House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Immigration December 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, while the minister states his government's intentions to deal with defaulted obligations, he still faces a very major hurdle with the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board. I remind the minister of a decision it made with Mohammed Assaf, who was permitted to sponsor his second wife despite being $32,000 in arrears.
What is the value of the initiative that he announced earlier today when the IRB is deliberately undermining his department's objectives?
Immigration December 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this morning when the minister of immigration announced the government's plan to deal with the defaulted sponsorship obligations, he said that he did not support the use of bonds as it was unfair to require the money in advance, up front.
However, the minister did not address the use of non-cash surety bonds. Considering the great expense for the taxpayer in pursuing defaulted sponsorship through the courts, would the minister not agree that the use of these bonds would be a more cost effective way of ensuring compliance with the terms of sponsorship?
Dangerous Offenders December 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the minister has already spoken for 10 minutes and there is still a minute left in the debate, from my calculations.
Dangerous Offenders December 13th, 1995
I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Dangerous Offenders December 13th, 1995
Do you mean like Carpenter and Dailey and Cameron?
Dangerous Offenders December 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to begin debate on Motion No. 461. I believe it is especially appropriate to speak to this motion today.
Earlier this afternoon I introduced to the House a petition that had been collected by the Melanie Carpenter Society. The petition had over half a million signatures, to be exact, 506,285 names. The petitioners ask Parliament to enact legislation that would keep dangerous offenders, especially dangerous sex offenders, off the streets of our country. The first of the nine items on the petition states: That dangerous offenders and pedophiles should be locked up for life.
As fate would have it, that is what we are debating today. The motion that I introduced jointly seconded by my colleague from Calgary Southeast, is targeted against sexual predators. It is an effort to get these offenders off the streets after their first conviction, not the second or third conviction which is often the case now.
The motion asks that once an individual has been convicted of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or sexual assault that has been proceeded with by way of indictment or any sexual offence where the victim is a child, the convicted offender must be examined by two psychiatrists.
If the two psychiatrists conclude that the offender is likely to commit a similar crime in the future, the attorney general shall direct that a dangerous offender application be initiated. The convicted offender would then have a dangerous offender hearing where the crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was likely to reoffend.
This motion carefully balances the rights of the offender and the protection of society. The motion only applies to convicted offenders. Two psychiatrists have to conclude that the offender is likely to reoffend. Then the crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a court that the offender is likely to reoffend.
Society is protected by having early identification of dangerous sex offenders. Some may ask if this is possible. Not only is it possible but science is moving quickly in this regard.
While I was conducting research on my private member's bill, Bill C-240, I came across the work of Professor Robert Hare of the University of British Columbia. Professor Hare teaches in the psychology department and is the leading authority in the subject of psychopathy. Professor Hare and his colleagues have developed tests to identify psychopaths for Correctional Service Canada as well as the prison systems in Washington and California states.
It is generally accepted that these tests have an 85 per cent accuracy in identifying psychopaths. Some may argue that not all psychopaths are sex offenders and that is true. With this motion we would only be concerned with those psychopaths who were convicted of a serious sexual assault or pedophilia.
If two psychiatrists conclude that someone who has just been convicted of one of these offences is a psychopath, then if our society values its protection he must be found to be a dangerous offender.
In this instance we are talking about people like Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo and Fernand Auger. I would like to use Auger as an example. We all know Auger as the man who kidnapped Melanie Carpenter from her place of work in Surrey, B.C., drove her out to the Fraser canyon where he sexually assaulted and murdered her. Auger was on parole at the time of this crime not for a sexual offence, but for robbery.
However 10 years earlier Auger was convicted of sexual assault or more precisely, two instances where he committed extremely violent sexual assaults. One instance involved a 17-year-old prostitute, the other involved a 14-year-old prostitute. In both cases Auger picked up these girls, drove to a secluded location, put a gun to their heads, threatened to kill them and the raped and sodomized them.
Arrested and convicted for both crimes, Auger received the remarkably lenient sentence of two years less a day and served his time in Ontario's provincial system. Why such a light sentence? As a Correctional Service Canada spokesman stated to a CBC reporter last March, Auger's crimes were not viewed as being violent because the victims were prostitutes and this implied a level of consent.
However, after a subsequent conviction for robbery Auger ended up receiving a sentence in a federal institution. He submitted himself to a psychological review as part of a parole application. It was at this time that the true nature of Auger's personality came to light. Auger's psychological assessment reads as follows: "Appears to employ defence mechanisms, such as minimization,
rationalization and displacement to justify his criminal activity. He has a fairly advanced anti-social personality disorder".
