Debates of March 27th, 1996

Law Commission Of Canada Act

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, for the information of Canadians watching this debate, we are debating Bill C-9, formerly introduced in the last sitting of the House as Bill C-106. Essentially it sets up a law reform commission. The purpose of the commission is to advise government on needed changes and modernizations to the existing laws of Canada.

We opposed this bill when it was introduced to the House at second reading and we oppose it now at third reading. I hesitate to take the House's time by reiterating the same concerns and arguments that were made in the debate on October 19, but there are a couple of new developments which need to be discussed and which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. There have been a couple of amendments suggested to the bill and those should be dealt with.

The commission is being set up as a "departmental corporation". This is to be in aid of increasing or underlining the independence of the commission from government and also to allow it to generate revenues which is an acknowledgement of the concern that has been raised about the cost of this ever increasing circle of commissions and other groups which keep being created.

I would hesitate to predict what a departmental corporation could bring in or recover from the sale of its reports. I suggest it would certainly not be a very considerable amount. Even Parliament itself seems very uninterested in many of these reports. They gather dust on shelves. I would be extremely surprised if members of the public laid out cold hard cash just for the pleasure of reading them. I would also point out that the research work done to generate these reports in the first instance is funded solely from taxpayers' dollars. For taxpayers to have to pay additional money to look at the reports they paid to have generated in the first place does seem to be a bit much to ask of any member of the public.

The Reform Party suggested two amendments to this bill at committee stage. The first one was to correct what we felt was an unjustified inclusion in the bill of the words "after extensive consultation". We feel that the legislation which is put before Parliament should be defensible and should be accurate in the way it is framed. We really felt that extensive consultation was a misnomer for the process that had taken place in bringing back this idea of a law reform commission.

The consultation in fact consisted of 844 questionnaires of which only 126 were returned, a less than 15 per cent return rate. The 844 questionnaires went out to, among other people, every MP and every senator. About half of all these questionnaires went to members of Parliament who have to vote on whether or not this whole thing goes ahead. It seems redundant to preview the opinions of members of the Canadian Parliament and then call this consultation. When we use the word consultation the public thinks of it as we are consulting members of the public at large, or extensively some other interests besides the law makers and the decision makers in Parliament, but that was not the case.

We felt for the integrity of the legislation and the plain speaking that would be required of legislation that the reference to extensive consultation should be deleted. However, it is still in there. Canadians are being given to understand that there was extensive consultation and extensive discussion across the country about

bringing back the commission and it should be put on the record that this was definitely not the case.

The other amendment which we proposed would increase the role of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the appointment of the commissioners and the advisory body to the commission.

When I criticized the Minister of Justice for this at second reading he rose in the House and said that this body was going to be both independent and accountable. It would be independent of the minister and it would be accountable to the House through the minister. At that time I asked, and I still have not received a satisfactory answer to this difficulty, how a body could be independent of a minister when it is accountable to the House through that minister.

There are so many areas in the legislation where not only is the commission accountable through the minister, it is directly a creature of the minister. The minister, for example, appoints the five commissioners. How can a body which is appointed by a minister, through his recommendations to council, be even remotely considered to be independent of that minister?

The commission must consult with the minister before setting its agenda. The commission must carry out studies or prepare reports at the request of the minister. The response to the recommendations of the commission is at the minister's discretion. The minister could simply ignore or neglect to do anything about the recommendations of the commission.

There is so much leeway and control over the process by the minister that to say it is independent of him or her is simply incorrect. There is absolutely no basis on which to make that argument.

To say that the commission is accountable is again a notion which cannot be supported by the facts. For example, the commission will be given $3 million a year on which to operate. However, it will be set up as a departmental corporation. Supposedly, it is like another crown corporation which is at arm's length from government, therefore, not only can government not tell it what to do unless it wants to do that, members of Parliament cannot obtain information from it through the Access to Information Act.

The departmental corporations are totally independent bodies. They are corporations in the private sector. As members of Parliament, even though these bodies are totally funded by taxpayers, we have no right to obtain information from them.

