Debates of March 17th, 1994

Business Of Supply

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for his questions and comment. First let me speak to something that has been addressed because I know he would not want to carry on with a misconception.

The question of whether Junior Marshall contributed to his own misfortune was addressed by the inquiry. The appeal court judges who sat on the case were reprimanded by the judicial counsel for saying exactly what the hon. member said, with the greatest respect. I know the member did not mean to perpetrate it. He did not contribute to his own misfortune. He did not lie, absolutely not. He was in the park that night and was hurt by the same man who killed Sandy Feal. He did not lie and the judges who said that were reprimanded by the judicial counsel, in the words of Casey Stengel. The hon. member could look it up.

At any rate with regard to deterrence, not at any time did I suggest to the hon. member or to the House that there should not be deterrence and punishment. I did not say there should not be.

[An hon. member]

Capital punishment.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Capital punishment, not on this side of the House. The hon. member should wait; he might get another chance. I never at any time suggested there should not be

adequate punishment. Of course there should. That is why we have the Criminal Code. That is why we have the sentencing policies that we have in place. Some of them are insufficient and some of them must be changed.

My point to the hon. member was that we do not, to use another cliche similar to justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, throw the baby out with the bath water. We have children in this country who go wrong. We must do everything we can to put them back on the right track. Necessarily lowering the age to 10 and frying them is not the answer.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not intend to be so kind about the criminal justice system when I talk. I am not a lawyer but I am one who has been affected by such things as the criminal justice system and I live in an area with many prisons around it.

I want to refer quickly to a newspaper article that appeared not too long ago in the Abbotsford Times in my community:

Corrections Canada reports all 57 inmates granted temporary absences this Christmas from B.C. prisons have returned to jail.

But that doesn't impress local police.

I am going to refer to this point a little later. It is nice to see they came back from their Christmas break.

I rise today to speak to one of the most contentious emotional aspects of the Canadian criminal justice system, the reform of parole. The entire issue of the rights of victims revolves around the parole system and how it has let us down. Let us not mix words here tonight. It has let us down.

Parole horror stories have become so commonplace in the media that the majority of Canadians has completely lost faith in the system. Nowhere is this more evident than when we talk to people who have lost someone dear to them as a result of the breakdown of that system. When we sit in the living room with a family whose life has been forever altered, as I have recently in Langley, British Columbia, we see their eyes. These people are victims. There is sadness, despair and anger in their eyes. It has been a powerful, moving experience for me. I do not know if I would have the strength to be as forgiving as some of those victims are.

What drives me to distraction is the attitude of the bureaucracy responsible for the tragedy. There is no emotion in those eyes; just cold, hard, vacant stares, and endless recital of the regulations. No one is responsible. It is no one's fault. No one seems willing to do anything about it.

In my riding we are surrounded by federal correctional institutions, as I have said, and there are no shortages of incidents involving parolees. Also the article in the Abbotsford Times quoted local RCMP members saying that whenever they have an unsolved crime they just check the list of parolees loose in the street, find out what they were doing at the time of the crime and, bingo, the crime is solved. At the time of story their success rate for solving crimes in this way was 75 per cent. While there were not a large number of those cases, the lasting impression in the public's mind was that criminals were simply being let out too soon.

What response do we get from the criminal justice system when it breaks down? I realize the Parole Board and Corrections Canada are two separate bodies, but in a recent meeting with the head of corrections for the Pacific region I was told that the responsibility for improving the criminal justice system lies with Parliament. They simply follow the rules laid down by politicians.

Another common response is to quote surveys. The Parole Board likes to quote a particular number. It says that long term research shows that 75 per cent of paroles granted were concluded without any return to federal custody during the sentence. As we all know, statistics are a matter of perspective and in some cases outright deception.

Benjamin Disraeli said it better: "There are three kinds of lies: there are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics". If it is true that 75 per cent of paroles are successful, I want to know what the cost was to society of the other 25 per cent. In my eyes it is a failure rate of one in four and that is just not good enough.

It is time the rules were changed. It is time to stop awarding old friends and party hacks with appointments to the Parole Board. It is time to establish competency tests for board members which address the need for an understanding of the justice system. It is time there was a system of redress for victims who have been injured as a result of incompetence of the board. These board members must be held accountable. Most important, it is time criminals did real time for real crime.

At the heart of this discussion is the fact that somehow we have lost the resolve as a nation to stand and say that when a criminal is sentenced to 10 years he should serve 10 years; not 3, not 5, but 10 years. Sentencing reform is key. It must be mentioned in this discussion as an integral part of the solution.

Where do we start? One of the major hurdles is the way the public sees these issues as falling under one umbrella. In a sense they do. It is all in the justice system. What happens typically is that public outrage is diluted because it often takes a scatter-gun approach. People blame the police for not warning communities, even though they are handcuffed by the charter of rights. They blame jails for letting prisoners out, even though it is the Parole Board's job. Or they blame judges for not imposing stiffer sentences when it might have been a poor submission by a crown prosecutor who caused the miscarriage of justice in the first place.

As I mentioned before, no one is to blame. If the system is so complicated and intimidating to those not close to it, then the first step we must take is to make it clear. We must commit to allowing victims greater access to the halls of what now passes for justice. The public has the right to take part in the decision making process. It must be an integral part of parole hearings.

Before that, victims must be given greater opportunity to be heard at the trial stage. Victims' impact statements are not given enough credence in the system as it now stands. In short, the simple request we have for the criminal justice system establishment is "open your eyes and open your doors to the people whose rights have been trodden upon, the victims of this country".

