Paddy Torsney

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time I think I might begin with my conclusion and then get to the beginning part.

It is my feeling the hon. member's motion is flawed and that it assumes the veracity of the recent allegations that have come to light in the media. The allegations have in no way been substantiated by fact or tested by the accountability of the system that is already in place in the CSIS act as it exists. The motion is premature, if not inappropriate at this time.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee has appeared at the subcommittee of the House and offered assurances that its review of the matter will be painstaking, thorough and complete, and I expect nothing but that. The House should respect that commitment and await the outcome of the legislative process of review prior to reaching any conclusion on the matter.

A basic principle of any democratic system should be the presumption of innocence. Unsubstantiated allegations which lead people to reach immediate conclusions of guilt fly in the face of this basic principle. Whether it is an institution or whether it is an individual, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that due process is followed and that only facts are entertained in reaching a decision.

To date we have not been apprised of the facts. Nor have we been allowed due process to be followed. Sensationalism and innuendo, a lot of it in the House, have no place when we are dealing with national security issues.

The CSIS act provides Parliament and all Canadians with both a process and an opportunity to reach factual conclusions. Regrettably in recent weeks we have seen a frenzy of unsubstantiated allegations and finger pointing that has undermined public confidence, about which many members have spoken today, in an important institution charged with significant responsibilities in ensuring the public safety of all Canadians.

Members of the House, the media and all other Canadians have a responsibility in allowing the effective systems we have in place to run their course. Our national security ultimately depends on the public's confidence in the people and the institutions which are designed to ensure it.

CSIS as part of this regime implicitly depends upon public co-operation to meet its mandate. It is our responsibility in the House to ensure that the review regime as prescribed in the CSIS act is allowed to run its course and address any doubts about our national security system.

In the meantime members of Parliament should not encourage the distrust the member for Wild Rose spoke about. They should follow the process, review the information, and then if we are unhappy with the outcome the motion might be in order.

It is important to remember how CSIS got here. In fact many members have spoken about that.

It has been 10 years since Parliament passed the act which created the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This was done following lengthy deliberation and with the full participation of the then members of Parliament following the conclusion of the McDonald commission of inquiry into the activities of the RCMP security service.

This latter inquiry was extensive and exhaustive in addressing concerns about the activities of the RCMP security service. The recommendation was clear that the national security interests of Canada would best be served by a civilian agency. I believe that the regime and the powers created by Parliament in 1984 by the enactment of the CSIS act fulfil the requirements of accountability to the Canadian people because the act itself fulfils the five basic principles which emerged from the McDonald commission.

I will remind members of Parliament what those principles were. The first was the provision of security and intelligence is essential to the security of Canada. Second, there is an adequate legal framework within which a security service would co-operate under the rule of law while recognizing the democratic rights of all Canadians. The third was an effective management system to ensure responsible direction and a respect for the law. The fourth was effective accountability to ministers who are responsible to Parliament or responsibility subsequently assigned by Parliament to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The fifth principle was openness to satisfactory external review, ensuring that the agency does not abuse its power and that it is not misused by governments.

These principles were adopted by government in the drafting of the CSIS act and confirmed in Parliament in 1984. In 1989 Parliament met the statutory requirement of the CSIS act by reviewing the effectiveness of the act and its stated objectives.

It has been some five years since this review and I see no reason to question the validity of that document produced at the time. The recent flurry of allegations about CSIS are just that, allegations. The allegations have not yet been subjected to the full scrutiny of the review regime outlined in CSIS.

It is worthy to note that the CSIS act is comprised of 29 pages, half of which are devoted to the control and review mechanisms applied to CSIS in the performance of its duties and functions. This fact alone should provide us with initial comfort in assessing the concerns that have been raised over the last seven weeks in the media. Each year for the last 10 years the House has been provided with an annual report from the Security Intelligence Review Committee. While initially it was critical, it has in the last few years been much better and much more clear in its issues because of course CSIS is getting better and better in its operations.

It is important to remember that here we are in 1994 and there still are threats to Canadian security. International terrorism remains a threat to world order. From time to time Canada is a base for activities in support of terrorism in other countries. Terrorist acts can have direct impacts on the lives of Canadians. The guests of Canada can also be the subject of terrorist threats.