The grain commission is a good example of this. The commissioners on the grain commission set their own remuneration. They set their own terms of reference. They set their own pensions. The people served, the taxpayers of Canada, and even members of Parliament, cannot obtain information from it because the commission is at arm's length and has such a level of independence that it is accountable to no one.

This commission has been set up in the same way and yet the minister tells us that it will be accountable. However, in the way it has been set up, the accountability is once again shielded behind all of these arm's length mechanisms. We are going to have the same situation as we have with the other bodies.

For example, ACOA was asked by the taxpayers how many jobs it had created with the millions and millions of dollars the taxpayers had given to it in order to create economic activity in Atlantic Canada. However, they cannot obtain an answer. ACOA is not required to give that information to the people who are giving it money.

To set up another body like this is a slap in the face to taxpayers. Members have to realize that taxpayers work very hard for the money they give to bureaucrats and politicians.

They should have some means of ascertaining that they are getting bang for their buck. However, we have no certainty of that in this legislation. Another $3 million is floating around the countryside with the accountability mechanism very uncertain and loose. We should object to that very strongly.

For example, we have so many services which taxpayers desperately need in order to take advantage of economic opportunities, to get health services and the education of our young people and our workforce. The $3 million is being cut from the kinds of services that Canadians are demanding. Here is money being used to set up a commission that Canadians are not demanding but which they pay members of Parliament to carry out.

The whole job of members of Parliament is to recommend and put forward legislative measures that are needed to deal with issues facing the country. The whole point of having members of Parliament is to update and modernize the laws so they meet the changing needs of Canadians.

Why on earth are millions of dollars being spent on members of Parliament who come with all different perspectives, meeting in committees, studying issues, travelling the country, debating in the House of Commons and analysing bills and then all of a sudden another $3 million is being thrown into the hat to have another commission of buddies of the justice minister, whomever he decides to appoint, to do the very same work that members of Parliament are elected and paid to do?

In my speech on this matter on October 19, I made an offer to the justice minister. I said: "If you are really so desperately in need of a law commission, then we as Reform Party members in the House of Commons will gladly do that job for nothing. We will study these issues and give you recommendations. We will certainly be

truly independent. We will not cost you a nickel. We will do the kind of research and advising that you say you need".

Many resources are open to members of Parliament and certainly to the justice minister. There are professors in universities in the area of law and law reform whose mandate is to do independent research. They would be delighted to share the fruits of their labours with lawmakers. However, all of a sudden even more researchers will be hired to do even more research when there is plenty being done.

This bill is not needed. It does not do the work that it is supposed to do. It sets up yet another bunch of appointed people to be used by the minister to validate what he wants to do anyway. This is a very bad piece of legislation, especially at a time when the country is going deeper into debt by millions of dollars every day.

I would urge the House to reject the setting up of yet another body and yet another commission, that we get on with the job of doing this work with the elected people who we are already paying and that we forget and scrap these kinds of measures. They are not needed and they will not do a better job for Canadians than is already being done.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in looking at this bill, I have been trying to figure out what it is that the Liberals are attempting to accomplish. The thesis of my speech today is Liberal patronage.

The question has to be asked: Where is the money coming from that will create the new agency whose work is already being done by the justice department? When the law reform commission was abolished some of the funding was redirected to the justice department. Is the $3 million for this new commission coming from the justice department which is already doing that type of work? Will there be a cut in the department's budget to make way for the new commission?

It is rather instructive to look at what was said by the previous government when it cut the law commission. The Hon. Gilles Loiselle, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State for Finance on April 30, 1992 said:

The Law Reform Commission was created in 1971. It has played a useful role in conducting an ongoing review of the statutes of Canada, in co-ordinating non-governmental research on legal issues, and in providing independent advice to the Minister of Justice.

The government has concluded, however, that these functions can be fulfilled without maintaining a separate organization. Responsibility for commissioning outside research will be assigned to the Department of Justice, with the minister and the department seeking the views of researchers and practitioners in universities and elsewhere. The Law Reform Commission will accordingly be wound up and any necessary continuing resources transferred to the Department of Justice.