I would like to close on a personal note which will help to explain why I referred earlier to the eyes of victims. I recently sat in the home of Mr. Chris Simmonds of Langley, British Columbia. There is a picture on his coffee table of two beautiful daughters. The picture and the memory is all that is left to one daughter, Sian.

She was brutally murdered by a hired killer who claimed he was only trying to scare her with a loaded gun. He was out on bail on his own recognizance at the time. I do not have time to explain this complicated case today but what is striking about Mr. Simmonds is his calm resolve to have justice done.

The latest travesty in this case is the decision of the court to move the trial of the man alleged to have contracted the killing to Port Alberni from my constituency. The court says that he can receive a fair trial safe from the influence of the media. Once again, the victim's rights are secondary. The criminal's rights come first.

Out of respect for the Simmonds privacy I will not detail the effect of this savage murder on the remainder of the family. Besides the financial strain, emotionally they are near ruin. However they fight on.

When Mr. Simmonds approached victims' assistance for some kind of compensation for the extra expense of travelling to and from Port Alberni he was told by another steely-eyed bureaucrat that he did not qualify because he did not witness the death of his daughter. This is the only point in the story where Mr. Simmonds eyes give him away. He told that man: "Don't tell me I did not witness my daughter's death. Every night when I go to bed I close my eyes and I see her die".

Madam Speaker, from time to time in this House, you are called on to witness a vote and say that the yeas have it. When it comes time for us to vote on the long overdue reform of the criminal justice system, I for one will remember the eyes of Chris Simmonds.

I call on every one of my colleagues to join me in saying yes to the reform of parole and no to those who would put the rights of the law breakers ahead of the rights of the victim of crime.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech, as I do all the speeches in the House.

My questions to him are these. First, what is his position on gun control and second on capital punishment? On this side of the House we are proposing changes to the laws. Is he prepared to let us know what his positions are on these two issues so that they can be taken into consideration by us and by Canadians watching us today.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will give my position on both of those but all we are hearing today is that we are going to study, study, study, talk, talk, talk.

This is not a new phenomenon, the criminal justice program we have and the problems we have with it. This is something that has been going on for years. If we study this for another term there are going to be some serious problems in the country. Let us stop talking and discussing. Let us just get on with the job.

I suspect members opposite differ because they would be more liberal, but I think we have to stop worrying about trying to control the guns of recreation users, farmers and hunters and worry a lot more about the criminals and the guns they have. In fact if a crime is perpetrated by someone using a weapon while robbing a bank, in my opinion there should be two separate and distinct charges. Get off the backs of the recreation users, the farmers and the hunters and start worrying about the criminal for a change.

On capital punishment, I support capital punishment.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to follow my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley West. I thought he used a particularly poignant example to conclude his address. After hearing it, it is very difficult to move to another phase of the debate. However I would like to talk about the cost of crime as it pertains to ordinary citizens. We do not even think about it on a day to day basis.

I know when I was door knocking during this campaign, and I am sure it was the case of virtually everyone in the House, what we noticed was that everyone has a burglar alarm. Did hon. members notice that? When we went into the higher income areas, then everybody had burglar alarms plus dogs.

The cost of crime and the paranoia associated with crime and the fear of crime is a tax every one of us pays to businesses which have increased costs because they have had to install burglar alarms.

For those of us here and those Canadians at home watching, we all know what happens when we have been the victim of crime. During the campaign when I was making this point I would just ask people: "How many people here in the last year have been a victim of crime either personally or someone in their family?" Members would be amazed. I think it was something like 15, 20 or 25 per cent of the people would raise their hands every time. That was just in the past year.

I know as a victim the first thing that happens is you feel like you have been violated. You think your sense of safety is no longer there. The street that you have lived on, the neighbours that you have had all those years, all of a sudden you are locking the door. You just do not feel good about it anymore. Gradually that fades. You get over it. You get your alarm company. You get your alarm in. You start feeling good about it. Then you go into a drawer to get something that you have forgotten about and you find it is not there because that is one more thing stolen.

The frustration comes back in the neighbourhood with young offenders, when people know who is breaking in. A street with 20 or 30 houses and 5 of them have been broken into and they are all the same people.

That is the situation. It is partly due to our wonderful Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has put the cart before the horse. We have the rights of the criminal paramount to the victim.

Let me give another example. A rape victim wanted to find out whether she had been infected with AIDS. She went to court to get a court order so the convicted rapist would be tested for AIDS but it was said to be a violation of his rights. He raped this gal and it is a violation of his rights that she cannot have the peace of mind of finding out whether she ended up with AIDS because of what he did.

My friends, we have to rethink, we have to deal with the situation as it is. No wonder people think that we have lost the handle on this.

In doing a little research I asked: Where did we start to go off the rails? No one on either side of the House got up one morning and asked: "Well, how are we going to screw up the criminal justice system? How can we make it worse instead of making it better"? It did not start that way. But that is how it has ended up.

It is only a mistake if it is recognized as a mistake and it is not changed, then it is experience. Let us get some experience from it.

This is how it started and I quote from Hansard , Thursday, October 7, 1971, and the words I am going to read from the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer, Solicitor General, are going to shock you.

Folks at home, when you hear the words I am going to say you are going to realize why we got into the mess we are in. It is quite a long and involved quote but it says: "Consequently we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society". That is right out of Hansard . The Solicitor General of Canada, Thursday, October 7, 1971 in this very House and I well bet he was standing right over there somewhere when he said: ``Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society''. Is it any wonder we are where we are at today?

