House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victim.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. If the House gives its consent, I intend to ask that the report be concurred in later on today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose that the first report, which has just been tabled in this House, be concurred in today.
(Motion agreed to.)
John Nunziata Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was delayed in coming to the House today. It was my intention to introduce a Private Members' Bill. I would seek unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of Private Members' Bills.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to revert to introduction of Private Members' Bills?
John Nunziata Liberal York South—Weston, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this Private Members' Bill. Members will know that those convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years and those sentenced or convicted of second degree murder can be sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 15 years or more.
Under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, these individuals can apply to have their parole ineligibility dates reduced to 15 years.
The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to delete section 745 of the Criminal Code. The net effect of this would mean that those convicted of first degree murder in Canada would be required by law to serve a minimum of 25 years and those convicted of second degree murder would be required to serve whatever the sentence of the court is.
I am pleased that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber today. I would urge the Minister of Justice to take into serious consideration the bill I am introducing today. He knows that there have been a significant number of these applications over the last several years. Seventy-five percent of these applications have been successful. In effect, if someone commits first degree murder in Canada today it no longer means that person has to serve a minimum of 25 years.
I urge all hon. members to support this initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners point out that the intent of the Canada Health Act is to have health programs that are universal, portable, accessible and publicly administered.
They point out that the Canada Health Act, medicare if you wish, is a basic element or principle of the Canadian identity. These petitioners ask that the Canada Health Act be enshrined in the Constitution of Canada.
Raymond Lavigne Liberal Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table in this House a petition bearing the names of more than 2,500 of my constituents. I join them in requesting that the Verdun post office remain operational.
The post office is a place that proudly flies the Canadian flag and where people come and feel truly Canadian, which is essential these days.
John Nunziata Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, again on the question of section 745, as members know I have introduced in this House a significant number of petitions from Canadians requesting that the government delete section 745. I would like to introduce another with several hundred signatures today.
The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: If those individuals convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 25 years, that those convicted of second degree murder can be sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 15 years or more; that section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law; that those individuals convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison can become eligible for parole after serving only 15 years by virtue of section 745 of the Criminal Code; that convicted murderers can be released after serving only 15 years in prison; therefore your petitioners request that Parliament pass legislation that would remove section 745 from the Canadian Criminal Code.
I should point out that as a result of this provision in the Criminal Code notorious killers such as Clifford Olson, for example, would become eligible to apply to be released from prison in less than two years.
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, in presenting this petition the petitioners make reference to the fact that conversion of oil pipelines to natural gas pipelines presents a number of risks to landowners.
They face an environmental liability. They are faced with substantial costs to attend and to participate in National Energy Board hearings. The National Energy Board Act has no provision for the awarding of intervener funding or for the awarding of costs to landowners unlike provincial energy acts.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to amend immediately the National Energy Board Act to provide authority to the National Energy Board to award intervener funding and costs to landowners who intervene in proceedings before the board on issues of public interest relevant to the construction and operation of pipelines.
The petition is signed by some 100 constituents of mine and a couple of neighbouring ridings.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall all questions stand?
Marlene Catterall LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to comment on the report that was just read into the record from the table and to raise a question of privilege on the use of language in the House, in particular the use of the word chairman in the report.
For some time in the House we have tried to use gender neutral language. My point is simply that the use of male terms in this way diminishes my role in the House and the role of every other woman member of Parliament and therefore diminishes my ability to be taken seriously in the House and to perform my duties as a parliamentarian.
I do not want to make a long statement but I would like to make a few points. The use of male terms gives a status to the male sex and to male members of Parliament that it denies to women members of Parliament. I realize many members of Parliament may consider that these are traditional uses of the terms, and I grant that. They are traditional uses of terms that in fact have led to our understanding that certain jobs in society belong to men and certain jobs in society belong to women. This perception has for many years delayed the entry of more women into positions of decision making in our society.
We can all rationally say we know what we mean by the word chairman. It does not refer to a man. However, it does reinforce the perceptions that become ingrained in our society that the positions of authority and responsibility belong to the male gender. It may be possible for us to rationalize that is not the significance of the use of those terms.
