Debates of Sept. 24th, 1996

Prisons And Reformatories Act

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about rhetoric. I heard nothing but rhetoric from the last speaker.

If he wants to consult Hansard of last week he will note that even his colleague from Fraser Valley is almost about to support the bill. I question whether the hon. member has even taken the time to read the bill.

We are not talking about a bill which addresses criminal justice issues. We are talking about a bill which allows provinces and territories to address the severe problems they have with the administering of inmates within their jurisdictions. That is people of less than two years and a day. We are not talking about hard core criminals.

In the federal system there is a procedure in place for us to administer the penitentiary system called the National Parole Board. Some provinces have that mechanism in their jurisdiction. The majority of them do not have that privilege in their legislation. The temporary absence system is then used in place of parole to administer those prisoners who are in for an average of less than six months.

When I hear the member say this applies to hard core criminals, we are going to let them out and we are going to endanger the public security, I have a hard time. I doubt if he even read the bill.

This bill is an initiative which has been discussed by federal, provincial and territorial leaders, all ministers responsible for justice in their territories since May 1996. They have asked our government to give them the same leverage and the same latitude to deal with the administration of their justice system. It has nothing to do with what the hon. member was talking about.

The provincial-territorial actions program will allow the provinces to control offenders in their jurisdictions. It will allow provincial prisoners leave for a specified period of time, with or without an escort, for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes. It is designed to help offenders reintegrate into the community. They are going to serve their two years less a day sooner or later.

I ask the hon. member, if all the federal and provincial ministers are in agreement with the bill, if the Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the bill, if members on this side of the House are in agreement with the bill, what is his concern?

This bill will allow the provinces and territories the flexibility to tailor their temporary absence programs according to their needs in their provinces and in their communities. That is all we are dealing with. We are not dealing with all the issues the hon. member raised.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member opposite about a little phrase that one of the health groups is using

now: just say no. The reason they say just say no is that doing that activity will have a harmful effect on them.

I am saying to the government just because someone asks it to soften up a bit and give a little more latitude in working out a more lenient way to deal with prisoners in the provincial system, that does not mean it has to say "of course, go ahead and do it".

The government needs some backbone. It should tell them: "I am sorry, the Canadian people do not want us to soften up the justice system. They want us to toughen up the justice system. No, we are not going to pass the bill. We are not going to give you the additional freedom to treat prisoners in a more lenient manner. I am sorry no, the people do not want it". Why do you not have the guts to say that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we continue the questions or comments I would like to make two points. I remind all members to make their interventions through the Chair and also to be very judicious in the choice of their words to support their arguments.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform Party is citing such individual cases that we might perhaps accept, but then they flood us with stories of this person or that in their questions, they seem to want to go for guilty and the death penalty. I find that despicable.

I think that a bill whose goal is to protect society is very worthwhile. However, I would like to add something. I have worked in secondary schools almost all my life, and when a young person was a delinquent when he came to us, we had to wonder. When a young girl had already been involved in serious misdemeanours before coming to us, we had to wonder. Was it the fault of this 13, 14 or 17 year old, or was it something in their background?

As for myself, I would like to see this bill include something about helping to protect seven, eight, nine and ten year olds in primary school. We must give young people a great deal of help, and if we put out the money needed to protect them, they would not turn up in prison at 18, 20 or 30 years of age, and we would not be having the sort of discussions we are having today about how to keep them in prison, essentially rehabilitate them. It is no easy thing to spend 20 or 25 years in prison. We have to think about that too.

Society must, of course, be protected, and when someone has committed a crime, he must be punished. I would like to put the following question to my colleague. Instead of spending hours talking about how to punish people, should we not be looking harder at prevention?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually could not agree with the hon. member more. Let us talk about prevention. Let us have the nerve to talk about the consequences of committing a crime in this country. That is prevention. Let us tell the people out there at the grade school level, at the university level, people in their 20s and 30s, people of all ages in this country, if they commit a crime in this country we are not going to let them get away with it. There is going to be a consequence.

That is called deterrence. However, the Liberal government and the separatist group here do not seem to understand the word deterrent. When I was a kid my mother told me: "If you do that, it is wrong and you will pay a price. There will be a consequence to that". That was a deterrent.

