Madam Speaker, I did not expect to take part in this debate, but I cannot help myself. After being here for eight years, I find it difficult not to get involved, particularly after what I just heard from my Canadian Alliance friends.
In politics, it is easy to engage in some demagoguery and this is not always done in bad faith. These people are not always aware that they sometimes promote outrageous ideas, or that they focus on just one side of the coin. I often say that, regardless of how thin the coin may be, there are always two sides to it.
This is why I am speaking out. I understand and I fully agree with my colleagues. We have examples which show that there are always some who fall through the cracks. These are not necessarily the least important ones, but there are isolated cases. However, the danger is in making generalizations about this kind of situations.
There are also examples in Canada. The number of these examples in on the increase, with the new evidence allowed, such as DNA and so on. We find an increasing number of judicial errors that were made in Canada.
We all remember a young man—who was no longer young when he was released—one David Milgaard, who served 24 years of a prison sentence although he was completely innocent. Even before definitive evidence could be produced that he had had nothing to do with the crime for which he was charged, public opinion, as I recall, wanted to see him handed an even tougher sentence.
I also remember a resident of Mont-Laurier in Quebec who was accused of a crime. He served his sentence in prison, but continued to proclaim his innocence when he got out. For more than 20 years, this man has tried every legal recourse to prove his innocence.
Recently a resident of the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville was charged with rape. The woman retracted her statement; she was no longer sure that it was him; she then changed her mind and said that she had been mistaken and that now she was sure that it was him. The case dragged on and finally, the system ruled that this woman had a few problems, at least in her perception of things. So the man was released. He was an electrician, a family man who led a completely respectable life. But his life was ruined because of all this.
There are more and more cases where teachers are being charged. Recently in Lac-Saint-Jean, a man's life was literally ruined by a young girl who falsely accused him and this was entered in evidence. But it took eight or nine years before definitive proof was established. The judge even sentenced the young girl to 20 years and a few months in prison for giving false evidence and making a false accusation.
The present judicial system is not perfect. It could always be improved, particularly when people are released conditionally and not kept under any supervision. The cell doors are thrown open and they are told “You are free to go now. We are no longer keeping an eye on you. We are no longer watching what you are doing. We are no longer even wondering what you are up to”. This should also be watched.
But to go from there to making generalizations and wanting a prison system so inhumane that the only hope left for the accused or the inmate is suicide or something equally horrible will not be any improvement, whether inside or outside the prisons.
I do not think that the prison system should be a means of vengeance, but a means of protecting society, a means of educating those inmates who want to participate in programs, who are willing to try therapy.
This is, unfortunately, a necessary evil in our society, but must not be based on vengeance alone.
This, unfortunately, is what has always bothered me somewhat about my friends in the Alliance. I remember when we were first here, back in the days of their first leader, Mr. Manning—whom we can now refer to by name—when several representatives of his party, the Reform Party at the time, were given the mandate to go to one of the Asian countries to investigate its use of corporal punishment and to report back on it. I have forgotten which country it was. People will recall this, as it made all the newspapers. It generated plenty of headlines.
These are not necessarily examples to be followed, however. I think that what should be taken as an example is the best of our society, what works best in our society, and we should try to adapt it to suit a variety of situations. Let it be clearly understood, I am not in favour of just any prisoner being let go unconditionally if that person is not likely to fit back into society.
Some people sentenced are not fit to be reintegrated into the community, even at the end of their sentence. When their sentence is over, however, they are released without any follow-up. This is a practice that needs to be prohibited, and we must take steps to improve the situation.
My brother recently became a guard in a provincial detention facility, where the inmates are sentenced to less than two years. There are inmates there who committed absolutely odious crimes, but who were lucky. People who, for whatever circumstances, because of the mood of the judge or deals made between lawyers, ended up getting a prison sentence of less than two years and therefore ended up in a provincial institution. Yet, they fully deserve to be in a maximum security federal institution for a longer period.
There are all kinds of injustices. It is up to parliamentarians, those who are interested in this work, to co-operate, to work together in committee, everyone, government and opposition together, to try to find solutions that will benefit society and reduce the risks.
However, it is not necessarily true that locking tons of people up without any contact with the outside will reduce risks for society. There are risks within prison walls. There are the risks associated with the working conditions and the safety of prison staff. There will be other risks. If these risks are not on the streets, they will end up behind prison walls. These risks can be found just about everywhere.
I do not wish to go on forever on this topic, but I would like to congratulate my colleague, and I want to make sure that he understands me. I have nothing against his motion. I find him to be a sensible and serious man. He has the interests of his fellow citizens at heart, but the means that he is proposing are not necessarily the means that I would advocate.
While I recognize his hard work, perhaps he should raise this issue with one of the committees, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to be debated, to debate the solutions that he is proposing before a broader audience than the House.
When I see members focusing on something absolutely revolting and making a play for our emotions as they have done in the past—I am not referring to the member who put forward this motion—I think that it verges on grandstanding. It is sad, but it does not necessarily shed any light on things or contribute to any useful solutions.
I invite the member to try to put forward his motion in another forum, a parliamentary committee or somewhere else—the choice is his—so that it can be debated and we can try to find solutions which will benefit our society in the short, medium and long term.