We do not want to be subject to violence in this country nor do we want our reputation as a nation internationally damaged. It is important to remember that this does exist. The technology of terrorism is becoming more accessible. The World Trade Centre bombing confirms that this is so. The sources of terrorism remain strong: nationalism, religious and political extremism, state sponsored terrorism, ethnic unrest and regional conflict.

Canadians thankfully in recent years have been spared in large part from those acts of terror but we live in a world that is becoming increasingly smaller as a consequence of globalization. What happens in a distant part of the world can have an immediate impact in Canada. We are no longer isolated from what was at one time viewed as a far off regional conflict. We have responsibilities to assist our allies and protect ourselves in countering the effects of international security concerns.

Our borders are long and open and we are part of a global transportation and communication system. Canadians and Canadian soil are not immune from security concerns. Terrorism is not an abstract force sowing its horror in a foreign land. Canada and Canadians are vulnerable and have been vulnerable in the past. Canada's evident prosperity and open society make it sometimes all too inviting a venue.

The CSIS act defines the roles and responsibilities for the Solicitor General, the deputy Solicitor General and the director of CSIS.

This regime provides a full measure of checks and balances in ongoing CSIS operations, particularly those of a most intrusive nature. Approvals are required from a federal court judge for the utilization of these most intrusive measures.

This is a clear reflection of the priority and concern that the public and parliamentarians attach to the potential for abuse of power by a security service, given the extraordinary means that it would have at its disposal to intervene in the private lives of Canadian citizens.

As a member of Parliament, I am very concerned about this. For these reasons special care, precision and clarity were used in describing the mandate of CSIS in the act and the role of the various review bodies in control mechanisms.

The system has evolved over a 10-year period and works effectively to guard the integrity of CSIS conduct. Certainly the process we are now in will determine whether that is the case.

In addition to the the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Solicitor General also has available the Office of the Inspector General to ensure CSIS complies with policy, procedures and ministerial direction. By international standards this is the most complex control and accountability system in the world. We should all be proud of that.

This is what Canadians demanded in 1994 and creates the balance we see in the system today. Let us see the system work. Then we will have motions like this if they are appropriate and needed.

[Gun Control, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, gun control is part of an important package of crime prevention measures the government is serious about embarking upon.

This week I met with members of the Burlington Rifle Club, an organization located in my riding with members from several area ridings. The club's safety director, several of its members and I had a terrific discussion about ways we could improve safety in our communities and measures gun owners and gun vendors could take to help the government help our communities become safer for women, for children and for men.

The package of justice bills currently before the House, the new National Crime Prevention Council, the work of several of our ministers and more effective gun control will improve and protect the quality of life for all Canadians.

Let us all work together toward these objectives.

[Jo Wells, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate Jo Wells, one my constituents from Burlington, who this summer became the first woman to run the full length of Canada.

Jo began her incredible journey in May leaving from St. John's, Newfoundland, and arriving in Victoria, B.C., 111 days later. Along the way, a long way-some 7,295 kilometres-Jo was greeted, cheered and encouraged by many Canadians in all regions and by many members of Parliament.

Her goal quite simply was to show that it could be done, that anyone who sets goals for themselves however big or small can accomplish them. Jo was especially running to raise awareness about the abilities of women, to show that there are no limits to what women can do.

We can all learn from Jo's extraordinary determination and enthusiasm. Please join me in congratulating an amazing woman, a terrific Canadian.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the private member's bill before the House. I hope to put the hon. member's mind at ease and to assure the House the government is committed to women and to their concerns.

I begin by stating unequivocally that I admire the hon. member's motivation in presenting Bill C-218. She perceives an injustice which she believes must be addressed. Surely this is the mission of each of us as representatives of the people. Every one of us is charged with a duty to ensure that the rights and privileges of all Canadians are respected.

The values and principles upon which our social security system are founded are part of what makes Canada so distinct. It is one of the reasons we have again been named by the United Nations as the number one country in the world in which to live.

Our social security net has been established purposely to protect those least able to fend for themselves, and economically disadvantaged women are certainly one of the government's priorities.

I absolutely agree with the hon. member that if discriminatory regulations are found within the act they must be removed. However I want to make it abundantly clear to the House that the government is open to and committed to reviewing all aspects of our social security programs and to correcting flaws wherever we find them. It is precisely with that purpose in mind that we are undergoing the social security review.

