. We need to do both and one cannot be done at the exclusion of the other. We can address the symptoms of crime now and we can deal with the more long term problem starting now. The results of crime prevention will not be seen in the next year or two. It will take five or ten years for the results of crime prevention to have any kind of impact.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to talk on this unity debate. The comments that I have heard from members across the floor do cause me some concern. They seem to feel that if we hide from the problem, if we do not recognize that this debate is taking place across the country, if we ignore it, it will go away. It will not go away. It is very important that this debate take place in this House so that we can be in step with Canadians across this land.

I would like to focus my speech this afternoon on that in which all Canadians hold a great deal of pride. That is the law and order issue.

Law and order has always been important to all Canadians. What other country has a national symbol that is a police force? An example of the importance of law and order can be demonstrated by the contrast between Canada and the United States and how these two countries developed and opened the western frontiers over 100 years ago.

With a few notable exceptions the Canadian west grew up in a very orderly fashion due in large part to the Northwest Mounted Police arriving in the west before large scale European settlement.

The success of the Mounties can best be illustrated by the story of the American cavalry escorting the Sioux back to Canada after the Battle of the Little Big Horn. A large, heavily armed U.S. cavalry escorted thousands of members of the Sioux tribes where they were met at the border by two Mounties. When the officer in charge of the cavalry force asked the Mounties where the rest of their force was, the answer was: "He's behind the hill cooking our breakfast".

This little story is an example of how the two countries developed different attitudes toward law and order. With Canadians there has been an expectation of law and order, a respect for it. We frequently compare ourselves with the United States to show that we are not really a violent country. Unfortunately compared to other developed countries we seem to have become one.

All Canadians are not happy about it. We are not satisfied that this is where we want to be. Citizens across this country have that same expectation of law and order that we had 100 years ago. We want respect for law and order to once again be an integral part of our society.

We want the feeling of security in our homes and on our streets. We would like to be able to leave our doors unlocked without having to worry about being robbed. We would like to be able to stroll through parks of our communities in the evenings without the threat of being mugged.

We would like to be able to offer assistance to strangers in need without the fear of being assaulted. We would like to be able to let our children play in neighbourhood parks alone without the fear of abduction. Students would like to be able to go to school without worrying about their fellow classmates carrying guns and knives.

Canadians would like to be able to do all of these things, but we are afraid. For the past 20 years the country not only seems to have got more violent but it has. I could use a whole litany of statistics but I am only going to use one.

In 1971, 203.9 violent crimes were recorded per 100,000 population. In 1991, 20 years later, 1,099 violent crimes were recorded for every 100,000 population, an increase of 500 per cent. That is a 500 per cent increase in 20 years. Why this increase? There does not seem to be any definitive explanation for it.

Some try to minimize this trend. Some try to suggest that the crime statistics show that there has not been an increase in crime. I would suggest that this figure shows that there has been an increase in crime and it is time that we recognized it.

We can talk about some suggested root causes like poverty, the lack of education and all sorts of other things. These things do not explain why crime crosses all social economic boundaries. If we knew what the real root causes of crime were, we could go after them but since we do not know we have to deal with the symptoms.

My party is here with a clear mandate from its constituents to do something about the crime problem, not to ignore it, not to rationalize it, but to do something to turn it around. As the Liberals heard from their chief pollster at their policy convention last month, in major urban centres crime is the number one issue.

It is not the Reform Party that is leading the call for change. It is the people of Canada. There are very few issues where the people in this country are united but I would suggest to this House that the concern about safety in our communities and safety in our streets is a concern that is shared from sea to sea to sea without exception.

In my last householder, I included a question about changing the age limit in the Young Offenders Act to 10 to 15-year olds. I received almost 3,500 responses. That is an 8 per cent return. Over 90 per cent agreed with this change. In addition, many of those who disagreed stated that the act should be abolished entirely.

How can any politician ignore the will of such an overwhelming majority of the population? Those who will not listen, who refuse to accept the fact that we have a problem with crime in our streets do so at their own peril. If they really think that Canadians are going to wait a good deal longer for action, for a government to start showing some concern, they are dearly mistaken.

Our job is very simple in this House of Commons. As a member of Parliament, I think we can start doing something and do it quickly. What we have to do in this Chamber is that in every aspect of criminal legislation we need to follow one principle. That principle is that the protection of society has a greater priority than the rights of the criminal. We have to send a strong message to all Canadians that violence against other Canadians is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

In my community, a husband murdered his wife. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and got five years. That is five years for murdering a Canadian.

Let us remove the dangerous offenders from society until such time as society can be assured they are no longer dangerous. Let us get the Fishers and the Barlows off our streets so people can feel safer. Let us get the non-violent offenders out of our prisons and have them repay their debts to society in a more constructive manner, for example by restitution, community work service, or the like. Let us make sure our criminal justice system is swift, fair and consistent. Let us return the control of the streets in our communities back to the average citizens.

Canadians across this great country are demanding change. We have the legislative tools to help accomplish this. It will be a great disservice to this country if we fail to fulfil this demand and to react and deliver back to Canadians their communities and their streets.

[Dangerous Offenders, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the current rate of holding national inquiries into problems with the justice system, the minister will have more success in putting Canadians to work than the infrastructure program.

Nevertheless, in response to the Barlow shooting incident British Columbia Premier Mike Harcourt has stated that Canada's justice system must have a zero tolerance for dangerous offenders.

Is the minister equally prepared to call for zero tolerance of dangerous offenders like Barlow?

[Dangerous Offenders, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

On Sunday, Burnaby RCMP officers found themselves in the middle of a shootout with David Barlow. Fortunately no one was killed in this incident. However, David Barlow is responsible for the killing of two other persons.

In 1972 he was convicted for murdering a Florida police officer and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life. In 1980, Barlow was returned to Canada where he was convicted of manslaughter for a killing in New Brunswick in 1967.

Will the minister explain to the people of Canada how an individual like Barlow can be considered a low risk and put back on our streets?

[Petitions, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of some British Columbians who urge Parliament not to legalize doctor assisted suicides or euthanasia.

It is my pleasure to present it on their behalf.