And as the hon. member just said, winter is not over yet.
According to this motion, we should reform the whole criminal justice system. Does the Reform Party know why it wants this reform? Does it have any alternatives to suggest? What does it not like about the system? We all have complaints about the judicial system. Saying the system is not perfect is one thing, but to say it should be overhauled, without suggesting any alternatives, is something else altogether.
Does the Reform Party want to change our penal laws and the Criminal Code? Does it want to change the powers of the Minister of Justice, of our judges and lawyers? Is it dissatisfied with the procedure in the courts? Does it want to abolish the presumption of innocence? What does it want, Mr. Speaker? We do not know, and I really wonder whether the Reform Party has a single constructive idea on the subject.
If I understood the motion correctly, it raises the whole issue of the rights of criminals as opposed to the rights of their victims. Here again, the Reform Party is echoing public dissatisfaction. I think this House should remind them of certain facts and explain some of the centuries-old principles of our criminal law. For better or for worse, since the Magna Carta, Canada, the United States and all democracies that adhere to the British system of law have enshrined certain incontrovertible rules in their laws and judicial systems.
The Reform Party is actually blaming the government for five centuries of Western jurisprudence. This may enhance their prestige with people who listen uncritically to what they have to say, but it is a clear demonstration of ignorance taken to rhetorical heights.
The presumption of innocence, to start with this absolute of our criminal law, protects and, unfortunately, will continue to protect for many centuries, all criminals in society. Our laws oblige the police arm of the state to prove that an accused person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The Reform Party cannot change this. It is the basis of our criminal law. Fortunately, that same rule of law also protects the honest citizen who is accused by the state.
When we say rule of law, we also mean procedural fairness for all accused persons. Our civilized society does not condone lynching. At one time, in some parts of America, people were hanged on mere suspicion. People wanted a conviction at any price, so they took the law into their own hands, committing murder in the process. In these societies, the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, due process and the right to a fair trial were concepts as foreign as cellular telephones. Sometimes I wonder, when I hear this kind of motion, whether its movers realize we are more living in the era of the cellular telephone.
The right to a fair trial is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Reform Party wants to withdraw the fundamental constitutional document of this country, let it say so, and we will have an interesting debate on the kind of society we want. I am not sure Canadians are prepared to tear up the Charter, which represents what is universal in our society. How many citizens would follow the Reform Party in a crusade against the Charter? I think all the converts to this new religion would comfortably fit into a telephone booth.
I agree that our democracy pays a very high price for protecting fundamental rights and democratic freedoms. I am as upset as the next person about abuses of a judicial system that is often defeated by criminals who are aware that its weaknesses are in direct proportion to the generous principles by which it is guided. I know that murderers, rapists and swindlers manage to
survive because they are able to take advantage of the rules of law that protect them as they protect all honest citizens. However, the Reform Party should have checked certain statistics, and especially one that is very reassuring. In this country, nine out of ten accused plead guilty or are found guilty. Ten per cent of accused persons are acquitted, and I am sure that even if any of these were guilty, the rule of law helped to prevent conviction of the innocent. That is democracy, Mr. Speaker.
The Reform Party should have made certain distinctions in its motion and subsequent presentation. It should have told Canadians that the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are two different things. It should have said that the Criminal Code cannot be any stricter than it already is. If the judge does not impose the maximum sentence provided under the Criminal Code, as often happens, his judgment is dictated by the circumstances. Every case before the court is different, and judges have wide discretion in sentencing a person who has been found guilty.
We cannot say that the system gives criminals an unfair advantage in this respect. The police and the Crown prosecutors do their best with the resources they have. The courts hand down judgements. They are the judicial arm of the government. They are, and must remain, independent. When a judge hands down a judgement, he speaks as the judiciary power, not as the government. That is another fact that is often overlooked.
I believe our Criminal Code is an effective instrument in the fight against crime. It will be amended again and as often as required by changing circumstances, but it reflects a contemporary social consensus on what constitutes reprehensible behaviour.
Once the sentence has been handed down, it is no longer the criminal justice system, but the Correctional Service, which is responsible for the individual who has been found guilty and sentenced to a prison term. I do not know if the Reform Party is calling for the repeal of the legislation governing the Correctional Service of Canada, but, hey, why not. And since we are considering reviewing all of the legislation governing the criminal justice system, why not simply throw everything out and start over, using the brilliant ideas of the right wing which is all-knowing since it has a direct line to God Almighty.
I would have liked to see the Reform Party deliver an enlightened and motivating speech, a speech inspired by a serious review of the shortcomings of our criminal justice system. Yet, even when she expresses compassion for the fate of victims, the hon. member who presented the motion is using a well-worn argument. The hon. member could have pointed out that the Criminal Code allows a judge to order the guilty party to compensate his victim. He can do so at the moment of sentencing by ordering the persons found guilty to reimburse to the victim an amount equal to the value of the material damage suffered. The judge can also order the guilty person, in a probation order, to compensate his victim for bodily harm inflicted. The courts have these powers. They are in the legislation. We can only encourage the system to use them.
Mr. Speaker, do I have time to continue?