The government acknowledges that our programs are far from perfect. Some may have outgrown their usefulness. Others have not kept pace with the times. In fact we recognize that in some cases our programs are not working well at all.

The basis for reforming our social security system is that we want to be sure the system is providing the appropriate supports, not penalizing people trying to help themselves. We want to knock down the barriers that prevent people from fully exploiting every opportunity to achieve dignity and self-sufficiency.

It is important the hon. member bring her concerns about this one piece of the overall puzzle of what is wrong with our present structure to a forum where all Canadians can help find the right fit. There is no point at this time in patching up a system that is clearly out of date and no longer capable of meeting our current needs, so I invite her to join us in the larger debate on social security reform.

In the meantime I should like to respond to a few points raised in Bill C-218 that I think must be clarified. I believe the hon. member may have come to the wrong conclusion about the government's attitude toward people in family businesses.

Let me remind the House it was precisely to address the problem of sexually discriminatory regulations that the act was amended a few years ago by the previous government. It was not so long ago that employed spouses were automatically disqualified from receiving UI benefits simply because of their family status. Clearly families that work together were put at a disadvantage by the government and thankfully such antiquated thinking is far behind us.

How does the system work today? The Unemployment Insurance Act stipulates that workers related to their employers are covered and are eligible for UI benefits if they qualify as any other worker would. In other words, each and every employee of a family operated business has equitable access to unemployment insurance protection. Like any other claimant seeking social assistance employees in such cases must satisfy certain criteria. The determining factors are rate of pay, conditions and length of employment, as well as the type and importance of the work.

These are not new eligibility requirements. The same rules and regulations apply to all UI claimants regardless of their workplace or any association they may have with their employers. While family employees have the same rights, they also have the same obligations under the current law as all other Canadians. Otherwise the legislation would indeed be discriminatory. Workers who are related employers are assured the same protection as those with a strictly business relationship. If there is a clear employer-employee association that the act calls an arm's length working relationship everyone is treated equally.

Furthermore the fact is that the vast majority of Revenue Canada's decisions on arm's length relationships in family businesses do work to the individual's favour. Over the past four years since the regulations were amended family businesses have fared well under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Tens of thousands of employees of family firms, up to 90 per cent of all claimants who are in arm's length relationships, have received the benefits to which they are entitled.

It is very obviously the nation's business to be concerned about women in business. We know, for instance, that more women than men run small businesses and that those companies now provide more new jobs than large corporations. We also know that women are extremely successful in keeping their companies running.

It is frequently women who need to hire staff as their businesses expand. Many women want to employ their family members. As the law now reads, provided they are in an arm's length relationship those family members can expect to be able to pay into and collect from the unemployment insurance program if and when they are entitled to, if and when their wife or mother lays them off or if and when their father or husband lays them off.

Many working couples are opting to start their own operations as a way to juggle work and family time, another serious issue facing many Canadian families. More and more parents, male and female, are making a home based business the career of choice as the way to balance professional and family responsibilities. They too can rely on UI if and when the need arises and they meet the criteria.

The reality is that women are frequently compelled to step into the workforce to respond to family demands, particularly taking care of dependants. It is usually women in the so-called sandwich generation who care for either their children or their parents and all too frequently both.

For this reason the government recently changed the UI act to take these special circumstances into account. The dependency benefit rate has increased UI benefits to 60 per cent for people with low incomes who have a dependant or have a spouse with a dependant. It is one of the measures we introduced to address the inequities of the existing system.

The hon. member is quite right. There are many challenges confronting working Canadian women that need much closer examination. I have every confidence if there are oversights which need correction or outright discrimination which disfavours women they will be addressed through our social security review. I am committed to making sure that this is the case.

I encourage her and others to participate in the process to create a better system for all Canadians, men and women.

There will be ample opportunity in the months ahead to debate the merits and drawbacks of the current legislation as we grapple with the new realities facing Canada's social welfare structure. We must work together to improve Canadians' quality of life. I look forward to the hon. member's joining us in that cause.

[Medal Of Bravery, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today the Governor General, His Excellency, the Right Hon. Ramon Hnatyshyn, will honour three police officers from Burlington with the medal of bravery.

Sergeant Stephen J. Carroll, Constable Gonzalo Couce and Constable Thomas A. Doherty are officers with the Halton Regional Police Force.