The Liberals are trying to make work for their Liberal lawyer friends and are revisiting the Liberal law reform commission. Where did the $3 million come from? Did it come from the resources that were returned to the justice department by the previous Conservative government or has the government just dug a little bit deeper into the trough so that it can reward its Liberal lawyer friends?

By eliminating the law reform commission in 1992 the government of the day was moving toward eliminating duplication. My Liberal friends of today do not necessarily understand the concept of eliminating duplication, particularly if they can be setting up more boards to employ more Liberals.

The government wants to bring the law commission back. Much of the work can be done by the justice department which has far greater resources. I refer to comments by Peter McCreath who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization) on April 30, 1992. He said:

It is not as if the kind of work that has been done by the Law Reform Commission of Canada will cease if the law reform commission ceases to exist. It is very important that kind of research continues to take place-

Law reform is possible in Canada even without the Law Reform Commission.

In the name of logic, are the Liberals of today actually saying that the work previously being done by the law reform commission over the last four years has not been done? That is a little bit of a stretch in terms of credulity.

I am trying to drive home the reason why the Liberals of today are trying to bring this back for their Liberal lawyer friends. The members of this new commission will be order in council appointees. It may be another chance to let the few remaining Liberal supporters in this country who do not have government jobs get on the government payroll. In short, the commission has the opportunity to be a haven for political appointees.

I would like the member for Kingston and the Islands, who loves to kibitz on this, to directly refute that this commission will not be a place to put the wonderful Liberal lawyer friends of this government today. In fact that is the reason why this is being redone.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I hope it is.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

But he is a lawyer.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Is he a lawyer?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Of course he is a lawyer.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Is he a lawyer? We listen to him talk and talk and talk so he must be a lawyer.

We have seen the Minister of Justice begin politicizing our courts by several of his recent appointments of defeated Liberal candidates and Liberal riding presidents to the benches.

I am going to deal with the issue of patronage in detail at the conclusion of my speech but I am still working to develop this case. Actually I do not have to work to develop this case. It is so obvious.

The Minister of Justice will have to be consulted before the agenda of the commission is set. As was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, this is very clearly not an arm's length organization. Is it not really just Liberal logic to say that these people are independent-

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Is there such a thing?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Is there such a thing as Liberal logic? Well, these things do happen.

The minister states that the commission will operate at arm's length. That is really magic because there is a little discrepancy here. He wants it to be independent, but he wants it to do what he wants it to do.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Selfish.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

I do not know about selfish, but it certainly defies the whole idea of-

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Liberal logic.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

-Liberal logic. You got it.

The minister also gets a say in the appointment of council members. In short, it appears that the new law commission will be an extension of the minister's and the department's staff. If it is simply an extension of the minister's and department's staff, why are we setting it up? Why not just give the justice department another $3 million and say to get on with the job? If that is what this whole process is all about, there certainly would have been a less expensive way than going through the whole business of coming up with this legislation. Why did he not ask for an extra $3 million from the Minister of Finance?

It is interesting that the former member for Edmonton-Strathcona on November 25, 1992 in talking about the old Law Reform Commission said: "It costs $4.9 million each year". I should point out that the Liberals always start low and aim high. They are only starting at $3 million right now. Who is to know where the cost of this commission is going to go? I come back to the member's comments: "It costs $4.9 million each year. It has five full time commissioners and"-believe it or not-"a staff of 36. That is a lot of staff and a lot of commissioners, and it costs a lot of money. It is my belief that in Canada we have created too many commissions, too many boards and in a certain way we have devalued Parliament".

What is really scary is that the situation of creating too many commissions and getting things out of the control of parliamentarians was started by the Liberals and the Conservatives attempted to terminate it in their feeble little way. Now that the Liberals are back, guess what? We have the re-creation of yet another commission. Terrific.