However, we have a society in which it means that little boys and little girls grow up with a certain perception of where each of them belongs in society. As the Parliament of Canada I believe it is not worthy of us to continue that perception.
Therefore I come back to my original point that it undermines my ability to perform on an equal footing in the House. I would ask Your Honour to take this question of privilege under consideration to determine what measures are necessary and to ensure that we take all steps necessary to make sure we are using gender neutral language.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the point is quite valid and interesting, but I do not believe the member in question who tabled the report did anything improper; in fact our Standing Orders are presently worded in that way.
I refer the House to page 2 of the index to our Standing Orders wherein it describes a number of positions, for instance "Order and decorum, Chairman to maintain; See also Chairman of Committees" and so on.
Our Standing Orders are written in that way at the present time. If the House feels that the Standing Orders should be revisited in that regard, I am sure the standing committee on procedure would gladly examine those terms, if such a request were made of the committee, recognizing that the House has already referred a whole group of other matters to the committee. As one member of the committee I would certainly not object to revisiting that particular rule.
Just to conclude, I do not believe the member who made the comment did anything to affect the privilege of others. It is rather the Standing Orders themselves that are written that way, and perhaps it is grounds to revisit the Standing Orders at the appropriate time.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have problems with the House's trying to control whether or not I ever use chairman as a term of reference in my discussions. I would like the flexibility to use whatever words I feel are appropriate, whether it is chairperson, chairman or chairwoman.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have asked that you take this item under consideration. I do not want your consideration to be limited to how reports are presented. I do not want the comments of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to necessarily limit your consideration of the question of privilege. I think it should go to the content of legislation presented before the House and a number of other things.
Individual members can choose to use whatever language they wish. However, my question of privilege goes to how the House operates generally and the formal instruments of the House.
PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
The point will be taken under consideration. Before I come back to deliberate and make sense of the matter I will endeavour to advise all three hon. members who have spoken today.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
moved:
That this House condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim.
Mr. Speaker, while it is a privilege to lead off this debate in the House it is regrettable that it has to be to condemn the government for its inaction to introduce legislation to provide for victims' rights.
For years the criminal justice system has been geared toward the rights of the criminal. From the moment the offender is arrested to the moment of the expiration of the sentence, our justice system is built around the criminal. The victim has generally been ignored. If Parliament is intent on protecting society, it will have to recognize and codify victims' rights.
In all fairness there have been some minor steps in this regard. Some attention is now given to victim impact statements, but the courts generally view them as being secondary to the concerns of the criminal.
An example of this was the section 745 hearing Greg Fischer held in January of this year. Sixteen years ago Constable Brian King of the RCMP was kidnapped and murdered near Saskatoon. The motive of the two killers was simply that they wanted to kill a police officer. In January 1979 Fischer was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.
At the hearing to determine if Fischer could apply for early parole, much was stated about how Fischer had improved himself in prison over the last 15 years. What had happened to the King family over the last 15 years was irrelevant. The King family was not allowed to address the court. It is time to give the victims of crime legal standing at all court and parole hearings.
While there are some other positive developments such as police departments creating victim assistance programs, they are partial measures. Programs such as these usually have to rely on volunteers for staff.
Is it not ironic that criminals receive professional legal advice, professional psychological counselling and education or job training skills all at taxpayers' expense, while the victims of crime have to rely on community volunteers or volunteer support groups for help in dealing with the trauma resulting from criminals' behaviour?
Criminal activity costs everyone, whether or not they are direct victims of crime. It may be easy to see the injuries of an assault victim, but we tend to forget that the Canadian taxpayer is paying for the medical treatment of that victim. Likewise the loss of the burglary victim or a car theft victim is fairly evident, but everyone ends up paying more through higher insurance premiums.
Each year motorists complain about their ever increasing insurance premiums. Over the past five years premiums have increased well beyond the rate of inflation. Much of the increase is due to criminal activity. Vandalism, car theft and insurance fraud account for a significant portion of every driver's insurance premium. Not only do Canada's drivers have to subsidize criminal activity but we as consumers are forced to pay the price as well.