It started because in 1971 the recidivism rate was 80 per cent. People went to jail, they served their time and 80 per cent of them were back in after they were released. Something was wrong somewhere, so we had to change things. This was an attempt to change things.

I think they were on the right track. They just went too far. It ended up with the rights of the criminals coming before the rights of the victim. It has come to the point where we do not have enough money to go around to pay for day care and other things that people would love to have but we can put $675,000 into expanding the recreation complex at Bowden Institution. Or we can build a jail in Grande Cache where all the rooms face the mountains.

I want to point out the fact that we did not get started on this track yesterday. We have been on this road for a long time and it is now time to make about a 180 degree U-turn.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's speech I note that the quote was taken from a time, while certainly not the middle ages, some 23 years ago.

I would also point out and perhaps the member could respond, that about a year and a half ago in passing legislation dealing with corrections and parole, the statute dealing with penitentiaries and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and in reviewing the draft of the statute the priorities which were to be considered by the department were listed in the statute. For some particular reason and we did not know why, the safety of the public was not number one.

I say that in revising the statute for passage we in the committee moved the item up from No. 3 or 4 up to No. 1. I want to suggest that perhaps the pendulum is swinging back the other way after some 20 years. I accept the member's approach and I wonder if he would comment on the swinging of the pendulum.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

I thank the hon. member for the question. That was on my list but I did not get to it. That is a good example of one of the cases where we have to be careful. We do not want to let the pendulum swing too far in either direction.

At the time of reforming the penitentiaries in 1971 it was very Draconian and there is no question we were not saving as many souls as we were possibly able to under those conditions. Therefore in swinging the pendulum there is a very good possibility we went too far in the other direction. Now is the time to put the rights of the victims at least where they should be, which is always ahead of the rights of the criminals.

I accept the hon. member's point and thank him.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I foresee the hon. member rising on a point of order. There was a mixup in the lists. Members of the Reform Party were splitting their time and had lost a 10-minute slot through an error of the Chair. I gave it back to them and the government spoke and now it is back to opposition.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it your intention to have two members from the same party speak in a row?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

That is what I was just explaining. There was an error on the part of the Chair when I overlooked one Reform member and passed to a government member in his place.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to be able to address the House on an issue of such importance. I only hope that my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will look upon this motion seriously and thoughtfully.

In the minds of a vast number of Canadians there is no more important issue than crime and the failure of the justice system to deal adequately with crime.

During the course of my campaign I had the opportunity to unscientifically poll the mood of the public in my constituency to find out which issues held their attention the most. In my riding perhaps no other issue touched people as directly as crime.

There is no more glaring and headline generating problem than that of crimes committed by non-citizens, especially those who have come to this open country. Some of them have actually abused Canada's generosity and to make matters even worse, are coddled by our justice system.

I know that given our present levels of immigration the number of immigrant offenders is relatively low. Certainly immigrants are overwhelmingly committed to living peacefully and making a better life for themselves in Canada. Nonetheless there is a broad opinion that the rights of criminals who are not citizens or legal residents of Canada are being given precedence over the rights of law abiding members of society, both citizens and non-citizens alike.

As I mentioned before, there have been numerous examples of criminal activity on the part of illegal residents and new residents of Canada. The focus of these headlines and the subsequent public outcry over these examples has not been on the crimes per se, but on the fact that those criminals have been cycled through the Canadian justice system rather than simply removed.

In my own city I recently acquired information about two convicted drug traffickers, both of whom were in Canada illegally, having overstayed their visas. Both were sentenced to significant amounts of jail time. The obvious question to ask is: Why are these two criminals, neither of whom possess legal status in Canada, still in Canada after having committed these criminal acts and have served their time, or at least a part of their time? That is a good question to ask.

That is not the end of the story. These two gentlemen, predictably, did not serve their full sentences in prison. Instead, after a fraction of their sentences had been served they were released on parole. They were released back into the community where they could visit and live and begin to re-establish their lives despite the fact that neither of these men were legal residents of Canada.

The story still is not over. At the time of this case, one of these drug pushers when out on parole acquired the status of whereabouts unknown. In other words, he violated his parole.

The criminal justice system did not have the sense to simply run these two out of the country on a rail. Instead it used tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to prosecute and imprison them for a short time. Then the justice system was kind enough to allow these two out on parole, never mind the fact that neither should legally be allowed on Canadian soil in the first place.

When I spoke to the parole officials concerning this case, they informed me that any Parole Board decision imposed on an illegal alien took precedence over deportation proceedings. This particular case is not an isolated one.

Some may interpret this as an attempt on the part of the justice system to dole out just punishment. However, my constituents and many more Canadians across the country see examples like this as a drain on the system and a risk to our communities posed by a justice system that is rule driven, not common sense driven.

When Canadians are forced to support criminal illegal aliens through years of incarceration on our soil and then are forced to live among them when those criminals are released on parole, then all of us become the victims. We are victims not only of crime but also victims of a criminal justice system that does not have the sense to deal expediently and in a common sense way with people who come to Canada and commit crime.

I wonder if this House is aware of the fact that refugee claims are often heard not in the offices of Immigration Canada nor in offices abroad, but rather in Canadian prisons. As hard as it is to believe, current policy allows for refugee claims to be heard in prison. Even more difficult to believe is that refugee board

members are not permitted to take into account the character of the claimant as demonstrated by the fact that the claimant is in prison as they assess the individual's acceptability as a refugee claimant.

There are two issues apparent here. The first is the ridiculous disregard for character inherent in the refugee process. The second is Canada's willingness to house in prison law breakers who have not yet received the right to legally reside in the country.