"I would rather see", the member said, and this reflects the comments of the member for Calgary North, "work of this nature done by parliamentary committees-. I say to my colleagues in response, we have had an independent agency that has done a lot of good work but it is time we ourselves did this work and brought some prestige back to Parliament. Let us not devalue Parliament by giving its role to outsiders".

Reflecting on the most recent legislation by this Liberal government, it does devalue the whole role of Parliament and parliamentarians. It just treats this place like a rubber stamp. When the Liberals are not getting their own way they simply bring in the pile driver of closure to make sure that it gets through, as witness the reintroduction of this piece of legislation.

The member said: "We can do that independent work. There is also a fiscal argument here. It is an expenditure of $5 million a year. We have had a deficit over the past years of roughly $30 billion a year,"-and of course it has gone up since then-"now $34.6 billion has to be borrowed. We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on that money each year".

In parenthesis I point out to all the Liberals present that their government, in the life of this government, will increase the annual interest charge on the debt that they have accumulated by $11 billion a year. It is an increase. That is only the difference between what the interest charge was when this government came in. When these people are kicked out of office in 1997, they will have added an annual interest charge of $11 billion a year to service the debt, yet they are perfectly prepared to spend another $3 million a year.

The member went on: "We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on the money each year. It is a vicious cycle. The government has to take a hard look at where we spend our money. Some of this work will be contracted out but there will be a net saving".

The point of my speech today very simply is that this government did not learn anything. The Liberals were booted out for a nine year period when there were people here who tinkered around the edges. They really did not get anything done but at least they understood that we cannot spend money we do not have. Those

people on the other side of the House to this day still do not understand that basic concept.

There was an interesting article in the November 21, 1995 Financial Post in which Deborah McCorkell-Hoy, director of the law reform division of the Department of Justice had some really interesting comments. I quote from the article:

When the commission was set up, McCorkell-Hoy said, everyone agreed that it should be as independent as possible, but it "needs to be tied to the needs of Canadians".

To put that into effect, the bill creates a 25 member advisory council "to advise on the strategic direction of the commission and review its performance".

As well, specific reform projects will be monitored and advised by panels of expert specialists.

McCorkell-Hoy points out several areas that could attract business partners and funding:

Intellectual property and its relationship to new information technologies.

Biotechnology, a subject in which law reform "has tremendous implications for the economy of the country, and yet the law is unknown".

Well, of course, we are dealing with the Liberal government.

Federal financial regulatory mechanisms, especially in international commercial law.

Since the bill gives the commission a wide mandate to develop "new approaches to, and new concepts of, law", it's not inconceivable that other federal areas such as taxation, corporate law, labour law, unemployment insurance or immigration could be research targets.

Right there, in the words of this official from the justice department, we have a very clear and very specific indication that this bill is being set up to reward the government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is what it is all about. It is a make work project.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Patronage.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Well, was it not a minister who said that we should have more transparent patronage? Is that not what he said in the House the other day? Only the Liberals would say that.

The point I am trying to drive home and for the people of Canada to understand, is that when the Liberals run out of work they can give to their friends, they come up with some kind of a make work project like this one. What do we have in Canada as a result of the charter of rights and freedoms but a charter industry populated by high priced lawyers who go around trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is only in the wonderful world of the Liberals.

We have stated, since its inception, that the country needs less government, not more. Canada has no lack of agencies, boards or commissions. Creating another agency when the work proposed is already being done makes absolutely no sense, which is the thesis of my speech.

It is not a matter of privatizing law reform. There is no mention of making cuts within the justice department when its work will be done by the commission. This is a make work project for the government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is it, plain and simple. This is a Liberal patronage bill.

Look at the fact that the Prime Minister is not satisfied to just appoint Liberal bagmen to the other place. People go there and travel at taxpayers' expense going around and collecting funds for the Liberal government for the upcoming election. He is not satisfied with that.

As a matter of fact, Senator Taylor, the most recent appointment to the other place, was very open, honest, candid and frank when he said: "This is a patronage appointment. I have been a Liberal all of my life and this is what I get for it". He got appointed to the other place so that he can travel around and pick up money for those people. It is absolutely shameful.