I do not think that kids have changed that much that in their early learning years to not understand that if they do something wrong there will be a consequence. What has changed is the attitude of governments like this and parties like this which say: "We are sorry, there is no such thing as a bad person, only a person who has been a victim of society and these people should be treated fairly because it is not really their fault".

I talked about the Trudeau era which started that philosophy and it is still present today in this Liberal government and with the separatists here there is no such thing as a bad person. They are not to blame. Society made them that way. That is bunk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for doing such a fine job in elucidating this very important issue that affects Canadians from coast to coast. I think he raised a very important point which the government tends to forget. Canadians today are more afraid in their homes than they have ever been in the last 20 years. Sometimes the facts do not support it, but in many cases the facts do support that. I will get to that later in my speech.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The purpose of the bill is to change the temporary absence program, creating additional types of temporary absences, and to lengthen the time temporary absences are available.

Let us stand back and look at what this actually means. If a crime is committed and a conviction obtained at public expense, and sometimes it can be a threat to the men and women in our police forces, the felon is released on a temporary absence program. The felon does not pay a penalty for actually committing the crime. That is a very important thing to realize. It means that if a felon commits a crime and is convicted, the felon is then released back into society.

Let me give an example. A friend of mine checks on people out on temporary absence programs. He went to Vancouver to check up at the home of a convicted cocaine seller who lives in an opulent home in Vancouver. This person is smiling away, going full and continues to sell cocaine through his back door. He is living in a home worth millions of dollars and is laughing at the police officers who come to his door. That is an example of a temporary absence program. That is not what the taxpayer wants to hear. That is not justice. That is not the way the criminal justice system should work, but in this instance that is the way it is working. The government wants to make this even more lenient.

Let us look at the overall crime situation in Canada with statistics from the National Crime Prevention Council. In 1994, contrary to what the government says, the crime rate was 8 per cent higher than a decade ago, and this is probably under-reported.

A substantial number of crimes are never reported to the police for a number of reasons. The statistics are truly appalling. It is notable that 90 per cent of sexual assaults and 68 per cent of non-sexual assaults are not reported. These are violent crimes that are not reported to the police. The victims go unheard. They do not get restitution. The criminals continue to go on their merry way with no penalty.

About 80 per cent of crimes are committed by only 20 per cent of the population. For future reference, it is exceedingly important for us to identify who those 20 per cent are. I know the government will not disagree with that.

We got some laughs from the other side when I mentioned that Canadians were more scared today than they were before. According to the statistics of the National Crime Prevention Council, not mine, not the Reform Party's, one in four Canadians feel unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods at night. Only 10 per cent of males reported feeling unsafe, but 42 per cent, nearly half the female population, felt unsafe walking in their neighbourhoods.

That is not the society that Canadians want. That is not the society of which we should be proud, and it is something that we, the legislators of this country, must change. It must be an embarrassment to every person in this House to face up to that statistic.

It means that half the wives of the men in this House are afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods. It means that half of the female children of the people in this House are afraid to walk in their neighbourhoods. That is totally unacceptable and must change.

I saw the Minister of Justice on a CBC television program saying that violent crime is not as bad as we think. Let us look at an independent statistic on that matter. According to police statistics, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased fourfold in the past three decades. That is 400 per cent in the last three decades. Bear in mind that those statistics are under-reported, as I said earlier. The vast majority of violent crimes never come to the attention of the police.

Youth crime is worse. Criminal Code offences by youth have increased by 16 per cent since 1986 and violent crime among youth has escalated dramatically. We have heard this time and time again from my colleagues and the government has repeatedly ignored them. But it ignores youth crime at its peril.

The public has repeatedly said to the government and to us that it wants this fixed and fixed now. Canadians no longer want to be fearful of walking in their own backyards, something we as Canadians should never have to do.

Since 1962, when penalties started to be reduced for committing crimes, when governments got soft on crime, rates began to increase. What the government said to the public was that if you are victimized you will not see restitution; you are not going to see retribution.

What it said to the police is that no matter what hard work they put into it they will not be able to put criminals behind bars. What is happening now is many of them are standing back and asking why they should do it any more. It is a sad thing.