Retailers across the country lose millions of dollars each year to shoplifter and employee theft. These losses are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Not only are Canadian business people faced with these problems but some are being driven out of business by crime itself. Small independent convenience store operators and gas stations located in high crime areas are finding it impossible to get companies to insure them and, if they can, the premiums are unrealistic. It is a shame that some profitable businesses are being forced out of business by crime.
What is the solution to this problem? Let us start by making the criminal pay. Restitution to the victim or the insurance company should be automatic with a guilty verdict.
The cost of crime to society does not end with the direct costs of the victim. The cost of the entire criminal system itself is immense. The costs of policing, the courts, corrections and parole are spread over all three levels of government. When they are combined they are staggering. In this age of fiscal restraint many governments have created user pay systems. It is time to do the same with the criminal justice system: make the criminals pay.
If the government is serious about strengthening the laws to better protect society, it has to accept two basic concepts: first, that the protection of society has a higher priority than the rights of the criminal and, second, that the rights of a victim come before the rights of a criminal.
This philosophy has to be the guiding principle behind the drafting of any new criminal legislation or the amending of current legislation. Without this recognition any effort to combat crime and violence will fail. The problems we have with crime today are not due to a lack of legislation. The problems stem from a principle that places the rights of the criminal above all else.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has dramatically tilted the scales of justice in favour of the offender. The legal profession has created an industry from charter arguments in criminal cases. While this industry may be profitable for the legal profession, it has done nothing to protect the rights and security of society. Criminals are now routinely acquitted because of technicalities raised in charter arguments. How does this protect the average citizen?
In effect the charter has given the criminals more latitude. Recent court decisions have outlawed non-threatening police procedures such as one party consent recordings and the placing of an undercover police officer in a jail cell with an offender. These decisions and numerous similar ones have made it tougher for the police and easier for the criminals. They have given constitutional protection to the rights of the criminals that have done little if anything to protect society as a whole.
The charter of rights also guarantees Canadians the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Yet each and every day Canadians are deprived of these rights by the criminal element in our society.
Ordinary Canadians deserve to have their rights protected more than the criminals do. Those Canadians victimized by a crime deserve to have their rights considered as well. It may take a constitutional amendment at some point but we have to make it clear that when the rights of victims are in direct conflict with the rights of criminals, the rights of victims must prevail.
I believe that the majority of Canadians can accept the premise that criminals should lose some of their rights on conviction. Poll after poll shows that Canadians feel less secure in their own communities now than ever before. We must change this perception. We have to make it abundantly clear to Canadians that their protection is the main priority of our criminal justice system.
It is easy to criticize, it is more difficult to provide a construction alternative. As always my party is prepared to present such an alternative. The first thing we have to do is pass legislation that gives the victims of crime legal standing in court proceedings and parole hearings.
These changes do not infringe on the rights of the criminal but rather provide the court with a clear picture of the result of criminal activity. I would like to think that in many cases, especially those involving young offenders, it would be beneficial for them to hear what the results of their actions are. Even in the case of a simple break and enter, the offender should have to listen to the sense of violation the victim feels. If criminals still have a conscience maybe they can accept the fact that their activity has hurt another person and that it is not just a matter of insurance companies replacing stolen property.
In more serious crimes, it is important for judges and juries to hear the extent of pain and suffering that is being brought on the victim and the victim's family.
While some may argue that this is already in place, my response is that while the victim impact statements are no longer rare, they are still at the discretion of the court. We need to pass legislation that gives the victim legal standing in the process.
Likewise, the same legal standing needs to be provided to the victims in parole hearings. Presently the victim can attend these hearings but their participation, if any, is at the discretion of parole board members. While the parole board members should hear how the criminal has done since his incarceration, they should also hear about the effect that crime had on the victim.
The second major initiative of the House should be to pass legislation that makes the criminal financially accountable for his crime. Once an individual is convicted, there should automatically be a restitution order against the criminal. The criminal should have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.
Obviously there will be cases in which the accused has no hope of ever repaying the entire debt. However if they were required to pay a certain percentage of their income in restitution, there would be that constant reminder of their criminal activity.
