Debates of Nov. 4th, 1998

Criminal Code

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 contains a number of changes that the government has identified as requiring fairly quick action, and we have acted. These changes would have normally been dealt with in the next major Criminal Code omnibus amendments, but the government wanted to deal with them sooner.

The Department of Justice also tracks technical problems with the Criminal Code. It produced a list of other amendments correcting legislative oversights and other minor problems to complete the package. Since this is an omnibus bill there is no common policy theme which connects the changes.

Parliament has the responsibility and the constitutional authority to pass laws on criminal matters, but the application of these laws is under provincial jurisdiction. We must therefore take into consideration what works and does not work, according to the provinces.

We meet regularly with the provinces and we take their expectations into account when we develop strategies in criminal law. Many of the proposed amendments to the law come out of this process. When these changes are considered, we must bear in mind that they arise from requests and proposals by the provinces, which play an important role in the application of criminal law in Canada.

A number of amendments are a direct product of provincial requests. For example, the changes to the gambling provisions originate from Quebec and Ontario. The changes to the child prostitution provisions originate from British Columbia and Alberta. The repeal of the year and a day rule responds to concerns from a number of sources, most recently from Manitoba.

Several provinces also asked to expand the ambit of non-communication orders to prevent persons charged with domestic violence offences from contacting victims or witnesses both before and after their bail hearing. The proposed legislation authorizes the first judge or justice before whom the accused appears to make such orders.

One of the cornerstones of the bill is the repeal of the year and a day rule in section 227 of the Criminal Code. Cases where it will apply are relatively rare but have been increasing in recent years because medical advances make it more likely that victims of assault will survive for extended periods. Forensic advances also make it possible to prove the causation of death in cases involving disease or environmental pollution where it would not have been possible a few years ago. I was pleased to note that members of all sides of the House support this amendment.

Another change which was a priority was the provision linking the new deceptive telemarketing offences proposed by the Minister of Industry in Bill C-20 with the Criminal Code proceeds of crime provisions.

When Bill C-20 was drafted and introduced it was not apparent that this was an important link. Competition Act offences are regulatory criminal law and the competition bureau would not usually consider it necessary to target proceeds from the other offences it enforces such as misleading advertising.

This is not the case with deceptive telemarketing. As we have seen both from our own examination of the problem and recent media coverage, telemarketing fraud and deceptive telemarketing are capable of generating large proceeds. They involve the use of telephone boiler rooms to contact large numbers of victims. Individual losses may be large or small, but if many victims are targeted the overall proceeds are often very large, marking confiscation a major deterrent and an important step toward compensating victims.

The proceeds are so large in some cases that this sort of crime has attracted the attention of more traditional organized crime groups in Canada, making the targeting of proceeds even more important.

Both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry take this matter very seriously. As soon as the need for this link was identified it was included in the bill. The offence of fraud already falls within the proceeds of crime scheme. The inclusion of deceptive telemarketing will help to ensure that criminals cannot hide their own considerable profits from forfeiture and restitution to their victims.

Another organized crime priority for both Quebec and the solicitor general was the exclusion of those convicted of organized crime offences from accelerated parole review. This proved to be a fairly straightforward amendment. It was proceeded with but concerns have been voiced that it does not go far enough.

As proposed, organized crime offenders would be excluded as long as the organized crime element is proven either on conviction or sentence. To go further than this and catch everything at conviction might require the restructuring of the money laundering offence. This would go beyond what is reasonable to attempt to do in an omnibus bill.

The solicitor general and the justice minister were anxious to proceed with this change quickly. The criminal organization offence was added to the Criminal Code less than two years ago by the government. Fairly quick action was needed on this issue before a significant number of cases arose.

Another important organized crime issue is the potential use of rough diamonds produced in Canada as a medium of exchange by organized crime. As members of the House will know, the first ever Canadian diamond mine began production in the Northwest Territories earlier this month. This represents an important and welcome source of economic development for Canada's north, but there are concerns that the high value of rough diamonds will attract thieves and organized crime interests.

For this reason the Minister of Justice wanted to move quickly to expand the Criminal Code offences dealing with precious metals to include valuable minerals other than gold, silver or platinum. This would ensure the law covers rough diamonds and any other gemstones or other similar minerals that might be discovered in Canada in the future.

In the case of international cruise ships, the amendments would allow Canadian registered cruise ships, which fall under Canadian law regardless of where they are, and foreign registered cruise ships in Canadian waters to offer gambling to passengers.

The changes will also allow cruise ships entering Canadian waters to import gambling equipment in their casinos without charge.

This is expected to provide direct benefits to the cruise industry itself and indirect benefits to tourism and other business in the ports where cruise ships call. Canadian registered cruise ships will be competitive while abroad and foreign registered ships will not be deterred from calling on Canadian ports.