In August 1994 the National Parole Board denied Auger parole, stating he was a high risk to reoffend. Unfortunately, because of the way the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is written, Auger was required to be released a few months later and because of this Melanie Carpenter is no longer with us.
I am confident that had Auger been examined by two psychiatrists for his assaults on the two teenage prostitutes in Toronto, his anti-social personality would have been uncovered at that time. Had he been found to be a dangerous offender, he would have received an indefinite sentence.
Contrary to what some may think, an indefinite sentence does not mean to lock them up and throw away the key. What it does mean, however, is that the offender is kept in custody until the parole board is convinced that the offender does not pose a serious risk to society.
It is mainly up to the offender to determine how long the sentence will be. If the required treatment is taken and shows real progress, it need not be a long incarceration. Parole eligibility is after three years and then every two years thereafter.
The greatest value of the indefinite sentence is twofold. First, for those offenders who show no inclination of rehabilitation, there is no pressure on the correctional system to get them ready for release, whether they are prepared or not.
Second, for those who are released, the justice system can closely monitor their activities in the community. If this had happened in Auger's case, maybe two people would still be alive, Melanie Carpenter and Fernand Auger.
I believe this motion is sound. It satisfies not only the Reform Party's objectives for public safety, but the red book objectives of the Liberals to protect women and children.
Similarly, the justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois has frequently expressed her concern for the safety of women and children. I only hope that she is equally concerned about protecting them from sexual assault, sexual predators, as she is from protecting them from firearms.
This motion targets only a small percentage of the Canadian population, sexual predators. I fully agree with the over half a million individuals who signed the Melanie Carpenter Society petition, who believe that dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles belong behind bars, not on our streets.
Dangerous Offenders December 13th, 1995
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend Part XXIV of the Criminal Code-Dangerous Offenders-to provide:
- that where an offender is convicted of a ) a sexual offence involving a child, or b ) an offence set out in
(i) section 271 (sexual assault) that has been proceeded with by way of indictment,
(ii) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm), or
(iii) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault),
or an attempt to commit any of these offences, the offender shall, before being sentenced, be examined by two psychiatrists to determine c ) in the case of sexual offence involving a child, whether the offender is likely to commit or attempt to commit such an offence in the future, and d ) in the case of an offence referred to in section 271 that has been proceeded with by way of indictment, or section 272 or 273, whether the offender is likely to cause or attempt to cause death, injury or serious psychological harm to another person through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses; and
- that where the psychiatrists conclude a ) in the case of a sexual offence involving a child, that the offender is likely to commit or attempt to commit such an offence in the future, or b ) in the case of an offence mentioned in section 271 that has been proceeded with by way of indictment, or section 272 or 273, that the offender is likely to cause or attempt to cause death, injury or serious psychological harm to another person through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses,
the Attorney General of the province in which the offender was tried shall direct that an application be brought to have the offender declared a dangerous offender.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague from Calgary Southeast.
Petitions December 13th, 1995
Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to present to the House a petition containing over 500,000 signatures from the
Melanie Carpenter Society. To be exact, there are 506,285 signatures in seven boxes full of petitions.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will enact legislation to keep dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life; to eliminate statutory release; to impose stiffer sentences for violent offenders; to have violent criminals serve their full sentences and have time added for bad behaviour; to have a central registry for the names and addresses of violent offenders; to give more power to legal institutions to keep dangerous criminals, even after their sentences are served if they are still at risk to society; to give the police more authority in apprehending and interrogating violent offenders, including the ability to take blood and salvia samples; to eliminate the insanity, drunk or drugged defence; to impose stiffer laws and sentences for stalker criminals; and to reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder in which there is no doubt of guilt. They humbly pray that Parliament enact legislation.
I present these over 500,000 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Constitutional Amendments Act December 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-110 today. I was next in line when the time allocation ran out at second reading. It is nice to see that the time closure is not going to affect me today.
Since that time the government saw fit to make an amendment to the bill to include British Columbia as a region and give it a veto. It is interesting how the Liberal government seems to be surprised at the reaction it has received from people in British Columbia. This bill and the amendment have united the people in British Columbia as it would appear that they are all against it.
What the Liberal government does not seem to understand is that the people of British Columbia do not want any one province to have a veto. They do not want the veto themselves and they do not want any other province to have the veto either. They understand very clearly that the veto will entrench the status quo.