If we value the work of an independent commission, why is the justice minister so closely involved in the process? Because this is not an independent commission. That is why. This is a process of making work for Liberal lawyer friends.

The justice minister picks appointees, he has a say on the agenda and will have flexibility in response to the commission's recommendations. Even after these lawyers get paid all of this money, the justice minister will have flexibility. If we were to translate that, the justice minister can ignore the recommendations. These recommendations have the potential of being of absolutely no value except the value that has been siphoned out of the pockets of tax paying Canadians.

If we are truly interested in the modernization and reform of Canadian law, why would we not have a completely independent body without such a large role for the Minister of Justice?

I rest my case. The plain fact of the matter is that because of the very, very close tie-in, the connections, the absolute control by the minister of justice, this law does nothing except make work for Liberal lawyer friends.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on a very logical, well put together and erudite examination of Bill C-9.

There are huge problems today in the justice department and in the ability of our men and women in uniform who go out on the streets every day to defend the rights of innocent civilians. They put their lives on the line every day. If we speak to them we will

find they are incredibly dissatisfied with the justice department and the laws and regulations it has put forth over the last 20 years which have significantly hampered their honourable goals for Canadian society.

What constructive suggestions does the hon. member feel we could put forth, such as victims rights, repealing section 745 and such? I would like to hear his views on these very important issues.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are many issues the justice minister is absolutely ignoring and I might suggest at his peril and the peril of the Liberal Party. They are issues like section 745 which has the absolute backing of the majority of the members of this House and the majority of people in Canada. It also has the backing particularly of the victims of the people who are currently incarcerated who may become eligible under section 745. There are many, many bills like that.

It is so obvious and seems quite clear to me, to return to my original thesis, that this bill is simply a make work project. The justice minister is not listening. We could not only save the time of this House and the cost of putting this bill through, but we could also save the $3 million a year that will be forked out to the Liberal lawyer friends.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member has a substantial interest in law and order issues. The speech he has just given indicates that this bill in particular is of great interest to him. Perhaps the member for Kootenay East could explain to the House and to his constituents why he never turned up in committee to discuss the bill.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as you would be aware and I know the member is aware, a member of Parliament has many responsibilities be they in revenue, in heritage, whatever the case may be.

This issue is of tremendous importance to people in my constituency. As a matter of fact, I devoted my most recent householder entirely to the issue of crime and what the ordinary citizen could be doing about crime even under the meagre, pitiful laws the Liberals are presently toying with.

As we have been given the opportunity today, when I do have some time available to speak to this issue, I speak on behalf of the people of Kootenay East. They say to this government to get on with the job, change the justice system and do not tinker and play with it with these silly make work projects.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member for Kootenay East was able to clarify why at the beginning of speech he was asking all those questions about the bill. He wanted to know various details about the bill, why the minister was not doing this, why the minister was not doing that, why the bill did not do this, why the bill did not do that. We all know why he does not know the answers. He did not attend the committee meetings.

I am astounded the hon. member would say in justification for his failure to show up to discuss the bill in committee that what he did was put out a householder to his constituents about law and order issues. Why did he not put out one on his attendance?

I suggest that had he put out one explaining where he was when he was not at the justice committee discussing what he says is a very important bill, perhaps his constituents would have understood a bit more about his views on justice matters.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course we are talking to the now defunct, failed, fired parliamentary secretary who used to spend all of his time in the House.

Maybe I could ask him the same question. Did he attend the justice committee? Did he attend the finance committee? Did he attend the heritage committee? Did he attend the natural resources committee? Did he attend the environment committee? What was he doing wasting his time here in the House, running around like he did before, making all sorts of these little yattering noises?