On September 27, 1993, Sergeant Carroll and Constables Couce and Doherty were called into a high risk situation and attempted to save a woman who had been shot outside her home. Although Sergeant Carroll managed to carry her to safety, the Burlington woman did not survive. Constables Couce and Doherty later entered the house to find that the gunman, her former husband, had killed himself.

Police officers across the nation take incredible risks to keep us safe. I commend all of them for their hard work and their dedication to public safety.

Today the efforts of Sergeant Carroll, Constable Couce and Constable Doherty are being recognized with a medal. I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to all 30 recipients of medals today and to all Canadian police officers for their dedication.

[Aboriginal Self-Government, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there has been much excitement lately over the positions held by the Bloc Quebecois on aboriginal self-government. It would seem that there are several and that they are in conflict with one another.

Mr. Turp, president of the Bloc Quebecois policy commission, has denied the statements he previously made and published regarding aboriginal self-determination. Mr. Turp, an international law scholar, now has no comment on the issue.

He is, however, quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying that he has taken a ``liberal and generous'' interpretation of the rights of our aboriginal peoples. I believe liberal and generous are in line with the Liberal government's approach toward aboriginal issues. If indeed Mr. Turp's knowledge and research on the issue are blocked by the Bloc, I would like him to know that his liberalism and generosity in aboriginal affairs would certainly be welcomed elsewhere.

[Petitions, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table some 2,000 signatures that are supporting the efforts of Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy, my constituent, in her quest to have serial killer cards banned in Canada.

These cards are published by a number of publishers including Eclipse Comic Books, Rigamor Press and others.

Canadians do not want these trading cards in their communities. We abhor crimes of violence against persons and we believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to violence.

It is my great pleasure to support this endeavour and the minister's motion today.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

I do not think that I in fact missed the comments in the motion.

I think there is a perception perhaps by some members of our community, and some members of the Reform Party, that suggests that the house really is on fire and that we are all running from it at this very moment. That is not correct.

I have heard hon. members say that people are falling left and right every day. That is not what is happening in Canada. That might be happening in the United States and I certainly will be working to make sure that our community of Canada is never like the United States. But the house is not on fire. There is smoke in one of the rooms, maybe in two rooms, but the house is not on fire.

We have to address the right of victims. I for one believe that we have to consider victim impact statements. In Burlington CAVEAT and other groups addressed this issue and they are working on solutions with the government.

I do not buy this perception and the encouragement of this perception that we are all at risk all the time. I am probably at risk most of the time, but we have to recognize that there is a careful balance. I do not want this government to turn around and have knee-jerk reactions to everything that is going on. We need to have a very careful balance. We need to have a methodical approach. Otherwise we run the risk of making mistakes that will only further encourage crime in our communities and I do not want that.

I will be encouraging the minister, as I have on many occasions, as he will say. I think we are big enough to address crime prevention as well as some of the issues related to the Young Offenders Act and current criminals, as well as prevention and removing some of the root causes of crime. I think we can handle the job.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. This is a pressing issue in my riding and I often referred to it in the election campaign.

I believe there is a serious problem. We seem to be saying in our committee that there is a problem with young people, that young offenders are really dangerous, that they are terrible children, that they murder people, etc. This is not fair since it does not apply at all to the young people I know. We must do something about this notion some members have in our committee.

There is a problem with some young people. When a young person breaks the law, it must be recognized that such an offence will have consequences, and it must be understood that there are laws in our society and that they must be respected.

We often hear some people say that they would like to see young offenders appear before an adult court, which I think is very dangerous. I have a problem with that approach. I think that if you send a young man to Millhaven, you are only giving him the opportunity to become a smarter criminal which, I think, is terrible. This government discussed amendments to current laws with provincial justice ministers, because provinces are responsible for rehabilitating children and young people.

It must be spelled out in the Act that some young people are dangerous and we must have another approachor them, I think. We must have specific rules on this.

I think we must review changes to the system by having, for instance, a record that would follow these young people.

I will have to speak in English on this part or I am going to get myself into trouble.

We have to change it so that there is a record kept on youth who have committed crime, especially when they are very dangerous. We have to ensure that society is protected and that in some cases the record is not wiped out. In some cases we could do a better accounting of these young people and ensure that they do not get caught up in worse crime.

However, in terms of crime prevention I think we can do a lot through education and by removing the root causes of crime. I mentioned family violence in my speech. Kids learn this stuff at home and from television sometimes. They learn it from an environment that is hostile to many people in our communities. They learn that it is okay to be violent against women.

