Jan Brown

[Dangerous Offenders, December 13th, 1995]

Clifford Olson. Paul Bernardo. Think about what you are saying, Peter.

[Dangerous Offenders, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of the motion of my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It is unfortunate, in fact an abysmal comment on Canadian society, that we require this kind of legislation. However, I am heartened by it and am honoured to second the motion.

Under current law, a sex offender cannot be detained beyond a jail sentence. We may ensure their stay beyond their statutory release date only if a psychiatrist signs a certificate saying that the inmate suffers from a mental disorder that would likely result in serious injury to others.

The motion before us today provides the point of difference that Reform brings to the debate. Rather than attempt analysis at the end of a sentence, an offender should be subject to analysis by a psychiatrist before sentencing and then, if need be, deemed a dangerous offender. This supports reasoned argument to keep incarcerated those who pose a threat to society.

This is exactly the kind of legislation that this country needs. This issue should be non-partisan. I believe all of us in this House want to safeguard the rights of victims and, in this instance, the rights of victims of sex offences.

Let us not forget that the law of the land should not only safeguard those who already have been victimized, but the law should also endeavour to protect us from further victimization by those who demonstrate a dangerous propensity to commit sex offences.

Currently, we sit in the House listening to a great deal, possibly too much debate on national unity, when under our noses other important problems need to be addressed. We can do something positive here. Instead of splitting apart, instead of limiting debate on issues of importance, we can join together today on an issue that concerns us all. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this important motion.

The motion we are debating today specifically addresses the issue of protecting society from sexual predators, people who are driven to inflict harm on women and children in our society. Sexual predators are people like Clifford Olson, like Paul Bernardo. They prey on the weak and vulnerable and they enjoy it. They have been psychologically profiled as deviants who repeat their crimes and even enjoy them. These are the people who will be affected by this motion.

By passing this motion we will be saying that yes, we believe that we have a moral obligation as parliamentarians to protect society from those who seek to prey on its weak and vulnerable; yes, we believe that for the safety of society certain offenders should be required to undergo psychological evaluation and under certain circumstances should be deemed to be dangerous offenders.

This allows us the freedom and opportunity to keep those individuals in prison, those who pose an unacceptable threat to society.

In this instance, to some extent we are talking about locking the door and throwing away the key. That statement unto itself may sound unduly harsh; however, when it is rephrased it may become more palatable and perhaps better understood. Does anyone here believe that someone like Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo should ever be allowed to walk the streets again? I do not think so. It would take a tremendous amount of convincing to dissuade me of this opinion.

The criminal must have served many years in prison. Treatment must have been completed and demonstrated to have had a positive effect. Remorse must be clearly demonstrated. Compensation of some kind would have to have been made to the victims of the crime by the criminal. Then and only then would I even entertain the notion of allowing the individual the opportunity to undergo further psychological assessment to determine the possibility of recidivism. This is not an issue of being harsh; this is a basic human issue about protecting the most vulnerable.

Protection of society will not be accomplished solely by the provision in the motion under debate today, but it does go a long way. Clearly, the preference would be to treat sexual offenders and to cure them of their illness. However, when this effort has failed we have a moral obligation to protect society. What we are debating today is whether the House sees this moral obligation; whether the House feels this moral obligation so strongly that it will make the moral obligation a legal obligation.

Some may ask why we need this legislation. Allow me through the use of an anecdote to demonstrate why this kind of legislation is necessary. There are times when my colleagues opposite are critical when we cite real life stories. However, unfortunately, they abound. They do represent a body of anecdotal evidence which cannot be ignored. If we can introduce legislation at little or no cost which will inconvenience few in society and by doing so save lives or prevent the commission of crimes, then we must commit to that effort. On that note, allow me to share with the House a sad story.