What it tells the public, who feel they are not being protected by the justice department, is that they now have to take matters into their own hands and vigilante justice may be their only recourse. That is not something we would like to see in Canada. If we start having vigilante justice we progress along that slippery slope toward anarchy.

The real reason for Bill C-53 is that jails are too crowded. The government wants to decrease the pressure on the jails, which we completely understand. However, in doing so, it wants to put more and more people on these temporary absence programs.

We are not opposed to temporary absence programs, but it must be done with forethought and within a certain framework. The most important overriding concern in this framework has to be the protection of the public and of innocent people above all else. That is the role of justice first and foremost. It has other roles certainly, but the government has forgotten that. The roots of this began in the early 1980s when the solicitor general of the day, a Liberal, said that from now on the justice department's primary role would be not the protection of society but serving the criminal. It is going to be the rehabilitation of the criminal, not the protection of society.

That is a significant departure. What we want to do here is get the justice department back to having as its primary focus the

protection of innocent civilians. It is not to say that the rehabilitation of the criminal is not important. If we ignore that we ignore it at our peril. However, there are intelligent and effective ways of doing that. I will get back to that a little later because the experience in the United States has been very fruitful and cost effective.

The framework must be, as I said before, the protection of the public. This cannot apply to violent criminals and must certainly not apply to any criminal who is going to continue doing what got them into jail in the first place. It cannot apply either to non-violent criminals who demonstrate no remorse. A non-violent criminal in this situation is going to commit criminal acts again.

It is also in the public interest to understand the situation that is taking place right now in our criminal justice system. When a person is convicted of a crime, automatically one-third of the sentence gets knocked off and often times that person will only serve one-third of the total sentence. Therefore, two-thirds of a person's sentence is knocked off for good behaviour. A criminal is automatically deemed to have good behaviour and have one-third of his or her sentence knocked off by the system. That is very disingenuous to the victim who believes that if a person who is sentenced to 15 years that person will spend 15 years in jail.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this is section 745 of the Criminal Code which states that if a person commits first degree murder by killing a police office he or she can get out in 15 years. There is a list longer than my arm of individuals who have committed first degree murder and have been let out shortly after their 15th year of prison. We want to see that revised because first degree murder means first degree murder and it means the person spends 25 years in prison. It does not sent a clear message to those who commit this most heinous of crimes that they should be getting out after 15 years. If they do the crime they must pay the time.

I would also like to give some examples of the absurdity that is taking place in our criminal justice system.

I was at a correctional facility treating some patients not so long ago. The first patient I saw had a large laceration in his arm. I said to him while I was sewing him up: "How did you get this?" He said: "Doctor, I got this because I was making a knife". This man, while incarcerated in jail, was making a knife. He was not the only one making knives because making knives was part of their program in that medium security jail, one of our newest I might add.

This same jail, which cost $175,000 per cell to build and which has a beautiful foyer with vaulted ceilings, has cameras. In the area where the inmates are housed they have their cells and then they have a communal area where they eat, play cards and talk. The guards are in the middle of this without any protection. Furthermore, the charter of rights prevents a camera from being on that communal area because it is an infringement of their privacy, the same individuals who are making knives in jail.

I am sure the taxpayer would be very interested to know that they are paying $60,000 to $80,000 a year to house individuals in jails where they are making knives. That is not justice, for crying out loud.

In the jail previous to this one, the inmates decided to set the jail on fire. There were soiled clothes and water everywhere. The inmates were locked up. Who was cleaning this mess up, but the guards, not the inmates. That is the situation that we have.

The guards are afraid for their own safety and they are afraid of actually doing a number of duties that they have to do for fear of retribution from the inmates. That is the situation in many of the correctional facilities across the country. That speaks well of our criminal justice system, but it speaks of what this government and previous governments have done to completely turn our criminal justice system on its head. Justice must protect society at all costs. It is not doing that at all.

Last, I would like to let the government understand that there will be some superb suggestions coming from my colleague from Calgary Northeast and my colleague from Wild Rose on a number of areas on how to revamp our justice system and prevent crime.

We in the Reform Party have often been accused of being hang'em high. We are not hang'em high. We want effective solutions to address crime, the appropriate punishment, appropriate protection of the public and appropriate, effective methods of rehabilitating criminals.