Canadians are outraged that this government would not only subsidize the trials and incarceration of aliens, illegal or otherwise. They are also outraged that their safety is being jeopardized when instead a speedy deportation order would be the way to go.

One of the guiding principles of the Reform Party is the attention we pay and the regard in which we hold the common sense of the common people of Canada. People outside the justice system, but who nevertheless provide for its funding through their taxes and who are the victims of it when it fails to provide for their protection, have expressed to me and my colleagues that Canada's justice system is in dire need of some common sense reform. That is not just shared by the Reformers on this side of the House, but I hope members on the other side.

My colleagues have pointed out the tragic irresponsibility of a system that promotes and protects the rights of criminals over victims. I stand before this House to report that Canadians have lost faith in the justice system which spends thousands of dollars to harbour illegal aliens when they commit crimes. As I stated before, that victimises every Canadian who either has to foot the bill for such nonsense or is forced to live in a community that must needlessly be the home for criminals from abroad.

Recently the existence of another kind of foreign criminal has been brought to light in Canada. It has been discovered that Ottawa is the home of a former minister of justice in the brutal Barre regime of Somalia.

The existence of this individual in Canada has been known for some time now. Members of the Somali community in Toronto have brought to my attention the fact that they had made this government aware of the presence in Canada of several other members of that regime, people who may also have perpetrated horrible crimes against their own people in Somalia, but to no avail.

After a great deal of correspondence with the government and several pieces of investigative journalism which proved the existence of such people in this country, law abiding Somalis who now call Canada home are still waiting for justice to be done.

So many Somalis have fled Somalia and have come to Canada hoping to find a refuge. They soon discovered that Canada's immigration system seems unable to distinguish between genuine and non-genuine refugees. Also they discovered that Canadian politicians do not have the political will necessary to take action to apprehend and deport political criminals who have followed them to Canada. This is yet another example of the apparent disregard for the rights of the innocent and the law abiding while the rights and privileges of criminals are protected.

When will this government display the political will necessary to enforce laws that are on the books? I am concerned that we may never see that sort of political will exercised as long as this government is in power. Instead of firm proposals to help protect all Canadians from both Canadian and non-Canadian criminals, we will hear more soft talk about the charter, about the need to be fair, and about the need to protect the rights of the few.

This government will be in grave danger in four years. The unprotected may rise up in anger and demand that the criminal justice system be taken back from the constitutional attorneys. They will demand it be taken back from the special interests and brought back into the hands of those who can listen and respond to the common sense pleas for protection, truth, justice and national security which are being made across the land.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke and some of his colleagues touched on some quite particular aspects. We see that they each chose a subject in turn. In this case, it is illegal immigrants who commit murders while they are in Canada illegally.

The motion before us today concerns victims' rights, we must agree, but it is very, very general. I would just like to point out to the hon. member that a study, which I do not have on hand now, reports that about 80 per cent of the murders in Canada are committed by family members or someone in the victim's immediate circle. We must keep that in mind, because a very large majority of murders are committed in such circumstances. Knowing that, I think that we should deal again with the whole issue of the availability of firearms or other dangerous weapons that violent spouses or other persons in the victim's circle might use.

There is also another aspect. Murder is not the only crime, theft is another, but all studies show that such crimes are often related to poverty and social problems.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say on these two aspects in particular and not only about illegal immigrants, which he emphasized before, since all in all, crimes committed by illegal immigrants account for very little of the problem that we are talking about today.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I made general comments about more than just murder. If the member would recall, in my statement I was referring to drug pushers who have come illegally into this country although I am aware of other situations certainly. In several of them illegals have committed violent crimes as the member speaks of such as murder, robbery or assault.

It is not a question of directing our attention elsewhere. We have many problems in enforcement. There should be a deterrent to those with any serious negative intentions as far as our laws are concerned when individuals come into this country.

What I am expressing here is that they are not adequately being dealt with when they are perpetrating acts of this kind. We have laws. They should be enforced.

The opinion among the judiciary seems to be that aliens should be handled in a different way. People are fed up with that kind of thinking. They are looking for action. If you commit crime in this country, I do not care what your background is, you should be dealt with. You should be placed on the same plane as the individual who lives here and is breaking the law, the only difference being with the outsider is he should be immediately deported upon serving his sentence.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for York South-Weston. I will try to cut mine down so that we both get time to do our share.

I am pleased to speak on this motion by the third party that indicates a concern that this government is not acting to reform the criminal justice system. I do not want to be too critical of the Reform Party. However I want to set the record straight about this government's action to bring reform to the criminal justice system.

Of course we are concerned about the rights of victims and those who are closely associated with victims of crime. These Canadians want us to take not just short term, but long term actions and to include the public in decision making, including the victims. The Liberal approach is an integrated approach. We want to get tough on criminals. We are looking to clean up the justice system.

As the minister stated on January 27: "Crime prevention must take account of the deep causes of crime: poverty, sexual exploitation of children, family dysfunctions, racial inequality and inefficient or underfunded social services".

He further stated: "Our government is determined to develop an integrated crime prevention strategy. Together with the other levels of government, the police, victims' groups and the community organizations, we will make a priority of looking at the deep causes of criminal behaviour and eliminating them".

I personally find it astounding that the Reform Party seeks to condemn the government for its inaction when they know the Minister of Justice the moment he was sworn in began to listen and act. In fact the motion before us seems to condemn the minister and this government for listening, something I thought was high on the priority list of the Reform Party. They should praise the Minister of Justice.