Even if criminals are sentenced to a correctional facility and their institutional income is minimal, they should still be required to relinquish a portion of that amount taken in a token bid of restitution. No matter how small the amount is, they should have that reminder of accountability.
At the other end of the scale there are individuals who have been involved in very profitable criminal activity. The illicit drug trade and some commercial crimes are prime examples. Restitution for their crime should go beyond the immediate offence of which they are convicted. While there is legislation in place to deal with the profits of crime, it has not been enjoying the success that it should.
Convicted drug dealers and other well to do criminals should have all their assets seized that are derived from the drug trade or other criminal enterprise. While it would be almost impossible to compensate all the victims of a major drug dealer there should be a formula devised to allocate funds among law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities and a general victim compensation fund.
A few large seizures would go a long way in subsidizing the losses of victims who would have little chance to otherwise receive restitution.
Mandatory financial restitution will in the long term serve two important functions. First it will provide the victims with some financial compensation. If the victim can be made to feel less victimized by this action then that in itself makes the action worthwhile.
Second, restitution may bring a greater sense of accountability to the offender. If criminals are compelled to give up some of their income to compensate their victims maybe they will finally get the message that crime does not pay.
These two initiatives are a beginning that is long overdue. We can no longer ignore the fact that the criminal justice system must officially recognize the victims of crime. It will be a significant step in showing Canadians that Parliament is prepared to make definitive changes to the system.
It is difficult for any of us to ignore a petition that carries two and a half million signatures. The public is demanding change and it is demanding protection. Anyone who ignores this cry does so at his or her own peril.
While I have a lot of respect and admiration for CAVEAT and other victims' rights groups it is a shame that these groups have to be created. The most inspiring leaders of these organizations have invariably been parents who have lost their children to violent crime. It is tragic that so many parents are in this position. I would like to think we could take some action so that their numbers do not expand in the years to come.
In my response to the speech from the throne I mentioned that I had already spoken to parents of two murder victims. I now have spoken to the parents of three murder victims. It does not get any easier. As a parent I can imagine how difficult it would be to lose a child. The pain these parents feel is even greater knowing they have lost a child as a murder victim.
We need to take whatever steps we can to ensure that fewer parents experience this pain. My caucus colleagues are dedicated to bringing justice reforms to fruition. I have also been encouraged by some of the comments and private members' bills from the government side of the House.
I hope that members of all parties can get together to pass legislation to provide society with the protection it deserves. I do not imagine that many of us think it is necessary to cater to the criminal lobby. While I would like to think that the protection of society is a goal that all parties would strive for, I have yet to see any such commitment from the government.
We have received vague promises of new legislation to deal with violence against women and children, yet violence against women, children and men for that matter is already illegal. What we do need is a change in philosophy. It can start with the recognition of victims' rights. If the government fails to recog-
nize these rights it is telling society that victims should remain unseen and unheard.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to stand in the House and congratulate the government for bringing in legislation that recognizes the rights of victims and takes precedence over the rights of criminals.
I see no indication that the government is prepared to take such a step. That is why I stand in the House today to condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, in particular for its allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victims.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech; she raised several points which, as I see it, relate to provisions that exist already. However, the law is enforced by men and women who use their own intellectual capabilities, limits and ways of tackling and understanding problems so that there is no consistency in the way it is done. As several of the member's suggestions are already in place, maybe we should do more education and ask judges to enforce legislation in a more consistent manner; I will come back to that when I have the floor later on.
The question I would like to ask the member concerns what could be done about the points she raised and particularly about the compensation she proposed be given to victims.
If we examine the case of persons sentenced to prison or what have you, in most instances these people live on welfare or have hidden whatever they own and have nothing to their name.
In such cases, should we restore prison sentences for civil debts? If so, would the member not agree that this would be like going the clock back two centuries? If not, who will compensate victims as she proposed before?
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that our prisons have some of the wrong people in them, people who are imprisoned because of their financial situation, because they cannot afford a good lawyer, because they have done petty crime due to their financial situation. We have to recognize that there is a better way of dealing with those people rather than throwing them into a prison system.