We do not want the situation we have today, which has proven not to work but cost effective solutions that will work. I will give some examples. These are not examples that my colleagues will mention because they will announce this in the very near future. These are a few from my personal experience.

We have to separate the psychiatric patients from the non-psychiatric patients in our criminal justice system. One of the silent tragedies that is occurring is the closing of psychiatric hospitals.

There has been a mindset of taking these psych patients and putting them in the community. For some, that is acceptable. For many, unfortunately, it is not. They are not given a choice. The choice is not there for them.

All we need to do is walk along the streets, even in Ottawa, and see the number of burnt out schizophrenics walking the streets.

Many other psych patients are not medicated and walking the streets, often falling afoul of the law and often suffering.

It does a disservice not only to these people who are ill but it does a disservice to the public too, who have to suffer from the unfortunately criminal activity that these people engage in while they are perhaps psychotic. That has to be done. These people have to get the appropriate treatment, otherwise they will never get better.

To address the recidivism rate, we have to pull out that 20 per cent of the prison population which repeatedly continues to show an abhorrent respect for Canadian society. We must pull them out and deal with them in a much firmer and very different way than the 80 per cent who do not repeatedly run afoul of the law.

While in jail skills training should be obligatory for individuals so that when they come out they can gain employment and become integrated back into society. One of the problems with individuals once they get out of a correctional facility is there are not many support programs for them and there is not a lot for them to do. They have a great deal of difficulty integrating back into society because they do not have the skills necessary to deal with that. This must be dealt with.

Also, alcohol and other substance abuse problems have to be dealt with while incarcerated in jail. That should be obligatory. If an individual is not prepared to deal with it, they should be dealt with differently too. There is no point in putting them back on the street as a cocaine addict if it contributed to the reason why they ran afoul of the law.

Last, it is wise for us to look at the experience in the inner cities of the United States. Columbia University did an excellent job of taking children at the age of four and five in school, bringing the parents into the schools and teaching the children not only their ABCs but also about self-respect, respect for others, appropriate conflict resolution, drugs, alcohol and so on. They learned that. The parents also learned these skills if they had never learned themselves. The outcome was a much lower rate of teen pregnancy, violence and drop-outs.

I thank the House for its time and consideration. I sincerely hope the government pays attention to these suggestions and the suggestions of my hon. colleagues.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Jean de Fuca with respect, for normally he uses good judgment. This time, while being less zealous than his Reform colleagues, he is still speaking along the same lines.

I understand what fear is. He speaks of people being afraid to go out in their own neighbourhoods. I do not have the statistics with me, but in Quebec, at least when I looked at the figure for my region, 80 per cent of murders were committed by people known to the victim. More often than not, three out of four times I think, the murderer was a former partner, and in more than half of these cases or something like that, he then took his own life.

I certainly take no pleasure in such statistics. We are seeing the increase of such cases, but at the same time the crime rate in Quebec and in all of Canada is decreasing. Yet the Reform Party is still raising the argument that people are afraid.

I am not all that old. I have not yet turned 50, but I can remember how frightened my grandmother was, how frightened my mother was, how frightened women have always been, both in cities and in the country. If we take fear as a criterion, there is unfortunately no polling company that can do a historical study for us, but I am sure that, if such a study were done, it would be seen that there have always been people who were afraid.

Yes, there are worrisome things going on, particularly where young people are concerned. I say that there are too many violent shows on television, and that could be one explanation.

As I know the member who just spoke to be level headed and usually of good judgement, I would like him to confirm to me, as he is a doctor, that there has been an increase in violent crime, leaving out the crimes committed by ex-spouses, people who know each other and criminals settling scores with other criminals. Is there really an increase where he lives in Vancouver, and is it that serious in this region? If so, he should warn us, because I may have to go to Vancouver next week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend from the Bloc Quebecois. Merci beaucoup pour votre question.

The statistics I am very happy to share with the hon. member do not come from the Reform Party. These statistics come from the National Crime Prevention Council of Canada and they demonstrate unequivocally that the rate of crime, violent crime in particular, has increased and this in fact is paralleled by an increase in fear among the Canadian populace. In terms of breaking that down to those who knew their assailant and those who did not, I do not have that breakdown.

