Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question about the government's funding cuts for victims' services and the failure of its crime agenda to meet the real needs of victims.
I asked this question in the House on April 19. The very next day, the victims' ombudsman appeared at the public safety committee and testified about what the government should do to support victims in this country.
I want to start by recognizing that all members of Parliament are concerned about victims. The current government frequently claims that it is the only party that cares about victims. Canadians know that this is not true. In fact, this kind of divisive Conservative politics actually hurts victims of crime by diverting attention from their real needs. New Democrats want to work toward helping victims of crime and toward making our communities safer.
Of course, the truth is that all New Democrats care about victims of crime. The NDP has long been the party that has stood up for the marginalized and those whose voices are not heard. We have always recognized that most crime is directed at the poorest and most vulnerable among us. That is why we are the only party that consistently fights for policies that help to improve the economic and social conditions of Canadians. I am proud of my party's history on this issue.
I rise today to ask the government to re-evaluate its crime policy and its narrow focus on punishment and to refocus its efforts on meeting the real needs of victims.
This government's crime agenda is pushing Canada toward a U.S.-style prison system that is expensive and ineffective. It wants to lock up more Canadians for longer. Meanwhile, the government is cutting back on rehabilitation programs, and it is failing to address the crisis of widespread mental illness and addiction in our society.
Canadians know that these policies do not work. If they did, the United States would be the safest country on earth. It is not. The United States' model is expensive and it does nothing to lower the crime rate. In fact, many U.S. states are now moving in the opposite direction of this government.
The current government justifies its crime agenda by saying that it meets the needs of victims. This too is false. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Steve Sullivan, who was appointed by the current government to serve as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.
Mr. Sullivan said:
Sentencing and the “get tougher on crime” agenda will not meet the real needs of victims of crime...
He said:
[S]entencing is important to families....But it can't be seen or sold as something that will meet their needs, because their needs are much more basic than that. Realistically, their needs won't be met by whether the offender gets five years or ten years.
The verdict is in. Longer sentences and the so-called tough-on-crime agenda are not what victims are calling for.
What then should the government be doing to meet victims' needs?
It should reconsider its refusal to fund child advocacy centres. For two years in a row, the ombudsman went to the government and asked for funding to set up these centres across the country. He asked for $5 million for the project. Child advocacy centres provide services to child victims, such as young victims of sexual abuse.
These centres would prevent crimes. We know that untreated sexual abuse is one of the factors that leads to one becoming a sexual abuser in the future. However, this government said no.
Just as it reconsidered its decision to cut $3 million from the victims of crime initiative--I see that the government just this week restored the funds after the NDP called exactly for that, and I commend the government for listening to us--the current government should reverse its decision to close prison farms. It should add money to addictions and mental health services both inside prisons and in our communities, and it should listen to the many experienced corrections officials who know that rehabilitation makes us far safer than does punishment.
My questions for the government are simple.
Will it refocus its crime agenda to meet the real needs of victims? Will it commit $5 million to implement Mr. Sullivan's request for child advocacy centres for child victims of crime, and if not, why not?