Finally we have a Minister of Justice who is taking action based on what Canadians want. Certain actions have already been initiated. A national crime prevention council is being actively planned and will be functioning within four to six weeks. Amendments to the Young Offenders Act will be tabled early in May. The re-establishment of the law reform commission is well under way. The court challenges program will be reinstated in about six months. Appointments to the National Parole Board are now made on the basis of merit and expertise.

Yes, we have to take further steps. The minister has promised that from the beginning. In his speech on January 27 among other things he promised to address concerns about the release of high risk offenders into society at the end of their custodial terms and to address the serious problem of violence against women and children. He has promised to tackle the problem of illegal arms smuggling. He will be looking into the broad category of equality before the law.

The minister will search for better ways of ensuring that justice needs of aboriginal people are recognized and acted upon. He will introduce legislation to deal with the sentencing aspect of criminal law.

I have worked for two and a half years with Priscilla de Villiers whose daughter Nina was murdered August 1991. Priscilla de Villiers began a petition telling the government that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system of Canada. The petition asked that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent in our society.

We learned that Nina's experience was not unique. The petition brought to light similar cases where the justice system had failed. In fact 2.5 million Canadians have demonstrated their concern by signing the petition. The hon. justice minister accepted those petitions at a press conference on February 7 and stated his objective to provide and maintain the fairest and most effective system of justice for Canada and Canadians.

Mrs. de Villiers realizes that violent crime cannot be addressed through the justice system alone. We all have to make a long term commitment to a safer society that rejects violence and instils non-violent values in our children.

Through an organization called CAVEAT which Mrs. de Villiers formed, many deeply concerned Canadians will continue to promote public awareness and crime prevention in its broadest sense.

Many groups across Canada are participating in dialogue regarding the changes that are needed in the justice system. The Canadian Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association are both putting forward a suggested bill of rights for victims. Local police in many areas including Hamilton are moving directly into the community to better understand the needs of our citizens.

I have been listening and have become more and more convinced that we need this national, rational debate that is going on across the country. We all need to share our experiences. I find it strange that the Reform Party wants us to take action without taking the time to consult with all Canadians, including the victims of crime.

The opposition has to get a grip on reality. It needs to see the link between crime and the social structures of our society. It needs to see the need to consult with the citizens of Canada, with victims themselves, to make changes in the justice system truly meaningful.

In truth, we need to compliment our Minister of Justice. He has been listening not just in the House but across Canada. Priscilla de Villiers mentioned to me only this morning that she feels that the minister is moving in the right direction with his consultative process and the suggestions for change that he has been proposing.

The member who moved this motion may be interested that the minister while in Vancouver last weekend met with a group of victims and personally heard their concerns. The members of the opposition need to listen to their constituents and need to bring their concerns to the consultative process here in the House.

This would be a more effective use of our time and would better serve our common goal to bring meaningful change to the justice system. I look forward to working with members on both sides of the House while we work together toward our common goal.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us by the Reform Party is a mischievous motion.

The Reform Party was elected in part based on a platform that said that rather than being mischievous in the House, its members would be constructive and work with the government in order to achieve changes for the common good of the country. Therefore when the Reform Party puts forward a motion condemning the government for its inaction, given the early mandate of this government I would suggest that it is mischievous.

I would have expected more from the Reform Party. I would have expected its members to provide some constructive alternatives or suggestions in order to assist this government in its changes to the criminal justice system.

The Liberal Party in the last election campaign made it very clear in its red book that it would deal effectively, unlike the previous administration, with changes to the criminal justice system.

All I need do is refer the hon. member and the Reform Party to page 84 of the red book where the Liberal Party set out its commitment in advance of the election campaign with regard to the criminal justice system.

We said on page 84 that dealing with the growing incidents of violent crime will be a priority for a Liberal government. I can assure the member that members on this side of the House are dedicated and committed to changing and correcting the criminal justice system.

I have every confidence that the Minister of Justice will bring about significant change. He will ensure that in due course Canadians will once again have respect for and confidence in the criminal justice system.

The minister earlier today indicated a number of initiatives that he has taken. All I can ask of the Reform Party is to work co-operatively with the minister and other members on this side to ensure that the changes take place.

I have but a few short minutes to discuss some of the matters I wanted to discuss with regard to the criminal justice system. There is no question we agree that the justice system is in desperate need of reform.

I have before me the Criminal Code of Canada which is the basis of our criminal justice system. It tells us how we deal with criminals in this country and yes, this thick book needs a lot of reform. There are two areas that I have addressed through the private members' process in the last several weeks.

Today I introduced a bill that would eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code. Section 745 as I indicated to the House earlier today allows individuals convicted of first or second degree murder to apply to a court to have their parole eligibility dates brought forward. In effect it means that a first degree murderer, for example, someone who commits a deliberate murder, premeditated, can apply to the court after 15 years to be released from prison. I do not believe that that provision has the support of the public.

It means that life does not mean life. Most Canadians realize that when you commit a first degree murder it does not mean you are going to serve the rest of your life in prison. Most Canadians believe that life means 25 years. It does not even mean that. Under section 745 it could mean 15 years.

The likes of Clifford Olson will be eligible to apply in less than three years. Helmut Buxbaum who had his wife murdered would be eligible in the next five years. Colin Thatcher, in several more years, after 15 years will be able to apply for a reduction. That particular provision is a significant error in our criminal justice system in the Criminal Code and it ought to be eliminated.

The next subject I want to touch upon briefly is the Young Offenders Act. We all know that the Young Offenders Act is not working.