As a parent I know that when my children damage something, I expect them to use part of their allowance, not necessarily all of it, to reinforce that what they have done is not acceptable.
If the people who are getting minimum payment in prison for jobs have to give a small portion of that amount to the victim or into a fund that would go toward victims' restitution, they would be constantly reminded that what they did was not acceptable. It does not have to be a large amount but it is a constant reminder that there are things in society that are acceptable and things that are not.
I think the message is more likely to get through to the individuals so they do not offend again if we treat them in that manner.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity the hon. member's motion presents for us to discuss in the House today the important question of Canada's criminal justice system and the various issues that arise with respect to the competing values we seek to serve in the criminal courts.
Let me acknowledge at the outset that this government and this minister recognize we have no monopoly on wisdom or insight. We welcome constructive suggestions from any quarter of this House. We will pay close attention today to those suggestions and proposals that come from members of all parties as we address this issue.
Let me also make clear at the outset that I fundamentally reject two aspects of the motion the hon. member has put before the House. First there is her suggestion of inaction on the part of the government and I shall come in a few moments to the concrete and specific proposals we intend to implement. Second is her suggestion that our system has allowed the rights of the criminal to supersede the rights of the victim.
It is suggested by the hon. member there might be some prospect of catering to the criminal lobby. Her submission today is suffused with the notion that criminals are running rampant in our criminal justice system and that victims' rights are being subjugated.
What goes on in this country's criminal courts day by day, hour by hour is the prosecution of crime in accordance with the fundamental values of Canadian society. We reject torture as a manner of extracting confessions. We reject fraud as a way of putting proof before the court.
We hold in this country that in the enforcement of our laws as with everything else government does there are standards of decency, of integrity and of fairness which must prevail. In every court case, in every courthouse in this country day by day and prosecution by prosecution the issue is whether the state can prove against an accused person criminal wrongdoing in accordance with those standards of integrity and fairness.
Since the enactment of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that process has become all the more exacting. It also reflects what the Canadian people expect of their system: that people will not be unfairly accused; that only evidence which is fairly obtained will be tendered to establish their guilt; that the appropriate test of reasonable doubt will be used in establishing whether the person is to be convicted; and that proper principles will be put into play in determining the appropriate sentence.
If one stands back and looks at that system, if one looks at this case or that, it is altogether possible and indeed relatively easy to find instances that can be used to support an argument that in a given case a certain victim was not given appropriate consideration or there is a disproportion between the sentence that was imposed and the gravity of the offence.
We must not mistake in this House a commitment to fundamental fairness and integrity in the justice system for catering to the criminal lobby. It is an unfair and inaccurate way to characterize the exercise. I reject it at the outset.
May I also express a word of caution about basing criticisms of the entire criminal justice system on reactions to our natural horror at certain specific crimes. We must not forget that 90 per cent of all reported crime in this country is non-violent and the vast majority of that is property crime. That is not to say that property crime is not serious, but I wish to put the issues here into a perspective that the facts afford.
In 1991 the homicide rate in this country was 2.82 per 100,000 of population; in the United States of America it is four times higher. The proportion of violent crime involving firearms has been decreasing over the last 10 years. In 1975 firearms were used in 42 per cent of all robberies. In 1991 it was only 27 per cent, a reflection in my respectful view of the effectiveness of gun control legislation in this country.
In 1991 there were 59,000 drug offences in this country, a 21 per cent decrease from 1981.
In the 10 years between 1982 and 1992 the Criminal Code crime rate increased an average of 1.5 per cent per year. Compared with every other civilized country that is a modest increase in all the social circumstances and with all the social change we have experienced in this country.
Any crime is too much crime, but I ask the hon. member and all members of the House to keep this discussion in the context of the facts of the Canadian experience.
Let me turn to the steps that have been taken and are being taken by this government to address the needed improvements in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is not good enough. There is room for improvement. We intend to take steps in good faith to improve it.
Before doing that let me touch upon the rising prominence in recent years of the role of the victim in the justice system and the sensitivity which the system shows to victims as it goes about its difficult business.
In 1988 a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime was endorsed by the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. This document serves as a guide for all of those governments in dealing with victims of crime.