The cruise industry is an important and rapidly growing part of regional economies, particularly in the St. Lawrence valley of Quebec and the coastal waters of British Columbia.

I am happy that we have proposed amendments that will address the concerns and interests of these provinces and their populations. I am convinced that the proposed amendments will not lead to a significant increase in overall gambling and will not conflict with provincially regulated gambling.

In Canadian waters, gambling will only be allowed on genuine international cruise ships during actual international cruises. No gambling will be permitted when ships stop over. I want to make this very clear.

The bill also contains a series of sentencing reforms. As with other amendments, the purpose is not to make fundamental changes to sentencing policy but to address certain specific concerns that have arisen with the sentencing reform bill, Bill C-41, which took effect in late 1996.

Bill C-41 created a number of general rules dealing with fines, conditional sentences and other measures. The application of the new general rules to specific provisions of the Criminal Code and other acts have had to be reconciled or adjusted in some cases as we begin to see how the various provisions are being applied by the courts. It is too early to consider any fundamental changes to the sentencing provisions but there are a number of areas that warrant refinement in our opinion.

For example the legislation will clarify the relationship between the new general rules governing fines and other specific punishments in the Criminal Code and other statutes. There has been some question about whether the fine provisions would have priority over punishment rules for specific offences. The proposed amendments will ensure that a specific fine imposed pursuant to a specific offence provision has priority over the general rules. They will also clarify that if there is a minimum jail or prison term, the fine options are not available as an alternative to it. In other words, the offender may be sentenced to a fine in addition to custody but not instead of it.

The most important sentencing changes deal with the enforcement of conditional sentences. They are designed to ensure that the enforcement of conditional sentence orders is effective and that offenders face appropriate consequences for breaches of their conditions. Offenders who breach the conditions of their sentences will no longer get credit for time spent while they were in breach. The running of their sentence will be held in abeyance until a court concludes an inquiry into the breach no matter how long that takes.

In light of the House standing committee's plan to study the whole issue of conditional sentencing as was requested by the Minister of Justice, we believe fundamental changes should not pre-empt its work. Furthermore a number of cases have been dealt with by appeal courts and several are pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. We believe we should allow the supreme court to render its decisions in these cases so that any further changes are predicated upon a solid legal foundation.

This bill consists of changes that will not revolutionize Canada's criminal justice system. They are not for the most part glamorous and they will not generate newspaper headlines, but they are important. They are important to the police community which seeks powers to target proceeds of crime. They are important to victims who are intimidated by assailants even when they are in custody. And they are important to our prosecutors and our courts that are charged with the weighty task of ensuring justice is both done and seen to be done on a daily basis.

I therefore ask that all members join the Minister of Justice, this government and me in supporting these amendments.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been some discussions and that there would be unanimous consent for me to share my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would ask for that unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the hon. members share the time as indicated?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will cover a few fundamental flaws in Bill C-51.

I listened to the eloquent remarks of the parliamentary secretary. If the millions of people who make up the vast audience watching the parliamentary channel were to listen to her, they might think it sounds pretty good, that we should get this in really quick. The parliamentary secretary said that it is important to police, victims, prosecutors and the courts. In Reform's opinion a lot of changes could have been made in this bill that really would have made it important to police, victims, prosecutors and the courts, especially to victims and the Canadian public.

The Reform Party has raised a lot of concerns. We raised them during second reading when we had a good full debate in the House. We raised them in committee and had full discussion on some of our concerns about this bill. We also put amendments in committee which the government did not consider.

The minister had a great opportunity in this legislation to make a clear statement to criminals that the country has had enough with this cat and mouse game. Instead the minister continues the course of inaction in getting tough and sending a message that Canadians have had enough of weak sentences, conditional release for violent offenders, child prostitution and those living off the avails of child prostitution, and organized crime figures spending so little of their sentences in prison for major drug offences and other very violent crimes.

Let me say a few words about the subject of conditional release. I read a litany of concerns expressed by judges and others in the judicial system during my speech at second reading. It obviously was not enough proof for the minister that conditional release is not meeting the expectations of the judges or the public.

We could debate this bill for months just reading the comments made by judges on conditional sentencing. Judges ask why parliament did not put right in the bill originally exactly what they wanted with conditional releases. That is what the Reform Party tried to do in committee. We tried to make it so Canadians and judges would understand what conditional sentencing meant.

The parliamentary secretary tells us there are cases before the supreme court right now and that the government wants to hear what it says before looking at conditional sentencing again. I say to the parliamentary secretary and the minister, is it not time this House of Commons started making the laws and not wait for judges who are appointed by the government to make the laws? It is our job to look at legislation and to look at how it is working.

We believe, as do many Canadians, that the issue is very simple. Conditional sentencing should not be used in the case of a violent offence. Yet it is happening more and more.