What the people in British Columbia are looking for and fighting against is the establishment of the status quo and entrenching it. What they want is a Constitution that will evolve, change and recognize the changes that have taken place in this country since 1867. What they do not want is for British Columbia to be left in the position that it is in right now.
British Columbians are not happy that almost 13 per cent of Canada's population lives in British Columbia but it has less than 11 per cent representation in this House and less than 6 per cent of the seats in the other place. Those are the things British Columbians want changed. They want a Constitution that will allow those changes. That is why they see the amendment to include British Columbia as a distinct region as not mattering at all because they do not want a veto. They do not want anybody to have a veto.
What B.C. wants is to gain its rightful place in Confederation. In order to do that, one of the players in Confederation is going to have to give up something. If Bill C-110 passes and we have a veto, it will mean that the provinces which are required to make concessions by giving up something in order to give British Columbia its rightful place will have a veto and will prevent that from happening.
This bill will deny British Columbia its rightful place in Canada. However, Bill C-110 has united British Columbia. The provincial Liberals are against it, the provincial Reformers are against it and the provincial NDP is against it. It is dangerous for this Liberal
government to create that kind of unanimity among otherwise diverse political parties.
I remind the House that in the late 1870s the British Columbia legislature actually voted to secede from Canada twice. I am afraid that this Liberal government in instituting Bill C-110 has wakened a sleeping giant and it does not have any idea what the results will be from the feelings of deep resentment that are surfacing in the people of British Columbia.
By originally grouping B.C. with other western provinces, the government ignored our people, our history and our geography. I wonder why government members did not read the items in the book they released this past week on the symbols of Canada. I want to share with the Liberal government what the book that it published has to say:
British Columbia was inhabited by the greatest number of distinct Indian tribes of any province or territory in Canada. They were not only different from each other, but also from the rest of the Indian tribes in Canada.
Unlike eastern Canada where the French and English disputed control of the land, the first two countries to contest areas of British Columbia were Spain and Russia.
In 1778 Captain James Cook of Great Britain became the first person to actually chart the land. Having firmly established her right to the area, Britain proceeded to settle disputes with both Spain and Russia.
When gold was discovered in the lower Fraser Valley in 1857, thousands of people came in search of instant wealth. To maintain law and order, the next year the British government established the separate colony of British Columbia. The colony was cut off from the rest of British North America by thousands of kilometres and a ridge of mountains.
I would suggest it is very clear in the Liberals' own publication that B.C. is a distinct region. It was a travesty for the government to completely ignore that distinctiveness and to lump us in with all western provinces.
Then the Minister of Human Resources Development cut $47 million in federal transfer payments to the province of British Columbia. The government seems to think it is okay to fund only 33 per cent of British Columbia's welfare bills when every other province gets funded up to 50 per cent. That is just one example of how the province of British Columbia is getting shafted.
Last month Business and Industry Development B.C. released the results of a Peat Marwick study which was done on its behalf. The study showed that not only has B.C. not received its share of federal spending, but its proportion of federal spending is continually declining. The province of B.C. receives only two-thirds of federal spending when compared to a composite indicator of its population, GDP and amount of federal income tax paid. While the federal government puts in less than two-thirds of the money it should, it takes out over 10 per cent more in income tax.
This is the status quo the federal government wants British Columbia to maintain. The message I am getting from my constituents and from the people in British Columbia is that they are mad as all get out and they are not going to take it any more. They are going to start to fight back.
When Bill C-110 passes, the Liberal government will be sending British Columbians a message. The message is that they had better get used to this because with all the vetoes that have have been spread out all over the country, especially the veto given to the separatist government in the province of Quebec, the constitutional changes, changes in Parliament and changes in the way that government does business will never happen.
The people in British Columbia are being told to sit down, shut up and be grateful for whatever small crumbs are being thrown their way. Members opposite may be surprised to find out that this approach will no longer wash with British Columbians. We will not be denied our rightful place in Canada any longer.
I join with other British Columbians who will fight to see that the government does not accomplish what other governments have tried to do. That is when the people of British Columbia will see no other option than to follow in the footsteps of the province of Quebec.
Immigration December 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, as this government continues its adversarial approach with the western provinces over the transfer of federal funds, it ignores the gross inequities it has created through the Canada-Quebec accord.
Under the accord the province of Quebec receives $90 million a year, 35 per cent of all federal funds being transferred for the settlement programs for immigrants and refugees when Quebec is currently only taking 12 to 13 per cent of the immigrants and refugees.
If the government is going to continue the funding program, will it consider renegotiating the Canada-Quebec accord so that the money is going to the provinces that are receiving the immigrants and refugees?