On November 18, 1984 Wray Budreo became a free man and every parent's nightmare. For days his face had been plastered on newspapers throughout southern Ontario. Budreo had a 32-year history of child molesting, including 22 convictions for sex offences. However, because he had served his full six-year term, there would be no parole or probation, no restrictions on his movements, no conditions for mandatory treatment. He was bundled into the trunk of a police car and spirited past the protesters who awaited him outside Kingston Penitentiary. I do not know if this man has reoffended. I pray that he has not. What concerns me greatly is that a known sex offender who was expected to reoffend was released from one of our jails.

I hear a familiar refrain all too often from people who doubt their own ability to shield their children from sexual abuse, especially without being overly paranoid or obsessive. We must first know some of the facts.

Not every child is equally at risk. Offenders target especially vulnerable children: lonely kids, those with disabilities or who have difficulty communicating, youngsters with absent dads who may be looking for a father figure, and those whose behavioural problems make it unlikely they will ever be believed if they do speak up.

Of course, the biggest risk factor is contact with a potential abuser. Here the facts contrast with the headlines. The dangerous stranger is the exception rather than the rule. A 1992 Statistics Canada survey found that in cases of child sexual assault, 48 per cent of the abusers were a parent or family member. Another 43 per cent astoundingly were friends or acquaintances. Only 5 per cent were strangers.

Whoever the offender, the offence is clear. It is always illegal for an adult to engage in sexual contact with a child under the age of 14. It is also illegal for an adult who is in a position of trust or autonomy to engage in sexual contact with a young person under the age of 18. The law recognizes what adults know. Children can be manipulated especially by the people they trust. Whether they say yes does not matter because the adult is the one who must say no.

There are no national statistics on the number of children molested every year but whatever the figure, it is too high. It can only be reduced one child at a time. That means we must make an effort to deal with potential abusers by ensuring that dangerous, repeat sexual offenders remain in a place where they cannot threaten our children or society as a whole.

Even the term "potential abusers" is quite misleading in this context because we are referring to people who have already been convicted of a criminal offence but who we strongly suspect will have the potential to reoffend. Suggesting that dangerous offenders of this kind are only potential abusers gives them too much credit.

An important component of this debate revolves around the issue of our ability to rehabilitate the convicted sex offender. One of the reasons for this legislation is the widespread disagreement about the success or even the possibility of rehabilitating a sexual offender.

Two centuries after the birth of modern psychiatry there are numerous treatments for sex offenders but as yet no consensus on the results of such treatments. A forensic psychologist at the Oak Ridge Facility for the Criminally Insane in Penetanguishene,

Ontario states: "We do not seem to be having much of an impact on sex offenders".

What are the costs to society? An argument is made that the annual cost to supervise an offender while on parole is only $9,400 whereas the cost of incarceration for a year is reported to be close to $70,000. Simply put, I believe there are times when social protection is worth the price. This may just be an instance where we have to swallow the costs. If it means saving 22 people from being victimized by a man like Wray Budreo then $70,000 a year is worth it.

Canada spends about $11 million per year on dozens of programs for sex offenders. About 5,000 of the 23,000 convicts in the federal corrections system have sex crimes on their record. The government proudly points to the statistics that only 6 per cent of sex offenders repeat their crimes within three years of their release. However, researchers who study sex offenders say that the recidivism rate jumps to about 50 per cent when the criminals are tracked over a decade. It is always the part that is left out that is the most startling.

There is little evidence, or at least there is lots of contradictory evidence, that therapy reduces recidivism. I am concerned by this contradiction. Until we are more certain of treatments that will reduce recidivism, I am uncomfortable in allowing potential predators back on the streets.

Belatedly, it is important that those who commit sexual offences be categorized as to whether or not they are psychopaths. Experts agree that the recidivism rate for psychopaths is triple that of non-psychopaths.

In conclusion, let me reaffirm my very strong support for this motion. I believe that if we could encourage the justice minister and the government to pass this motion, we would go a giant step toward making our country a safer one in which to live.

[Canada Pension Plan, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank the hon. member for his very clear response on that question.

The Reform Party plan to renew the Canada pension plan will allow people to choose when they wish to retire. The Liberal freedom 67 plan will break the government's contract with seniors by cutting their pensions. Six months ago, the Liberals locked in their gold plated MP pensions and now they are poised to hammer seniors by cutting pensions, raising the age of retirement and increasing CPP taxes.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can this government justify attacking seniors' pensions when her government just locked in its own gold plated MP pension plan?