On February 17 I introduced in this House a private member's bill that would address three areas, and there are a number of other areas that must be addressed, that I believe must be addressed at the earliest opportunity.

The first is to change the age limits under the act. At present the Young Offenders Act defines a young offender as a child, if you will, between the ages of 12 and 17. The bill I introduced would redefine a young offender as being a child between 10 and 15. In effect 16 and 17-year olds would be dealt with as adults in criminal court. They would be prosecuted just like any other adult would be prosecuted.

In my view a 16 or 17-year old understands and knows the difference between right and wrong and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

With regard to the second aspect of my bill, the minister has already indicated that in the amendments that he will bring forward he will increase the maximum penalty for first degree murder to 10 years. I applaud the minister for that initiative.

The third aspect of this bill would allow for the publication of the name of the young offender after the second indictable offence.

In effect the young offender would be given two chances. The third time around, in my view, the public interest would dictate that the public should know the identity of the young offender and the circumstances of his or her crime.

There are other areas that have to be addressed. The minister indicated a number of the areas that he will be dealing with in the months ahead. I have taken the position in the past for example that the parole system is in desperate need of reform again. Mandatory supervision, the automatic release of inmates after serving two-thirds of the sentence, in my view ought to be eliminated. Sentencing reform is a package that the minister said he would bring forward. Parole reform again is very important. In the area of prostitution changes are necessary because of the effect of prostitution on communities right across the country.

In the few moments that remain I want to indicate to the Reform members that they certainly do not have a monopoly as far as having concern about the criminal justice system and reform of the criminal justice system.

Members of the cabinet and backbench members of the government are all dedicated and committed to making changes. I would ask members of the Reform Party to come forward with their ideas because I know that the minister and others will listen. In a years time or two years time I would ask them to look back and I think they will be proud of the work of this government in the area of criminal law reform.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their contributions today. There have been a number of important suggestions and recommendations.

Everyone heard the Minister of Justice say today that he would listen very carefully and in fact welcome the ideas of people.

I have heard a number of points. I want to make a very brief comment. There is a tendency and a real need to ensure the victims of crime have many more supports than they now have. The Minister of Justice indicated that he agreed and wanted to do something about it.

There is also a feeling that for certain crimes there ought to be much tougher sentences. I applaud that and I believe it is true, but we have to be very careful, as one colleague in the Reform Party indicated, not to let that pendulum swing too far. Otherwise we distort the system in another fashion which is perhaps just as bad.

How important is it to attack the causes of crime embedded in poverty and unemployment in order to reduce crime? I would just like to get my colleague's opinion on that.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that a balanced approach is necessary. We have to deal with those people who commit criminal offences. That is a must. We have to deal with them effectively, taking into account the public interest and the rehabilitation of the offender.

I agree with those persons who say the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. We have to seek that equilibrium or that balance. On the other hand we have to do what we can to ensure that people do not embark on a life of criminality. We have to deal with and address root causes of crime such as unemployment. I am convinced the government will deal with the question of unemployment. If people are working they are less likely to commit crime.

Also we have to deal with the question of poverty and the fact that so many Canadians go to bed hungry at night. If we deal with poverty we will deal at the same time with crime. We will reduce criminality. A multifaceted approach is necessary. I agree with the hon. member that we must deal with the root

causes of crime because in the long run that would be a more effective way of dealing with crime in our country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.34 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(19) proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Immigration Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors' visas), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the background to the bill takes us into the inner workings of the Immigration Act. A bill similar to this private member's bill was presented in the last Parliament. I guess it is fair to say we are taking another crack at the issue.

The background relates to the procedures which are used by visitors who wish to come to Canada, visitors from what we call visa countries, countries where it is necessary for residents to get visas from Canada before they visit here. The bill would permit the Canadian relatives of such visitors to put up a bond or a surety. It would require a Canadian immigration officer who was considering a visa application to take the existence of that surety or bond into account when the application was made.

The best way I can describe the types of difficulties that the bill is aimed at resolving is by referring to an individual case. The individuals involved know I will be speaking about the case because I mentioned the same case a couple of years ago in Parliament. They are good enough to permit me to use it as a good example of why the bill might be of assistance.

It relates to members of the Saravia family who live in Scarborough. They have lived in Canada for about 20 years. They are originally from Bolivia. They have brothers, sisters and other family in Bolivia.

A couple of years ago after some discussion it was proposed that one of the brothers visit for Christmas. He had never met his nieces and nephews here, and everyone thought it was a good idea. The mother had successfully visited Canada with a visa about a year and a half prior to that time. In this instance the visitor, Mr. Torres, travelled to Peru because we do not have a visa issuing office in Bolivia. He made his application about a week prior to Christmas. He went with his airline ticket and a document sent to him by the family here and was turned down for a visa. Regrettably while in Lima he was robbed by some people there. The Christmas visit did not take place. That was the bottom line and my constituents were unhappy about it.

This is one case in hundreds I have had to deal with as a member of Parliament. I know all members of Parliament, particularly those of us from urban areas, have had to deal with the problem of applications by family members for visitors' visas.

In this particular case we received a letter of explanation in our office. It was a good letter, a good response. I am not in any way critical of our officials in Lima. They replied and gave their version of an explanation. I am going to read portions of the letter because they help describe some of the background. They wrote:

Visitors visas are a very tricky part of our work. As you know, a great number of aliens enter Canada each year as tourists and try to stay after their original stay has ended. We have to determine in each case, with very little information at hand if the applicant is really a visitor or if the person is an immigrant trying to enter Canada on a tourist visa. The only way an applicant can convince us that he or she is really a visitor is by demonstrating that he or she has very strong ties to his or her home country which will force him to return to that country.

