Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion as it affords me the chance to reflect on the many ways in which this government has managed to tighten up law enforcement in Canada.
As mentioned in the red book, the government is working to ensure both safe homes and safe streets.
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, received royal assent on July 13, 1995. It provides, for the first time, a statement of the principles and purposes of sentencing in the Canadian criminal law, a first in Canadian legal history.
The act provides a balanced approach that takes into account both the public's need for safety and the needs of the victim. It is
also in line with the principle that serious offenders should be treated differently than minor first time offenders.
In order to deal with the rising tide of hate crime, the act also provides that those who commit crimes motivated by hatred will receive a greater sentence.
The act also includes provisions to assist victims of crime by strengthening the process for awarding and enforcing restitution to victims.
As well, it provides the courts with more options to distinguish between violent, serious crimes that require jail and non-violent, less serious crimes that can be dealt with better by the local community.
With regard to the issue of youth justice, the House will recall that amendments to the Young Offenders Act contained in Bill C-37, came into force on December 1, 1995.
The amendments, which include provisions to deal more effectively with violent young offenders, complete the first part of a two-part strategy by the government to reform the youth justice system. The amended act includes improved measures for sharing information among school officials, police and selected members of the public where there is a concern about the safety of other persons. As well, police will now be able to keep, indefinitely, the records of young offenders convicted of the most serious crimes.
In addition, the amended act deals more strictly with the most serious violent offences by creating longer maximum sentences for those convicted of murder in youth court.
It also means that 16 and 17-year-olds charged with the most serious personal injury offences will be processed in adult court unless they are able to demonstrate that public protection and rehabilitation can be achieved by remaining in youth court.
I strongly believe that young people should be held accountable under the Young Offenders Act in a manner appropriate to their age and level of maturity. For that reason, I am pleased that the act provides for the consideration of victim impact statements in deciding on the correct response to offending behaviour. The chief goal must always be to discourage future re-offending by a young person.
By the way, a few weeks ago a group of law enforcement officers from my riding, representing various police departments, asked for my support for the establishment of a national DNA data bank. It is, therefore, my pleasure to mention that later in 1996, the Solicitor General of Canada plans to table in Parliament legislation providing for a national DNA data bank and the accreditation of laboratories conducting DNA analysis.
Also members will recall that Bill C-104 was adopted by Parliament in June 1995 and received royal assent on July 13, 1995. It provides for the first time in Canadian criminal law a clear and express basis on which police can seek warrants to take bodily samples from suspects for DNA testing. The changes help bring Canada in line with other industrialized countries and provide a reliable scientific basis for criminal proof or establishing innocence.
I know that the police in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton have joined law enforcement officers across the country in welcoming this powerful investigative tool which has already resulted in convictions.
I am also pleased to note that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada are developing a comprehensive strategy for dealing with those convicted individuals who pose a high risk to society of committing serious personal injury offences when released. These proposals are expected to be before the House within the next few weeks.
The government is also examining the creation of a new category of serious offender, called a long term offender, which would permit courts to add periods of supervision of up to 10 years to the sentence of this category of offender.
As well, the government will be changing existing dangerous offender provisions to permit the court to designate an offender as a dangerous offender up to six months after sentencing. At present it is necessary for such a designation to be made at the time of sentencing.
I understand that the Ministry of Justice intends to extend existing peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code to permit a court to restrict the activities of those who may pose a risk of violent behaviour.
In addition, existing dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code, when applied, can result in an offender being incarcerated for the rest of his or her life. This is much stricter than the three strikes and you are out system in use in the United States.
In short, as all the examples I have cited demonstrate, no government in Canadian history has done more to crack down on crime and criminals than the present one.