[Canada Pension Plan, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is trying to sell the provincial finance ministers on its freedom 67 plan, raising the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

The finance minister says that freedom 67 should be his choice. It should not be his last choice. It should not be his first choice. In fact, it should not be his choice at all. Will the minister commit right now to abandoning his freedom 67 package?

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the history of unemployment insurance in Canada dates back to 1919 when the concept was first discussed. It finally became a legislated labour market institution under the government of Mackenzie King.

Let me read some of the quotes from that great debate in 1940 which focused on the original intent of unemployment insurance:

We recommend to your government the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work, whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner and makes him a more contented and better citizen.

I have a second quote:

How much unemployment there will be and over what period it will last is impossible to forecast. But, whatever it be, there must be a great deal of unemployment which can only be dealt with in one of two ways: either by a considered scheme of insurance or by state doles, hurriedly and indiscriminately issued when the moment of crisis arrives. There can be no question which is the better way. State doles lead straight to pauperization. A well devised scheme of insurance preserves the self-respect of the worker and assists and encourages him to supplement it by provision made industrially through an association.

I am well aware that we are debating a motion to refer this bill to committee prior to second reading and that the government will tell us that doing so is supposed to provide the committee with greater opportunity to make amendments to the bill. However, as we all know, the fact is that this mechanism which the government introduced into the standing orders shortly after taking power, has been consistently used to limit debate in the House and as a mechanism to speedily move controversial legislation through the parliamentary process in a manner which minimizes opposition.

I vehemently oppose sending the bill to committee prior to second reading. I believe that every member of Parliament should have an adequate opportunity to speak to the bill in the House of Commons, where they may both pose and respond to questions from their colleagues and opposition members. By drastically limiting debate, the government is demonstrating its complete disdain for such a parliamentary process.

Nevertheless, this is a House of free speech and I have written something which reflects my view of Bill C-111. Goodness knows, it is always a challenge to pique interest in House debates. In any event, I give the House my version of the 12 days of Christmas.

On the first day of Christmas the Minister of Human Resources Development, known as HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us one more long awaited non-reform. Carried along on the mantra of job creation, we received our year end Christmas gift: employment insurance.

On the second day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us two hard-working Canadians who, despite their considerable financial contributions to UI over all of their working lives, died without ever having received a penny of benefits: taxed to the grave.

On the third day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us three French Canadian leaders who, to no one's surprise, babbled on incessantly about Quebec and how unemployment in Quebec was distinct from all other unemployment in the rest of Canada and who felt, as always, that no one understood them.

On the fourth day of Christmas, the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us four calling premiers from the Atlantic region; calling for this, calling for that and finally, completely worn out from all of the calling, the minister of HRD called it quits to reform and went back to tinkering.

Five suffering regions, formally known as ten equal provinces, are all demanding more from less. Regional development boondoggles remain an active ingredient in the magic of creating jobs, jobs, jobs.

On the sixth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us six government strategists laying future plots for further tax grabs. After all, the implementation of the employment insurance scheme does not begin until July 1996, with a phase-in period to full implementation extending to the year 2000.

On the seventh day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us seven assistant deputy ministers swimming in UI cash surpluses. These new found friends of the finance minister will help him meet his deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP in hidden taxes, EI premiums and not reduced spending.

On the eighth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us eight milking tax collectors who targeted the part time worker, the working mom and the small business owner. So much for tax relief; just continued taxes on the tax oppressed.

On the ninth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us nine drumming seasonal workers who expressed outrage at being encouraged to accept available jobs in the shoulder season. But the government forgot to mention that under the new rules, claimants can still receive UI benefits equal to as much as 110 per cent of their earnings from employment.

On the tenth day of Christmas the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us ten piping journalists who heralded the miracle of changing UI to EI and gave us the new meaning of "un".