This is what we expressed to Mr. Torres to show us. He explained he was leaving his wife and two children behind. He declared he had a job in Bolivia to which he wanted to return. Unfortunately he showed absolutely no proof that his financial situation in Bolivia was comfortable or that he had any property or good reasons to return.

It is very frustrating for a Canadian resident to know that a brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter cannot make a family visit because he or she does not have financial resources, when often the family in Canada does have some resources.

Therefore the bill is intended to rectify the omission from the process. We were just speaking a few moments ago about the criminal process where the victim has been excluded from the process. Here is another process, the visitor visa process, where the resident Canadian, the relative, the person who has invited the father or mother to come and visit, has been excluded from the process and does not have role. The bill will provide for a surety or a bond that will give these Canadian families an opportunity to participate in the process and provide greater assurance that the visas will be followed through.

The surety proposed does not require cash. The amount would be set by the Department of Immigration in the ordinary course as it sets other bond amounts. It provides the resident Canadian with a role in the process. It gives the Canadian a stake in ensuring that the terms of the visitor visa are met. Because these are family members there is a reasonable amount of suasion existing. There is a bond, a relationship between the visitor and the inviting family. Surely there is a degree of what I would call suasion in having the visitor fulfil the terms of such a visit.

The current law in section 8 creates a bit of a catch-22. Subsection 8(1) reads:

Where a person seeks to come to Canada, the burden of proving that that person has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this act or regulation rests on the person.

That is the visitor. It has nothing to do with the Canadian. Subsection (2) indicates:

Every person seeking to come into Canada shall be presumed to be an immigrant until that person satisfies the immigration officer examining him-that he is not an immigrant.

Basic visitors have to obtain visas and are basically presumed not to be bona fide visitors. There is a presumption that they are not bona fide visitors. They are presumed to be immigrants.

That is built right into the act. It is a great procedural device to put the burden on the visitor. If I were a Canadian with a family visitor from abroad, I would not be too happy about it.

I suggest it is a bit of a catch-22. It is not fair to these Canadians. The challenge of setting aside that catch-22 is exacerbated when there is a language barrier. Many visitors coming to Canada do not speak English as a first language. If the visa officer is looking for some subtleties in intention here, it is going to be awfully difficult to pick up on those subtleties when the language being spoken is not a first language. In the few questions that are asked the information exchanged is going to be pretty basic.

Turning to some of the statistics behind the bill on the surface do not look bad. In 1993 the department issued 545,000 visas or over half a million visas around the world. It turned down almost 82,000 around the world. That is not a bad statistic. One might say that is not too bad in the face of half a million visas issued. I think about 79,000 of those turndowns were relatives of my constituents but that is not true. It just takes two or three of them to frustrate the heck out of a member of Parliament.

Over 50 per cent of the people in my riding are immigrants. This means it is likely many of those Canadians have families and relatives abroad who want to visit. Therefore 82,000 is a big number. Even if there were only 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 affected by the bill, it is a big number when we are talking about Canadians who want family visits to take place.

There are two perspectives worth noting. One is the huge increase in the number of families in Canada with relatives abroad. People are moving all over the globe now. There are huge increases in travel and large increases in the numbers of immigrants to Canada so hopefully many more family visits can take place.

Second, the refugee claims process has poisoned the atmosphere for visitor visa applications. In all cases visa officers are on the lookout for phoney refugees. There might even be a real refugee who is trying to get here through a visitor visa. Our visa officers put their careers on the line when they grant visas. I understand and I am sure other members understand that they cannot be seen to be making many mistakes. Every time a fake refugee claimant stays here on a visitor visa the dollars start to add up. It is not $1,000; it could be $20,000 or $30,000 in costs to the federal, provincial and municipal taxpayer by the time we are done with legal aid for a lawyer, welfare support during processing, the cost of the processing, the accommodation and so on. It is a very frustrating and high stakes games. These are some changing realities we have to keep our eye on. Canadians have been neglected in this process.

I want to conclude by outlining some of the salient features of this private member's bill. It provides a formal role for resident Canadians to participate in the process. Right now all we have happening with resident Canadians is sometimes they will go to a lawyer or a notary and get a letter prepared that says: "My brother, John, is going to visit and I will support him while he is here". They get the notary to seal it. The notary charges them $50 or $100. I will not comment on the appropriateness of the fees. As can be seen in the letter from Lima, Peru that kind of intervention by the Canadian family did not carry much weight in the decision.

Second, my bill would provide a material financial assurance of compliance with the visa by the visitor.

Third, it provides a real linkage between the applicant and the Canadian family doing the inviting.

Fourth, my bill would not prejudice those applicants who do not have a relative in Canada or do not put up a surety. The bill specifically provides that the absence of a surety is not to be taken into account by the visa office.

Fifth, it provides for individual applicants who have Canadian relatives the same ability to be bonded as group visitors currently have under the existing act. Group visitors can have bonding arrangements. Individuals at the moment cannot.

Sixth, it will not change the test for visitor visas. It will not change the underlying test and we will have the same test and the same safeguards. It will provide a significant role for family members here and provide a further assurance of bona fide fulfilment of the terms of the visa.