I concur with the member that most people who are victims of violent crime do know their assailant but I do not know whether those numbers are increasing. However, the overall picture clearly demonstrates that there is an increase in violent crime particularly among youth and that people are afraid across this country including les gens de Québec about their personal safety. That must

be dealt with and is something that all of us collectively in this House can put our minds to and address.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers from the Reform Party have spent an awful lot of time focusing on the general background of criminal law legislation, the fears of Canadians and those types of things. While those issues are important, although I am not saying I agree that there is all this fear they say is out there, surely they again have missed the point of dealing with the legislation at hand and I want to ask the hon. member to comment on this.

This particular statute addresses the institutional aspects of responding to criminal behaviour after people have been sentenced by the courts. It deals with institutions that deal with offenders who have sentences up to two years.

The federal legislation for the federal institutions that deal with all of the other longer term offenders, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, was recently amended here in this House for the second time. First on the list it deals prominently with public safety.

This statute which we debate here is an attempt to parallel and incorporate much of what is in that CCRA statute by concept and it deals with the administration of temporary absences. It tightens up on the administrative ability to terminate, cancel and administer them. In other words, addressing public safety.

Does the hon. member not think he has failed in addressing this bill to and acknowledge that the government in this case is updating the Prisons and Reformatories Act to bring it in line with the CCRA, which has as its number one focus protection and safety of the public?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that nobody in the Reform Party ever fails, and he should understand that very clearly first of all.

I think we ought to cut to the chase. The real reason for this bill is to empty the jails because the jails are overflowing. This and previous governments have been completely unable to deal with increase in crime that we see in a number of sectors.

I think it is disingenuous for the government to admit anything else. The lengthening of temporary absence programs is merely sending a message to the criminal population that if they are going to commit the crime there is less chance they will have to do time.

It is high time we all put our minds to developing better solutions which prevent people from running afoul of the law and to ensuring that the 20 per cent of the people who will be repeat offenders will be dealt with in a very forceful manner. For the remainder, the 80 per cent, the temporary absence programs must be based on merit. The temporary absence must be earned, not automatically granted. We must have, first and foremost as our primary motive the protection of society.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-53 which is before us today. I am not pleased to speak to it because it is a substantial piece of legislation or because when the bill passes it will make changes to improve the system. It will not. I am pleased to speak to the bill because it gives me a chance to very clearly point out the difference between the Liberals and their totally ineffective legislation on crime and justice and Reform and our substantial and comprehensive proposals which will make the system better. Our proposals are in line with what Canadians want.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River in asking a question to the previous speaker pointed out that the legislation only deals with sentences which are less than two years in duration and, therefore we are not really dealing with serious offenders. I disagree.

If that member were to ask his female colleagues in the House, he would find that they are not only concerned with being raped and murdered, they are concerned when they take that walk into the parking lot at night that somebody might try to steal their purse or that somebody might give them a violent push. They are concerned that when they are at work their homes might be broken into.

These crimes are not considered to be serious. These crimes violate what I believe is a right of all Canadians, a right to feel safe and to be safe in our streets, in our parking lots and in our homes.

I completely disagree with the member. These are very serious offences which do very serious damage to people not only physically but also psychologically.

We should not make light of this issue just because we are dealing with sentences of under two years. That is a big mistake.

I am going to take a little time to go through Bill C-53. It is an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. It would add a statement of purpose for temporary absence programs and it would authorize the provinces to create additional types of temporary absence programs.

The key issue for Reform is that although the principles relating to temporary absence are similar to those set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, there is one substantial and very serious exception. In the Corrections and Conditional Release Act the protection of society is to be of paramount consideration, whereas in this act that is not the case. In that way this legislation is actually a step backward. That principle is found nowhere in Bill C-53.

Bill C-53 would consider prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration into society as equal to the consideration of the protection of society.

Again, this resulted from years and years of Liberal thinking, the same Liberal thinking that led to the changes in the justice system which took the focus away from the protection of Canadians so they can feel safe in their homes and in their streets. But I will talk more about that later.

Bill C-53 is an extension of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and would expand the scope and number of temporary release programs in Canada. Past experience has demonstrated that temporary absence, especially for violent and serious repeat offenders could jeopardize public safety.