All of us have to take responsibility for that and we have to change that system. We have to tell kids that it is not okay, that they can resolve conflict by discussing things, by coming to resolutions, by using alternative methods whether it is in the school yard, in the family or with others as they grow up.

I think we can do a lot as a nation about improving our society if we can address that. We as a community have done very well in Burlington on some of that. I have been pleased by some of the initiatives in the greater Burlington area and the greater Hamilton area that have incorporated Rotary Clubs and school children and teaching them this sense.

However, we do have to address those issues.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion of the hon. member.

As the member of Parliament for Burlington I spent much of my election campaign discussing these issues. As previous speakers on this side have quite rightly pointed out, the government has barely passed the 100-day mark in office.

My constituents are very concerned about justice issues. They are also concerned about crime. They look to the government to address these issues and they want changes that will have a positive impact on Canadian society.

The government has just assumed its position. We have only been here for 100 days but we have already signalled quite clearly and the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have forcefully stated that we are committed to action to reform the criminal justice system.

I speak here of balanced, thoughtful reform that addresses the needs of Canadians for protection and Canadians' belief in compassion.

I must remind hon. members that this government has already provided full details on its policy concerning criminal and justice issues. Even before the election, we laid down our agenda for reforming the criminal justice system once we would be in office.

This agenda reflects the expectations of Canadians, as they have expressed them. The Liberal Party has consulted the people of Canada and obtained their full support.

As a party we said explicitly what action we intended to take on a range of issues, issues such as young offenders, crime prevention, gun control, prostitution, sentencing and rehabilitation of sex offenders, violence against women and children, and we talked about parole.

The range of issues speaks volumes. It cries out for a comprehensive approach, one that considers root causes, that thinks of prevention as a key element of every solution, not just shutting the barn door after the horse has gone.

That does not mean, as the hon. member opposite would have us think, that considered approaches somehow place the rights of criminals over the plight and the rights of victims. This is a cant. This is a one dimensional perspective that does not stand up to scrutiny.

As I have said, we have already signalled clearly that we intend to follow through on our promises. The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have indicated that work is already well in progress on these areas. This work will reform our system so that the victims of crime, the public, both specifically and in the larger sense, are first, the paramount consideration in the operation of our criminal justice system.

The Minister of Justice has indicated in the House that he intends to bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The Solicitor General has said here and elsewhere that he intends to bring forth amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I am pleased that all the foregoing topics are on the agenda next week at the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice which both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General will attend. The government has also signalled its intent to bring forth amendments to sentencing, again with the intent of improving the lot of victims during the judicial process.

Probably the most crucial plank in our paper on crime and justice issues had to do with crime prevention. I am pleased that we are working on the elimination of root causes of crime. Many of Canada's criminals have known a life of poverty and inequality, an environment that taught them little about positive conflict resolutions, an environment quite unfamiliar to many members of the Chamber.

I am pleased we are focusing on a national crime prevention program because we can perhaps make the biggest strides in helping victims there. I believe we must do our utmost to ensure that as few Canadians as possible become victims of crime in the first place.

Members opposite would have us believe that one dimensional answers such as increasing the rate and length of incarceration would be a key solution. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. If locking up people was a

measure of absence of crime we would be one of the most crime free countries in the world. As I have said, we are looking at approaches that address underlying causes of crime and that integrate crime prevention strategies.

Law enforcement has been the traditional mainstay of crime prevention strategies, but law enforcement is not enough on its own and that has been demonstrated. Experience shows that for truly effective crime prevention law enforcement must be integrated with social development, including social programs and better education, community level participation in crime prevention and in crime solutions, not just locking up people.

Burlington as part of the Halton region has been extremely successful in its crime prevention strategy. Under the direction of Chief Harding, Burlington in the Halton region has become the safest community in North America. Block Parent programs, community involvement in conflict resolution strategies and incorporating support groups such as rotary clubs ensure that we will have a multipronged approach to crime prevention.

It is important to remember as well that Burlington has seen some very sensational crimes and has been wracked as a community by crime. Two of our young women died very violent deaths: Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy. Kristen French from down the highway a ways was found in our community. We were all brought home very horribly one summer to the reality of violence in our communities.