To conclude, I am hopeful that the government will listen carefully and include this type of amendment, this mechanism, as a new feature of the Immigration Act when it next considers amending our Canada Immigration Act.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly not a coincidence that Bill C-219, whose purpose is to amend section 9 of the Immigration Act, is being discussed today, March 17, St. Patrick's Day. Wishing a happy holiday to Canadians and Quebecers of Irish descent is a privilege for me as one of my ancestors on my mother's side came from green Erin. To my Irish compatriots, in particular those from Quebec, who are proud of their roots and their culture, I am pleased to wish a most enjoyable holiday.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Members of the Official Opposition have, on many occasions in this House, pointed out the considerable contribution made by new Quebecers and new Canadian citizens to the building here of a pluralistic society open to the world. A large number of people from every part of the world have made Quebec and Canada riches with their cultures and their skills.

Incidentally, the composition of this House mirrors the Canadian mosaic as many members, in addition to being Canadian citizens, also have deep ties to their or their parents' native countries. On Canadian soil, it has been proven that there is a place and a warm welcome for people who choose Quebec or Canada, be they from Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America. But their new lives do not erase their strong attachment to their friends and families still scattered all over the globe. These ties are essential and their value must be recognized by any civilized nation by amending legislation to make it fair and humane.

We believe that, if passed, Bill C-219, the bill to amend section 9 of the Immigration Act before us today, will make it easier for non-Canadian relatives of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to obtain visitors' visas. This bill is a legislative amendment which is both fair and humane.

The members of this House know that, depending on the planned duration of their stay on Canadian soil, certain people must obtain a visitor's visa from a Canadian embassy abroad.

To be granted entry, people requesting permission to come into Canada must meet a number of requirements. They must hold a valid passport and return ticket. They must also state the reasons of their visit. In other words, foreign visitors who apply for a visa to come into Quebec or Canada and visit with relatives must prove that they are genuine visitors and comply with the provisions of the Immigration Act and Regulations. They must also prove to the visa officer handling their application that they have enough money to support themselves while in Canada and that they fully intend to return to their country of origin.

We agree with the law that people who want to Quebec or Canada for a visit must have sufficient financial resources for the cost of living in Canada. This provision stands to reason, since the length of the stay is usually one to six months, with the possibility of extending it once in Quebec or another province.

However, figures from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for 1992 indicate that Canadian visa offices abroad have rejected over 100,000 applications. The majority of these applications, Madam Speaker, were made in Third World countries and certain Eastern European countries.

Are visas actually denied mainly on financial grounds? It may very well be so. As the movers of this motion, we think it is immoral and totally unjustified to assume that less wealthy visitors who come from these countries would not act in good faith.

Consequently, it is important that persons applying for a visa who are not well off have their applications examined by an official much in the same away as applications from persons who are more financially secure are considered, if indeed members of their family in Quebec or in Canada or members who are permanent residents are prepared to put up a bond or surety.

Some people may object to this bill on the grounds that increasing the number of visitor's visas only increases the number of refugee claimants. They will point to recent figures released by the Department of Immigration which show an increase in the number of refugee claims made by persons entering Canada with only a visitor's visa.

Our answer to them must be that whether in possession of a valid visa or falsified papers, persons fearing persecution for political, religious, ethnic or other reasons have rights which are recognized under international law, notably under the Geneva Convention to which Canada is a signatory.

Madam Speaker, it is neither a crime nor immoral to seek refuge in a country which respects human rights.

In conclusion, the members of the Official Opposition, who believe in the fundamental values of Quebec society, values such as generosity and open-mindedness, will unequivocally support Bill C-219. The amended Immigration Act will show even more respect for the citizens of this country who, through their differences and their work, enrich our society.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River on the interesting work he has done on behalf both of his constituents and all Canadians on this issue.

I might add, and I know the hon. member made mention of this, that it is not just in this Parliament but in the previous Parliament as well. He deserves congratulations. His interest in this is both timely and a good reminder to all of us who work in this area.

This is an area that interests all Canadians and that is why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has announced a new consultation for a 10-year immigration framework and one that the minister hopes to be making the first statements about this coming fall.

Canada's Immigration Act lists clear policy objectives to facilitate the entry of visitors into Canada for the purpose of fostering trade and commerce, tourism, culture and scientific activities and international understanding.

The decision to issue or not to issue a visitor's visa is based on the intention of the person seeking to visit Canada. It is very interesting that this bill should come up for debate today because I was discussing this very matter with senior departmental personnel earlier today before an appearance at the committee. One of the more senior public servants was telling me that one of the things he makes a point to do when he visits our offices abroad is to go to the visa office and observe the visa officers.

I think it is very true and something that bears repeating here in the House that the particular knowledge and ability of our visa officers, who are a very small but very specialized group in our foreign service, to make the decision right there on the ground particularly in some of the offices that are very crowded, that are over-subscribed by vast numbers of people wishing to come to Canada for a variety of reasons, to make good decisions and to make the right decisions is pretty amazing. The senior staff I spoke to today made mention of this more than once as something that we should be very proud of, our foreign service officials who are working for Canada.

We have in place a network of 47 full service and 25 specialized officers abroad located in Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates who are ready to process visitors' visa requests all the time.

In 1993 Canadian officials overseas received 627,394 applications for visitors' visas. They issued 546,457 of these visas. Only 81,937 of these requests were refused or withdrawn. That is an 87 per cent acceptance rate and I think that is, again, an amazing figure. Most of these visitor visa requests are completed within 24 hours.

In general, the problems we hear of as members of Parliament make up a very small percentage of the volume that is done by our Canadian offices abroad.

I want to make very clear that the minister believes the hon. member raises some very important issues with his private member's bill. They are issues certainly worthy of review. I am sure the minister responsible for citizenship and immigration will take the member's words and bill for review. A great deal of interest such as has been generated here today will continue certainly on behalf of the minister and the department.