Madam Speaker, at the outset I congratulate the member for Scarborough West for initiating this topic through his private member's bill. It needed to be done and it brought the attention of the government to the fact there was a shortfall in our system regarding the protection of witnesses.
It is unfortunate that such members are no longer part of the justice committee. He is a member who contributed much, who understood much about legislation and who was able to formulate this kind of initiative. I am sure he would be able to do more in the future. However, since he does not co-operate with his Liberal caucus when voting on some bills, he will no longer be serving on the justice committee. It is a shame that we have that situation in Canada, but unfortunately that is the way it will be with the Liberal government. However I am sure the hon. colleague will be contributing as much as possible in the future along these lines.
We must protect our witnesses if we are to combat crime. I do not think anyone would deny that. The colleague from the Bloc mentioned the words common sense, which are the two key words. We must protect our witnesses and we must do it in a common sense manner. We have to take many things into consideration when we are doing it.
We all know the importance of witnesses when it comes to fighting crime. It is much easier when we have good witnesses to help put away criminals that need to be put away. We also know it is foolish to enter into any kind of special agreement with individuals. We only need to look to the latest court case involving Mr. Bernardo and Ms. Homolka. Providing for and doing what we did for the witness, Karla Homolka, in that case was a criminal act in itself. We need to be cautious when doing these kinds of activities, which could make it very possible that someone who is guilty of an offence would be let off the hook under a protection act for witnesses. We need to be careful about that.
There are a lot of crazies out there in the world who are in it for the dollars. They are willing to eliminate witnesses. We know they are out there. We know we have some in the prisons today. I talked to one inmate not too long ago in British Columbia who was there for eliminating a couple of witnesses; he was a paid hit man. We know there are more of them out there. We know that organized crime is becoming more and more active with the bombings that we see going on throughout Montreal and other parts of the country and with the smuggling that is taking place only an hour's drive from here, which occurs on a regular basis. When we know that kind of organized crime is active then we have to be very careful when we bring forward witnesses that may crunch organized crime. We certainly must have some kind of protection in place, because the criminals would be willing to eliminate the witnesses rather quickly to protect the huge industry that exists.
It is unfortunate that we have a government, a solicitor general and a minister of justice who sit back and watch these kinds of
activities go on and do not seem willing to get involved or do much about them. It is a shame when we pick up the paper and read about bombings taking place in Canada by terrorists, thugs and organized criminals, and we have a government that sits back and the best it can come up with is that it is a provincial matter and we should not get involved. It is a very poor attitude and a real lack of intestinal fortitude when it comes to saying that we will take the bull by the horns and make our streets and our communities safer.
It is unfortunate the solicitor general alluded in his speech to all the wonderful things the Liberal government has done through Bills C-45, C-41, C-37 and C-68, to name a few. That just is not so. The House knows and all the people across Canada know that a number of things were attempted with the particular bills to make them better, to put the victim first. We also know that in every instance when there was a motion put forward in Bill C-45, which was simply geared to making things better for the victims of our country, the government turned them down and did not vote for one of them, not one.
It is silly for the minister to stand in his place to try to convince Canadians that he is doing a wonderful job when he turns down such things as mandatory restitution and then says that mandatory restitution is taken care of in Bill C-41. That is just not so.
The government is saying that it is up to a judge: if the judge wants to order it then he can do so and then things will take place and the restitution will happen. That just is not the case. We know that judges today can tell people that they will have to make restitution, but it does not mean anything. There is no enforcement. We cannot get blood out of a rock.
When we suggest that we will take part of the money we will pay them when they are in the penitentiary to put to the use of victims it is turned down. I guess it makes too much sense. It is something Canadians want.
Governments in the past 30 years are used to passing all kinds of legislation: if the people want it, do not do it, and if the people do not want it then make sure we do it. GST and all these other things apply to that.
It is unfortunate that during his speech the solicitor general alluded to the fact that these other bills were contributing to the safety of Canadians. He mentioned Bill C-37, the improvements to the Young Offenders Act. If Bill C-37 was such a wonderful improvement, I wonder if someone on the other side of the House could tell me why the Minister of Justice asked the justice committee to put on their parachutes and fly around the country. They are flying all over Canada and are asking people once again what they would like to do with young offenders. They are spending lots of money going through a process that is totally unnecessary.
If we put each member on the justice committee on a street corner in any city to talk to the grassroots, the people who are closest to these crimes, about what should be done with the Young Offenders Act, I am quite certain they would get an answer. For a fact thousands and thousands of letters have been received from across the country telling the minister and others what to do with the Young Offenders Act. We have had petitions galore, with millions of signatures suggesting that we get rid of the Young Offenders Act or fix it. It has been ignored. Bill C-37 did not address that.
The government went through the process of getting Bill C-37 passed and then it turned around and sent the justice committee across the country to ask people what to do about young offenders.
To stand in the House and say "we did it, we got Bill C-37, aren't we wonderful" is just a bunch of baloney. I am really tired of hearing people in the House saying what a wonderful job the government is doing in fighting crime and keeping its red book commitment. That is not so. There is so much more the government could do but it does not dare.
I will admit that Bill C-78 makes total sense. It is something Canadians want. I congratulate the government for at least bringing forward one bill that will protect the right individuals, potential victims and witnesses rather than criminals.
The rights of criminals have always been up front, first and foremost. That has been the biggest worry for the government over the past 30 years, particularly in the last few years since the charter of rights has come into being. It must protect the criminal. There seems to be such a terrible amount of emphasis on that. It becomes really sickening. With Bill C-78 I say that at last we have something concrete and will protect the right people.
I should like to put a proposal to the government. When it is doing legislation in the future, the first thing to be written down in the legislation should be the word victim, the law-abiding people, the ones we need to look after. They are the most important people and criminals should be put somewhere else. Yes, nobody denies that we should look after the basic rights of the criminal. But, for crying out loud, we must remember the victims and do what can be done in all legislation to protect them.
Liberals stand in the House to tell us about the wonderful gun legislation. Somebody tell me what kind of balance is 17 pages which address the criminal versus 160 pages which go after law-abiding people. The document is so thick we cannot carry more than three or four. It is so expensive that we cannot order very many for our constituents to look at because of the cost. That document is full of regulations and all kinds of things law-abiding people are expected to do.
In the meantime there are individuals running around the country who are armed better than most military units. I see nothing being done about the real problems, but I constantly see all kinds of legislation coming forward that is not doing what it could for victims and law-abiding people. Instead the government concentrates on making certain that things are done right according to the charter so that the criminals are forever looked after. Canadians are getting tired of it.
I will conclude and turn it over to my colleague for Fraser Valley West by saying that Bill C-78 is the kind of bill we are most happy to support. I thank the government for bringing it forward. Once again, I thank my colleague for Scarborough West, the initiator of the whole idea. I hope we will see more legislation that says victims come first and not the criminals.