Far right, thank you.
The solicitor general talked about bringing forward the Young Offenders Act and how the government did a good job on it. He then talked about gun control, another abysmal failure of dealing with crime. We now have to realize that the largest percentage of this bill was in the House before. You may recognize it. It was brought in by that party from Jurassic Park. That goes to show us where those two parties come from, the same bent. There is no change and there is no plan.
There is going to be some accountability in the National Parole Board. When I asked my question of the previous speaker I asked it for a clear reason. It was because of the numerous discussions I have had with parole board members and my attendance at numerous parole board hearings. The difficulty I have with some of the reasoning of the government comes from the fact that it leans on success rates. Success rates, while nice, do not give any accommodation to the failure rates, the victims.
When a parole board member phones me and says they have an 87 per cent success rate, I tell them to give some thought about the 13 per cent failure rate. Those are the people coming through our doors.
Let us have a little look to see what things were put forward to the government by the Reform Party which the government said: "No, we reject that in Bill C-45". Let us see if the Canadian people would agree with this Liberal government. We said: "Why not provide for compensation to victims of crime and for medical treatment for victims of sexual assault to be paid for by the perpetrator?" Was that accepted by the government? No, indeed. Why? Ask a Liberal. If Canadians were to ask the people on this side of the House we would say there is more to the problems of a victim than just room and board payback.
This is the government that still gives old age security and CPP, guaranteed income supplement, GST rebates to inmates. The government is still intent on saying it can now introduce a 30 per cent charge for room and board. Come on.
We talked about no statutory release for violent offenders. Would the government go along with that? No, it would not. What is wrong with no statutory release for violent offenders? The government knows darn well that the greater percentage of inmates
will reoffend when they get out. If it does not believe that through statistical data it should ask the wardens, talk to the inmates. They will confirm it.
We said: "Why not ensure that criminals serve their full sentences if conditional release is revoked or suspended?" What is wrong with that? The Liberals do not agree. In other words, if an inmate gets out on unescorted temporary absence and reoffends he is hauled back in. His parole is revoked but he is entitled to apply and gets back out on parole. If these people are getting out on parole, perpetrating the same or similar crimes, do you think they have been rehabilitated? Do you really think it is a wise idea to allow them to apply for parole again? My goodness.