We all know very well that what really goes on is when a member of Parliament comes to Ottawa, unfortunately even if he is six foot five and 250 pounds, he cannot be dissected and sent to this committee, that committee and also be in the House to answer the inanities of the former parliamentary secretary.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay East managed to get through that particular matter without answering the question as to why he was not in committee. He has made comments about the member for Kingston and the Islands who was fulfilling his duties in the House, quite different from some of the members opposite. Again, he has not mentioned why he was not in committee.

I am sure he cannot make that comment about me in the justice committee because I was in that committee all the time, even on this bill. I never saw him once. Perhaps he can now take this opportunity to answer why he was not at any time at any of those committee meetings dealing with this bill.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member speaks about fulfilling his duties. I wonder if the member would care to stand up perhaps in the next segment in debate when he can answer the question of how he fulfilled his duty in that committee on Bill C-68 when the people in his constituency clearly and demonstrably gave him direction that he was to vote against Bill C-68.

I suggest the reason he did not fulfil his responsibility to his people in his constituency was that he knew if he kept quiet on Bill C-68 he just might have a chance of being appointed the chair of that committee.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-9, an act to create the Law Commission of Canada.

This commission was set up to do some relatively general things. It was set up to study, analyse and give advice on measures to improve our justice system.

This is another sad day in Parliament. This is another example of what I call studyitis. When we have problems in this country do we address those problems? Do we bring forth constructive solutions to impact on those problems in an effective way? No. What do we do? We study them. We analyse them. Perhaps we give advice on them.

There have been thousands of studies on ways to improve justice in Canada. All we need to do is come together to look at those solutions, take the best solutions out of those suggestions and impart those to the Canadian justice system for all Canadians.

As we speak people are being raped, murdered, assaulted, robbed, all manner of terrible things are happening to them, and the justice department has been largely ineffective, particularly in the last 10 years, in dealing with these problems.

We have another Pavlovian response by the government to some very serious problems that exist in Canada today. It is not benign. It will cost taxpayers $3 million to bring the commission together. Again we have to ask why. Why are we doing this when constructive solutions already exist?

I do not agree with the commission. I challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to work together with our party, which has put together many constructive improvements for the justice system, to enact those improvements. I send that challenge out to them and I hope they respond.

I would like to introduce constructive solutions on which we can work to improve the justice system.

First, we have a problem with the time it takes an individual who is arrested to be tried and convicted. Today we have a very onerous system. It takes a great deal of time before the person who is charged is brought to justice. One of the things we could do to expedite the time involved would be to eliminate preliminary hearings. They are expensive, time consuming and they delay justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Second, we could limit the number of appeals available to convicted persons. Appeals must happen. It is the only fair way to have a balance and a check in the existing system. However, to allow individuals to continually appeal is wrong. It is a waste of taxpayer money.

Third, we could limit the number of adjournments which lawyers can introduce during the course of a trial. Currently lawyers can introduce umpteen adjournments. They cause an incredible backlog in the courts. There must be a fair number of adjournments to ensure that due process takes place. However, if we limit their number we could expedite the process while ensuring the accused receives a fair trial.

Fourth, the Minister of Justice could introduce a DNA data bank. This would enable police officers across Canada to take DNA samples from accused individuals and place them into the data bank. It would help police officers to speed up their analysis of criminals. If a person is innocent they have nothing to fear. Is this an abrogation of an individual's rights? Absolutely not. It is something we could introduce today for the collective good of all Canadians. A DNA data bank would expedite a person's guilt or innocence.

Fifth, it is very important that we repeal section 745. I have heard the intervention by the Minister of Justice. He said there are many exceptions to this rule. However, we have to understand that section 745 applies to individuals convicted of first degree murder. It is very difficult to convict a person of first degree murder. Those who are convicted are guilty of heinous crimes, including the murder of a police officer. The number of individuals convicted of these crimes and who were released after 15 years is shocking. It sends a very bad message to those contemplating vicious crimes.

Consider the juvenile system. Juvenile violent crime is on the increase. It is the fastest growing aspect of crime in the country. Something must be done about it. Unfortunately the solutions attempted by the government have been wholly inadequate. It is high time the government began to implement constructive solutions for youth. Youth crime is a tragedy.