Many provinces along with the federal government have enacted legislation to reflect those principles. The Criminal Code has a number of provisions now relating to victims' rights. There are sections dealing with the identification and prompt return of stolen property; protection of the identity of witnesses or victims in certain offences including sexual offences and extortion; the imposition of a victim fine surcharge at sentencing, which was expected to raise $11 million last year; the use of victim impact statements at the time of sentencing. These and other measures have ensured that the focus is indeed on the victim.
May I observe that when the crown attorney walks into the courtroom to present the evidence against the accused person, while the crown attorney represents the interest of the state, implicit in the presentation of the evidence and the prosecution is the interest of the victim as well.
What is it that this government will do in an effort to improve the criminal justice system in Canada? We recognize that the criminal justice system alone will not succeed in dealing with crime and its consequences in Canada. We recognize that we need both an effective criminal justice system and a broad holistic and integrated approach by all departments of government for crime prevention objectives.
I speak here not of vague promises, as the hon. member has suggested. I speak of concrete proposals for action. Let me come to them now. One aspect has to do with ensuring that the laws on the books are effective and can be enforced effectively.
Turning to the Young Offenders Act, I have already made clear that we intend to take two steps. The first step is to introduce in the short term a bill that will propose specific changes in the Young Offenders Act to make what we regard as improvements, including longer maximum sentences for serious crimes of violence and more sharing of information about offenders with community groups, school boards and others where community safety requires.
After my meeting next week with my provincial and territorial colleagues and ministers of justice I will bring forward a specific bill reflecting the approach of this government for needed changes in the act in the short term.
The second step is I will ask the House to turn the statute in its entirety over to a committee of Parliament so that a thorough review can be made of the Young Offenders Act in this, the 10th year of its life.
That committee can hear the views of Canadians. It can listen to victims' groups, police officers, offenders, criminologists, sociologists and others who will speak of their experience over the last decade with the act. In my belief they will demonstrate that the act substantially has been a success and that in principle it is the right approach. I am certain improvements are needed but I am equally certain this process will result in a confirmation of the enlightened approach which the Young Offenders Act contemplates.
This government will also undertake to introduce changes in the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing. This will be done to restate the broad and comprehensive purposes of sentencing, to put the focus on intermediate sanctions, to stress restitution and non-custodial sentences and to deal as well with the issue of dangerous offenders.
We will deal with part 24 of the Criminal Code to ensure we are dealing as effectively as we can with those persons who are provided for in that part. We will deal with high risk offenders, those persons who may come to the end of their term of incarceration but who may not be safe to release back into society.
Another specific proposal this government will put before the House will deal with pimps and the serious problem in many Canadian cities of heartless individuals who exploit the bodies of children for commercial gain.
We will address the issue of violence against women. The fact is that domestic violence in this country and particularly violence against women is a national scourge. Statistics released just this morning confirm its seriousness and its extent. We will take steps in this House through legislation to deal with that matter, including more stringent provisions with respect to peace bonds which are often used in such cases, steps to remove the abuser from the home, and funds for shelters for spouses who are victims of abuse.
We shall deal as well with gun control to make it more effective, including measures to counter illegal importation.
Let me turn briefly to the second part of the government's approach to the criminal justice system. That is to recognize that the justice ministry alone cannot resolve the problem of crime and its consequences in Canadian society.
The Prime Minister has asked me to co-ordinate the efforts of nine ministries of the federal government to deal with the issue of violence in Canadian society generally. I have met with my eight colleagues to begin that work. I met with the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Indian and Northern Development, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Each of us in our own way has a part of governmental jurisdiction or responsibility that deals with violence in Canadian society.
Surely this comprehensive and integrated approach is exactly what the all party Horner committee recommended when it called upon government to develop a holistic strategy for dealing with crime.
The strategy should recognize the causes of crime. It should recognize the role of poverty, of racial intolerance and the role of family breakdown and of domestic violence itself. There is also the role of the parent who no longer accepts responsibility in providing standards for children. It must also recognize that sometimes whether a child has a hot meal has as much to do with crime prevention as putting a police officer on the beat.