For example, Daniel Gingras was out on a temporary escorted absence when he escaped at the West Edmonton Mall and went on to kill again.

The concept of temporary absence illustrates that there is little truth or honesty in sentencing. Many Canadians feel that this approach is wrong, specifically that criminals owe a debt to society and this debt should be fulfilled in its entirety. They want certainty in sentencing. None of this out on early release with half the sentence or less carried out. Canadians are truly fed up with that and they want a change. This legislation does not offer substantial change.

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

Tell us your views on caning.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

The member for Kingston and the Islands seems obsessed with the issue of caning. He asking me once again to talk about caning. I would much prefer to talk about this piece of legislation, as weak as it is, and to talk about Reform's substantial proposals which I will present later.

The programs of temporary absence are an extension of the status quo correctional philosophy. I believe it is important to talk about that philosophy a bit. First, it says that most criminals commit crimes because they are also victims. How many times have we heard that from the members across on the government side and from the separatists in the House? It is an excuse. I am sure that the people who are committing or thinking about committing a crime think that they will always have this excuse to fall back on. This excuse has found its way into our justice system that most criminals commit crimes because they are victims of crime.

Second, this philosophy states that crime is mostly a product of social conditions and that the most effective remedy is for the state to intervene through programs such as a step up in welfare payments, more money handed to these poor people so they do not become criminals. There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case in Canada in particular. This philosophy is flawed from the start. So of course the legislation which flows from Liberal thinkers would be flawed.

I would like to talk a bit about temporary absences. It is another in a long list of language which is used by people who believe in the Liberal philosophy. It is the language which is preferred by welfare state criminologists, which includes conditional release, mandatory supervision, statutory release, community sentencing, alternative measures and other newer labels which are essentially built on the same theme, the same philosophy. They build on the notion that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation.

As we have heard from speakers from the government and the separatist side, the focus is on rehabilitation of the criminals and the rights of the criminals. This is the philosophy that has driven the change of this government. Because of that we get this type of legislation which really is not going to help one bit when it is passed. Again, it will be passed because the Liberals will vote as they are told to vote.

I would like to talk a bit about something else which should find its way into the philosophy of people who are trying to redesign the justice system. That is the deterrent to crime. We need to focus more on deterring crime.

Reform is sympathetic to opponents of the status quo in corrections and parole who argue that substantial crime savings can be made through deterrence rather than programs of temporary release and that type of thing, the changes that are proposed in this bill for example. Reform is very open and I would say that we support that philosophy.

The answer is not to throw people in jail and throw away the key. In some cases a longer sentence and certainty in sentencing is what we need. But in other cases, we need to look at other options.

There are people sitting on the government side who are not even willing to consider other options. We have to look at every possible option that we can find to deter crime. This is not happening on the government side. But all the options are being talked about and considered, for example, boot camps for young offenders. These are the kinds of things we have to discuss.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

As you can hear, Mr. Speaker, the members across the floor are kind of laughing at this idea of having a stronger deterrents.

I would like to use an illustration I have used before in the House. They obviously have not hear it so I will present it again. I will talk about deterrence to crime and how it works. I will use the example of I believe his name was Bratton. He was hired as head of security for the subway system in New York City.

His philosophy was entirely different from the Liberal philosophy which I have talked a little about. He said that we have to focus on the so-called petty crimes. If we are really tough on petty crime like vandalism and that type of thing, then criminals will not go on to commit the more serious crimes.

He found that his philosophy was absolutely right. Through the application of that philosophy, by getting very tough on so-called petty crime like panhandling and graffiti being painted on walls, the crime rate for the more serious crimes dropped off dramatically.

Mr. Bratton was later hired by the city of New York as chief of police and as chief of police they found the same thing. If you get tough on the so-called petty crime, you are using a strong deterrent to crime. That is what he did and he is very successful as chief of police for New York City. That demonstrates how we can use deterrence to crime effectively. For that reason the subways in New York City are much safer than they were before he came in and started to do his job.

I will talk more about the changes that Reform proposed in this area to fix things up. Part of our job as an opposition party is to critique, both positive and negative criticism. That is part of our job, which we do. Sometimes it is negative criticism which has been earned in many cases. We also offer positive alternatives to what we hear from the government side which I will talk about.