However, the government recognizes that when incarceration is the only solution to protect the public it is in fact what we must do.

The Solicitor General has promised tough measures for repeat sex offenders and high risk offenders who offer little hope of immediate rehabilitation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General has enumerated the reforms the minister shall be bringing forth to offer better protection from those who would prey on the vulnerable. He has also noted that the government does not intend to give up on these offenders.

Surely the mark of a civilized society is how it treats its offenders. Communities need to become participants in the process of safely reintegrating offenders into Canadian society. Rehabilitation programs need to be expanded and improved so that offenders return to our communities with a much lower risk of reoffending. We need more victims aid programs, to be sure, and our crime and justice paper focused on that concern. It also identified the need for more public education and research on criminal justice, recidivism, crime prevention and alternatives to incarceration and victims aid.

Surely a grave cause of concern in the area of victims of crime is the suffering caused by violence within our families. Family violence results in a great many victims, both directly and indirectly. I believe we are paying a very high cost for allowing such violence to continue. We have pledged as a government to do our utmost to break the cycle of family violence.

Statistics demonstrate the undeniable link between sexual abuse of girls in their own families and prostitution. Many of Canada's prostitutes are also drug addicts, condemned to a very dangerous life because of the misfortune of being born into an abusive family.

I believe the Reform motion is motivated out of fear. While we cannot ignore the very real fear and the very justified fear some Canadians feel, we must temper it with rationality. As a woman I am aware that I can become a victim in two ways. Merely because I am a woman I am more vulnerable to assault including sexual assault and, second, the fear of crime takes away my freedom. Like other vulnerable groups, children and the elderly, women must always be conscious of their environment on the streets, at home and at work. We must think of these issues all the time. We must never let our guard down. Sometimes it is exhausting; always it is unfair.

The member speaks of elderly women at home and afraid. I too am very concerned about this issue, not just because I have a significant number of single and elderly women in their homes in Burlington. I also recognize that at one point I too will be one of those women. However, I am encouraged that some of our young women are starting movements and marches such as "Taking Back the Night". My old high school in Hamilton, Cathedral Girls, organized such a march after the death of Nina de Villiers.

I am also aware that pornography, killer cards and sometimes advertising campaigns which present women as objects rather than as persons deserving respect and safety, encourage violence against women.

As a nation we must address these issues. We must educate our young people to respect others, to respect their person and to respect their property. The government must lead that discussion. We must enact laws that reflect our abhorrence of violence against women, against children and against the elderly. These are the issues we must address if we are to ensure the rights of victims. I hardly think we can be expected to redress imbalances in these complex issues overnight, but we can be expected to think long and deep about solutions and to ensure these solutions are comprehensive in scope.

There are many crimes, many victims of crime, and many causes for such crimes. That is what our crime and justice issues paper recognized.

Any knee-jerk reaction that promises to help victims is doomed to failure. I do not condemn the outrage crime causes, especially to its victims. On the contrary. What I do condemn, however, is offering simplistic solutions to complex inderdependent and intertwined problems of society. For example, perpetuating the perception that all criminals are violent is grossly misleading, as is the myth that the system is somehow dedicated to the rights of criminals over the public.

Maintaining that solutions to crime simply involve the criminal justice system getting tougher, meaner, stiffer, is to offer totally inadequate and in the end bankrupt answers. In fact such a philosophy will prevent us from ever getting to and fixing the root causes of crime and victimization. As long as we pretend to the public that there is the possibility of easy answers we cannot count on its support and participation in the search for a multidimentional solution to crime will be limited.

I will concede and even argue that the public is increasingly concerned about crime and about being victimized. That is why the Liberal Party took the unprecedented step of laying out a comprehensive crime and justice agenda almost one year ago. The government plans to act deliberately, methodically and systematically with this agenda. I for one will be an active participant.

We do not wish to rush in with hastily drafted laws, with a scatter-gun approach, so that when the smoke has cleared something would not measure up. These are crucial issues. They need to be carefully addressed, closely studied by Parliament and properly debated. They need a wider public airing in cities, in towns, in villages and in neighbourhoods, and often even within families.

In the end we will be measured by what we accomplish, not by what we promise. We will proceed in a measured pace with our agenda, an agenda I remind members that recognizes the complex nature of crime, its origins, and the corresponding need for proper solutions.

The Canadian public expects solutions from the government and we will deliver on that.