It must also recognize that the work being done by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in modernizing and making more effective the social programs of this country has just as much to do with crime prevention as the criminal justice system.
I travelled across this country and discussed this matter with chiefs of police, school board trustees, civic officials, worried parents and troubled teenagers, victims groups. I discussed it with parents of murdered children, community groups and the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies.
I have come to the conclusion that there is in Canada an enormous energy of enthusiasm at the local and community level toward crime prevention and addressing the underlying causes of the kind of behaviour we are talking about in this House today.
As I spoke to those individuals in Moncton and Fredericton, here in Ottawa, in my own riding of Etobicoke, in Edmonton and Vancouver, I found that among the police departments and community groups and the parents there is an energy waiting to be tapped. Local initiatives are now being taken, many of which are very successful.
In Edmonton, for example, the strategy for community policing and making Edmonton a safer city has over the last 18 months resulted in a 26 per cent reduction in the crime rate, an extraordinary result. Imagine the savings in terms of government dollars let alone human suffering with a drop of 26 per cent in the crime rate. If we could replicate that experience nationally, there would be no need for a debate such as we have in this House today.
That must be our goal. This government is committed to creating a national crime prevention strategy. We will establish a national crime prevention council. Through that process we will bring together, we will harness and focus the energy and the commitment of which I spoke which is evident in so many communities across Canada.
We will recognize formally and effectively that if we are to do something about crime instead of simply talking about it, the answer lies not in simply putting more police on the streets and more guns in their hands nor in harsher sentences and more prisons. If that was the answer the United States of America would today be nirvana. That is not the answer.
Certainly we must deal effectively through criminal law with criminal conduct. That is why we are going to have the changes to which I referred earlier in the code and in statutes. Equally and at the same time we must mobilize an offensive toward crime prevention in this country that will truly produce results.
The National Crime Prevention Council will bring together those groups, those individuals, those interests, victims groups included, from across this country to a central place which will serve as a focus of leadership in this effort, a repository of information, an inventory of what is being done in various places across Canada, a source of advice for neighbourhoods, communities and cities that want to take action, and also a mechanism for innovative and constructive thinking as to what we can do in Canada to bring down the crime rate and address the causes of crime.
Today in my response to this motion I reject absolutely the premises upon which it is based. First of all, this government does not propose inaction-quite the contrary. We will in the months to come be putting specific proposals before this House in respect of legislative change and we will be actively pursuing the objectives of which I spoke across the country for crime prevention.
I reject as well the contention that criminals' rights supersede those of the victims. The system as it is at present is sensitive to victims' rights. That is shown in a variety of ways.
There is room for improvement and, as I said at the outset, we are happy to have the constructive suggestions of members in all parts of this House. I look forward to the debate which this motion has begun today. I shall listen with interest to the points made by members of the House and I assure the House that this government is going to move quickly to implement the agenda of which I spoke.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. It is certainly one in which many Canadians are interested. They definitely want to see things change in this whole area.
Will the minister clarify a point in reference to the support mechanisms for victims when comparing what is in place already for the offenders.
An individual will commit a crime and immediately he has various people coming to his aid. In fact, he need not even ask. First, he has legal aid and he is represented at the expense of the taxpayer by a lawyer. He has counselling at his disposal. He is placed in a system of incarceration that looks after his every need, health needs included. He has rehabilitation programs offered to him which he has no requirement really to follow through on. There is in effect little or no punishment other than the fact that he is removed from society and cannot move about with any degree of freedom, until he is placed on parole.
Before the end of his sentence of course he is eligible for parole. The Parole Board gives every consideration to him and little consideration of the effect of his presence in society after that decision is made. Again, I am referring to the view that many people in society have of the parole department.
As of late, several Supreme Court rulings have further jeopardized society, creating more victims, due to the fact that they have ruled on cases that have actually inhibited investigators from effectively doing their jobs.
My question to the minister is where are the forces, the established agencies, you might say, rushing to the aid of victims when in fact everything is moving in the opposite direction?
Allan Rock Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, there are not enough. We have to do better to deal with the victim, to provide that person with a sensitive and effective way of overcoming the trauma of crime and its consequences.