What we should do is name youths convicted of a crime. This would show them they cannot hide behind anonymity when committing a heinous crime. We have to speed the process from apprehension to trial, as I mentioned before. We need to have constructive solutions to address the precursors to those children who lead a life of crime.

This comes down to some of the determinates of health which have not been widely looked at. Many of these juveniles go on to live a life of crime. I have worked in adult and juvenile jails both as a doctor and as a correctional officer. Many of these individuals have had tragic family histories. They live in a family milieu which breeds a psychology that can lead to conduct disorders and then to crime.

When we identify these family circumstances, we need to bring to bear the full resources we have to try to ameliorate these circumstances. Sometimes this cannot be done. Unfortunately the system we have today ensures that those children continue to remain in the tragic, harmful, often violent and always repressive situation. Sexual violence often exists within the family and if not that, physical violence and an enormous amount of neglect.

The mindset we have today within our social programs and the justice department is to keep these children basically where they are. This is a mistake. A child cannot change his or her pattern of behaviour if they are living under these very tragic family circumstances. It is imperative that these children be removed from the home for as long as it takes for the family situation to become sufficiently better so that the child's basic needs are met and their personal safety is ensured.

Work and skills training should be made obligatory not only for adults but for juveniles. This will be imperative if they are to become a functional member of society when released from jail.

Many individuals, particularly in adult institutions, have problems with substance abuse. Jails do try to some extent to address the problem but the way they do it is wholly inadequate. Conditional on their release, if substance abuse is identified as a contributing factor to their criminal behaviour, they should take part in effective substance abuse programs in the judicial system.

We must also look at the rights of the victims, something we have not heard much about in the House. This is absolutely imperative. We have to hold the rights of victims as the pre-eminent issue in justice. We must protect the rights of innocent civilians above those of criminals, period. That is the primary role of justice. Right now that is not what we are seeing.

My colleague earlier today in question period, when asking a question to the Minister of Justice, gave a profoundly tragic example of a woman who was murdered because she could not get the information needed from the judicial system that the individual she was with was violent and that her life was at risk. Who are we trying to protect, the criminals or the victim? We must protect the victim. I do not care about these spurious arguments put forth about protecting the human rights of an individual. The person whose human rights must be protected first and foremost is the victim. Therefore our party has put forth many constructive solutions, including making obligatory victim impact statements, appropriate restitution to the victim and counselling.

I will give a really sad example that happened in my constituency. A lady came to my office. Her 13-year old son, an invalid, was sexually abused by an older boy, a 17-year-old. When they went to court and the older boy was convicted of sexually abusing the handicapped 13-year-old, the 17-year-old said he was a victim.

The 17-year-old got more counselling, money from this institution, from the justice department, than the victim, much more. That is not justice at all. Who are we trying to protect?

We need balance. The accused and the convicted must be treated too. To ignore them is to ignore society at our peril. We must also first and foremost be able to protect, treat and deal with the victims of some terrible crimes that exist in society.

We see little justice in the justice system. We see a crisis of conscience within those men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us.

I spoke with some members of a police force yesterday. They echo what is said by police officers in my riding, that the system we have today simply does not work. We cannot merely tinker around the edges. We have to impact some good, strong, effective solutions and we need to do it now. If we do not do it now, more innocent civilians will be unnecessarily hurt.

We can address the precursors to the individuals who commit these crimes. By doing that, we will be saving ourselves not only money but a lot of grief and individuals who need not be hurt in the future.

It is up to us in the House to look at these effective solutions today and enact them. It is not up to us to enact another bill, to develop another commission to do more studying, to give more advice, to do more analysis to enact solutions that are already on the books.

The solutions are there and I challenge the government once again to look at those solutions and bring them to the floor of the House. Let us have a vigorous debate and pick the best ones. There are many that were done by learned individuals.

I hope hon. members opposite will take it upon themselves to bring forth some effective solution for all Canadians to protect them and to prevent further crimes. It must be done today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Before we proceed with questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, health.