[An hon. member]

Let's hear it.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

I am so encouraged that some of the members over there are expressing their impatience, their eagerness to hear Reform's alternative proposals. I am really pleased to hear that. It pleases me to no end.

What does Reform say? Here are the positive alternatives. First, offenders should serve the full sentence for committing violent crime. Violent offenders should serve full sentences. Reform believes that Canadians' faith in the justice system needs to be restored.

We believe that violent offenders as defined by section 752 of the Criminal Code should serve their full sentences with no eligibility for parole. Our proposal makes punishing crime and protecting law-abiding citizens the top priority in our justice system.

The precise resolutions that were passed by Reformers at our assemblies over the years dealing with this issue are these. This is what Reformers, normal Canadians, have said at the assemblies and these are the resolutions they have supported which give us the policy which we build on here. This is what is in the Reform blue book, our policy book, which by the way was presented to Canadians long before the Liberals ever came out with a red book. There are some substantial differences between our blue book and the Liberal red book. The Reform blue book has our substantial policies in place. It says what we will do when we gain power and it is very clear and comprehensive, which differentiates us substantially from the red book.

The Reform Party supports the requirement that violent offenders serve their full sentence. Some violent offenders and all repeat offenders once released should be under parole supervision for the rest of their lives.

The second resolution dealing directly with this is that the Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives.

If there is any one thing that differentiates Reformers from the Liberals, that is it. We clearly in our policies place as the top priority the protection of Canadian citizens. The Liberals' top priority, which we have heard again and again and too often over these last few days, is the rights of the criminals and rehabilitation of criminals.

I can understand that from the member for Kingston and the Islands. He is going to need the prison vote to get him elected next time. We know there are many prisons around Kingston. I can understand him but the others I cannot forgive. There is no excuse for it. I am sure he will get the prison vote very handily. Reformers sure will not because we believe we have to be serious with criminals.

The second thing which Reform is proposing and is related to this issue is Reform thinks that two convictions for violent crimes or sexual crimes against children is enough to prove that an offender poses a serious danger to society. Therefore we would deem that any person who commits on two separate occasions an offence causing serious personal injury, as defined under section 752 of the Criminal Code, a dangerous offender and subject to an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

Again, this came from Reformers, everyday Canadians, who care enough about this country to make changes which are going to make it a safer place to live. The Reform MPs who are working in this area have taken this policy from assembly and have built substantial policies which will make things better.

The third resolution is Reform believes that the National Parole Board must be accountable to Canadians. We believe this can be achieved by ending patronage appointments. I hear groans across the floor. I am sure some of the Liberals are counting on patronage appointments after the next election. We believe in ending patronage appointments, hiring its members on the basis of merit alone and ensuring that they answer directly to the Solicitor General of Canada. In order to fully restore confidence and reflect new accountability we will rename it the merit release board.

As the name would indicate, a person does not get early release unless they earn it. They have to earn it based on merit. That is important to note.

Reform has proposed many changes to the criminal justice system and some to the Young Offenders Act are substantial changes. It is a comprehensive package that will be tougher on young offenders. It will also look for ways, other than putting them in prison, to deter young offenders who so often offend again and again until they have formed a pattern of crime. We put forth proposals that will deal with this and hopefully end their life of crime early. That is needed.

The member for Fraser Valley West has put forth substantial and very important proposals which would give victims rights under the law. We put forth positive proposals.

I would like to close by repeating that Reformers have clearly distinguished themselves as being completely different from the Liberals. We have put forth changes that Canadians favour. Those changes when implemented-and we will get a chance pretty soon-will truly make Canada a safer place in which to live.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the hon. member indicate how I would need help in the next election in order to get elected in Kingston. I attribute that to my rationale for expressing myself yesterday in my speech on Bill C-45.