At the same time the point that my friend makes is surely rhetorical. With regard to the characterization of the cushy experience for the offender, the free legal aid, the counselling and the rehabilitation, there is a fairer way to characterize that. In my response to the member please let me try.
First, aid is nothing more than a recognition by society that those who are charged with an offence which might result in their incarceration are entitled if they cannot afford it themselves to make full answer and defence to the charge against them. I would not take my friend, the hon. member, as suggesting that we deny that. I hope not.
It is fundamental in our society that if the powers of the state, the mechanisms of the police with all their investigative powers, the prosecuting authorities with all their resources and the power and majesty of the court itself are being brought to bear against an individual who might be put away as a result of the charge, and it is part of the values of this society that we are going to furnish that person with legal representation to answer the charge in that circumstance through legal aid if they cannot afford it.
Second, my friend referred to counselling and rehabilitation. In the criminal justice system we try to achieve a number of things at the same time. Yes, we try for retribution when we can. We try always for fairness in our process and justice in the outcome but we also try for rehabilitation because it has been recognized throughout that unless we take the offenders and make an effort to turn them around through counselling if
necessary, through rehabilitation if necessary, it is more than likely that they will be back again.
If we can reduce that prospect and the financial and human cost that it involves through an investment in rehabilitation then that is the wiser course. I do not take my hon. friend, the hon. member, as suggesting that we abandon that as one of our responses to crime.
In terms of prisons themselves they must be humane. Obviously we are revoking the person's liberty. The last time I visited it did not seem to be a terribly comfortable environment. Often it is terribly uncomfortable. Prisons reflect the values that we have as a country. We incarcerate. Our purpose is not to torture.
In terms of parole, the system expressly falls upon the parole authorities to take into account all circumstances, including the victim and the offence itself. I can assure the hon. member that is exactly what happens in parole hearings from day to day.
Are we doing enough for victims of crime? We are not. We must make every effort to be responsive to their needs and to ensure that their perspective is brought to bear throughout the system. At the same time I suggest that there is a balancing as in everything else in life. At present matters are roughly in balance.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing with us once again his views on the present legal and judicial system. I can even say that I share the views he espoused in his "philosophical" speech because it touched on broad principles.
However, it remains to be seen whether I will still agree with him after he has put forward the amendments he has in mind. In light of the speech that I just heard, I would ask the minister to proceed with caution, as he seems to want to get involved with local problems that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The minister should take care not to always present bills with a national flavour, as he seems to want to do, because some of Quebec's laws could contradict what he is proposing. Quebec is feeling pressed on certain issues that were raised by the minister.
My question is very concrete. The problem with the motion presented by the Reform Party is primarily one of public perception. In the red book, the government referred to the fact that public perception was very negative, particularly in terms of how battered women and children are treated by the justice system.
In its red book, the government made an undertaking to provide or increase funding for agencies that assist battered women and their children. In my view, this would, be one way of showing the public that the system does in fact consider the rights of victims and not merely those of criminals.
Can the minister tell us what additional funding was allocated to these agencies in the last budget and how these agencies plan to use the funds?
Allan Rock Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, if there are specific programs or steps in place in the province of Quebec that touch upon the issues I have covered in my speech, I would be happy if the hon. member would let me have the particulars. I am not sure what programs in particular he is referring to, but I would be happy to give my assurance to work in collaboration with local authorities as we will across the country.
I recognize that crime prevention in particular will only work if it is driven at the local and community levels. It is for that reason that the municipalities and community groups are going to have a role of prominence in crime prevention.
The federal role must surely be one of leadership and co-ordination. This is the approach we are going to take, enabling communities across the country to work together.
The hon. member asked about funding for shelters and transition houses for spouses who are abused. Even in this fiscally challenging time this government is going to stand by the commitment it made in the campaign to provide that additional funding.
I do not have dollar amounts which I can give the hon. member today. I can say how it will be spent will be determined in consultation with the provinces and the local authorities and community groups which may know best how most value can be received for the money.
I do not have the dollar amounts at this point but I can tell the hon. member the commitment remains and as to where the money will go we will determine that in consultation with the groups we intend to benefit.