On the eleventh day of Christmas, the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us 11 dancing parliamentary committee members who, as the good Liberals they are, followed Government Orders to limit debate and refer Bill C-111 to committee before second reading, another promise broken by a government whose promise was for openness.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, the minister of HRD, having no understanding of the meaning of insurance, gave us 12 leaping bureaucrats to promote jobs and growth. They called this new program the job fund. This $300 million initiative is sure to sustain at least the 12 jobs enjoyed by these bureaucrats.

Merry Christmas.

[Status Of Women, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think all members of this House share in the painful memory of the tragic event that happened six years ago, in 1989, when we lost 14 of our young women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal. They fell victim to a senseless crime.

We all believe the rights of victims of crime must be placed before the rights of criminals in society. Today we feel those sentiments most deeply.

Exactly one year ago today in the House of Commons we held an emergency debate on violence against women. I appreciate the noble sentiments that continue to be espoused by those who speak on this and similar issues, for I too share those ideals. However, I am greatly concerned that in the intervening years since that emergency debate very little has been done to improve the situation.

I am concerned that the House does only lip service to addressing the issue of violence against women, children and men. Remember, we must not limit our focus to eradicating violence against women. We must enlarge our scope and become active pacifists to wipe out senseless violence in society. We must rally to this sentiment and demonstrate to the world that Canada is a leader in its efforts to reduce crime, to safeguard its citizens and to champion the rights of victims.

To do this we must get at the root of the problem, not just smooth over the symptoms. Gun control will not in and of itself solve the problems of violence in society.

I believe that until the government of the day can identify the root causes of crime, until it can identify the reasons for domestic violence and violence against women, we will continue waking every day to face the personal tragedies brought on by crime.

Today the government must take a more positive step in the area of violence against women and demonstrate its commitment to rooting out the problems the minister has alluded to.

In its press release of November 27 of this year Status of Women Canada called violence against women a violation of women's human rights. I agree with this statement and I believe the government should enforce its sentiments.

The government sent many people at great taxpayer expense to the women's conference in China. I challenge that conference site on the basis of China's terrible record of human rights abuse, especially to women, children and political dissidents. At that conference our government confirmed that eliminating violence remains a priority. It should be, and according to the secretary of state it is, a global goal not limited to Canada.

Today is a serious day for us all, a day for us to remember, a day for us to help the healing. It is a day when we should all commit to moving forward. We must foster attitudes which promote peace and tolerance and express zero tolerance for the violation of human rights and zero tolerance for violence against women.

Echoing sentiments of the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, I pledge and let us all pledge in memory of the women who died six years ago to continue vigorously our campaign against violence to prevent such tragedies.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about test projects. I am talking about creating sustainable long term jobs, and not with these billion dollar boondoggle projects.

In his last report the auditor general said there is absolutely no evidence that training is accompanied by new jobs. The $1.1 billion needed for these wasteful programs will come at the expense of part time workers.

When the auditor general has said these training programs will fail, why is the government hammering part timers to the tune of a billion dollars to pour into its bottomless pit of so-called job creation, mega training programs?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the minister of human resources announced two mega training programs, one for $800 million and the other for $300 million.

Federal training programs have proven a colossal failure. The auditor general says regional development programs do not create jobs, except of course for federal bureaucrats.

Why is the minister throwing over a billion dollars into more wasteful training programs when the auditor general says the programs will not create jobs?

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, of course I absolutely do want to see all of us build a better Canada, a better future. However, the issue here concerns the embargo until yesterday, December 4, 1995, and that part of my question was not addressed.

Further to that, if indeed the House of Commons represents a place for all Canadians to come and debate through our membership, I would like to know why we did not have a broad debate in the House of Commons to discuss this very basic simple issue.

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the debate surrounding the change to our flag was one of the most emotional, controversial and moving in Canadian history. It gave all Canadians an opportunity to participate in the development of the symbols of the country.

We are now told our new coat of arms is ready for distribution late this week. How did this happen in such a state of secrecy? I remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage the press release carried an embargo until 10 a.m., December 4, 1995.