I have two questions for the hon. member arising out of his remarks. First of all he said at one point that he did not believe, and neither did any of his colleagues, in the policy of locking them up and throwing away the key, that that was not part of the Reform agenda.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is laughing at that because he knows that is his position. Indeed, it is the position of many members of his party. They have said repeatedly in this House in the course of the debate-and I am surprised that the hon. member who just spoke was not here listening-that they favoured locking them up and throwing away the key. In their view, when life means life, when someone gets sentenced to life imprisonment, they should go to jail for life. If that is not locking someone up and throwing away the key, I do not know what is. That was the proposal I heard from many of the members opposite.

Perhaps the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia could get up later and explain his view on this but I think it was lock them up and throw away the key. Then he said that their policy was not that, that they did not approve of that policy, that that was not any part of it. In the next moment he said on crimes of violence when someone got a sentence they stayed in prison for the full length of the sentence.

If it is a life sentence and someone goes to jail for life-I assume he considers murder a crime of violence-is that not locking people up and throwing away the key? I just wanted to clarify this. Is murder a crime of violence for the purpose of his definition? When someone gets sentenced to life for a crime of violence, do they not then go to jail for life under Reform policy? If that is not the policy, I would like to hear about it. I would like him to clarify that and I am happy to give him that opportunity.

The second matter goes back to a subject that nobody opposite dares talk about any more since the hon. member for Calgary Southeast blew the whistle on the member for Calgary Northeast on caning. There are parts of Calgary in different directions which seem to get very confusing. I have trouble remembering which member came from which district but I think I got it right that time because I checked in the book.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast blew the whistle on extremism in the Reform Party and she got the boot. One of the things she went on about on extremism was caning, which the hon. member for Calgary Northeast said he thought he should have a good look at. He wanted to go to Singapore to learn all about caning.

I am wondering if from the discussions in caucus concerning the problem of caning, which no member on the other side seems to want to talk about, the hon. member for Vegreville could clarify for us what the Reform Party position is in respect of caning. Is that part of the new package of prison and reformatory matters that are dealt with in this bill that Reform will be introducing as amendments later at the committee stage?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to more prison time, what Reform has said is that we must target. For those offenders who pose a serious threat if they are released, in those cases they should not be released. That is what we say. In other words, our top priority is the protection of Canadians.

On the issue of corporal punishment, Reform has no policy on corporal punishment. Some Reform members have views on corporal punishment. My personal view, which is shared by many in my constituency, is that corporal punishment is something we should look at very seriously. We should debate it in this House and across the country and let Canadians tell us whether they want corporal punishment to be a part of our penal system, pure and simple.

Liberals clearly do not understand the idea of listening to Canadians on issues like that, but they will know after the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party in dealing with this topic

seems to continuously deal with particular offences. Of course Reformers want to punish young offenders more.

Let us talk about young offenders. Let us talk about an eight-year old or ten-year old who may be stealing a candy bar in a store. If he or she struggles with the owner and runs away I guess that is a violent offence.

However, the Reformers never mentioned the fraud experts who steal hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars. There is no suggestion that any of those people should be thrown in jail to serve their full term, no suggestion that they are dangerous and maybe should be held in custody for the full term. There is no suggestion that they are dangerous offenders even though what they have done is taken funds from people and caused people to lose their life savings. Some people when they lose their life savings commit suicide.

What is Reform's position on offences such as major frauds in this country?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of fraud and getting serious with that type of crime, I fully agree with the hon. member. Some people tend to think that a so-called white collar crime does not hurt people. Well it does and people are robbed of their life savings. People are hurt in a way that can totally turn their life around for the worst.

I believe the member is a lawyer and would know that this type of crime is serious and should be taken very seriously. That is also the Reform's position on this issue.

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion as there have been consultations among the House leaders. I move:

That, pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, phase II, and specifically to observe how the youth justice system operates in practice, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs (six members: four from the Liberal Party including the chair, one from the Bloc Quebecois and one from the Reform Party), be authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Yellowknife from Sunday, October 6 to Friday, October 11, 1996 in order to hold public hearings, visit sites (young offender facilities and programs), and meet with officials, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prisons And Reformatories Act

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are debating Bill C-53, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.

Canadians who are watching should not be misled that this amendment is in any way going to further the protection of the public. It simply gives more flexibility to the consideration given to prisoners. It would add a statement of purpose and principles to the temporary absence programs. The question arises in the minds of those who are watching: What is a temporary absence program?

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

It is when you escape.