By simply amending section 742(1) of the Criminal Code to exempt convictions for serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the code could prevent such travesties as the one involving two gentlemen—and I use that term very loosely—who raped and tortured a Montreal woman last year. Thanks to conditional sentencing they were let out, free to do it again. Is there no sense of compassion with this government or just plain common sense?

I do not know one member of this House who in looking at that case would think that it was ever meant for two men convicted of rape, not only rape but a violent rape. Yet a judge in her wisdom—and I really question that and hope that when this gets through the supreme court we will see some major changes in that—let this happen.

One of the main reasons we will vote against this bill is because the government refuses to look at conditional sentencing. It continues to let this type of sentence take place for violent rape offences and violent murders. It is unfortunate that this government is just not listening.

Being the official opposition, we could be accused of being political in trying to find a weakness in the government. Heaven knows, we would not do that.

Let me just say what a judge said because we all know judges are not political. They may have been at one time but they are not political in their jobs and we all know that. As one judge put it, “conditional sentencing for these types of heinous crimes undermines respect for the law”. That is what the Reform Party is talking about, the undermining of respect for the law.

People who commit these kinds of violent crimes are allowed to get out on a conditional sentence, serving no time in jail, with no training to put them back into society so they will not do these things again. That is why the judge said it undermined respect for the law. That is why we put these amendments in committee, why we are debating this bill in the House of Commons right now and why we will vote against this legislation.

I have quote from another judge who said “Some judges fall on the other side and have been applying conditional sentences far beyond what parliament had originally intended”. We made it easy for them to try to interpret something the way they wanted to hear it. Judges have asked publicly “Why do members of parliament not vote in the legislation and tell us what they want and what is meant by conditional sentencing?”

That is what we tried to get this minister to do at committee. We tried at second reading and we are trying again at third reading. I am hoping there are enough people out there listening and paying attention, enough police officers, prosecutors and victims looking at this and they will write the Minister of Justice and tell her that this bill should not pass without something being done about conditional sentencing.

Let us look at some surveys. The government does surveys. The opposition does surveys. Survey after survey of police officers, lawyers, probation officers and corrections staff indicate that over 90% of the experts in the business felt that sentences imposed by the courts were not respected. Upwards of 69% of this same group felt that the amount of time served should be the same as the sentence imposed. That is a shocking thing.

When somebody has committed a very serious crime and is sentenced to 20 years in jail, the public thinks he will serve 20 years with a little time off for good behaviour. In this country the judge can give them a conditional sentence. They can serve no time in jail at all. That is wrong.

The message the government is sending in Bill C-51 is that a life of crime pays, and the public remain the victims of the cruel hoax that Canada has a system of justice that respects them and not the criminal. Right now the average person out there in the public believes that the system respects the criminal and not the victim. Members on the other side know that. They know about the motion on victims by our House leader and which was worked on very hard by the deputy justice critic from Surrey North. It was put forward in the committee this week. This party is concerned about victims. This bill does very little for victims.

On another note, the Reform Party feels strongly that traffickers and importers of drugs spend at least two-thirds of their sentence behind bars. These people in most cases are members of organized crime and are a blight on society.

There must be a message sent to organized crime. If we could have it our way, we would like the entire section on accelerated parole repealed. Organized crime figures are serious criminals by the Criminal Code's own definition. Why does the government continue to deal with them as if they are petty criminals?

Automatic parole for these types of criminals is abhorrent no matter what the standard. They are not rehabilitated after one-sixth of the sentence. The government is going to go to one-third, but I guess it is the best we can expect from this government.

Think about people who are involved in organized crime. Organized crime by definition means being part of an organization of more than a certain number of people, and those people have made a decision in their way of life to become involved in crime. Crime is their business.

If someone launders a couple of million dollars and gets six years in jail and after two we let him go, is that anything that will stop a lot of people from getting into organized crime and a life of crime? If they know they will spend two-thirds of the sentence in jail no matter how good they are when they get there, they might think twice about getting involved in a life of organized crime.

Bill C-51 deals with the issue of child prostitution. The Criminal Code now provides a minimum of five years for anyone who uses violence or intimidation to get or keep a minor in prostitution. The Reform Party feels that anyone who lives off a minor should receive a minimum one year sentence, and I and the public look at that and think one year is not even enough. Number one, they will not serve a year and number two, they are not getting any time at all on a first offence. The government does not share our view but in fact it seems not too harsh to us at all.

I ask members of this House to look at child prostitution, what this government is saying and what we have asked for. It is very much a minimum.

Just about every member in this House has children. If one of their children was to be lured into child prostitution or lured into the drug areas they would be incensed.

I am sure a lot of members have constituents who have children who have been drawn into the field of child prostitution. How many street children have we in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver?

In this bill we tried to make some changes. We could not get the amendments before the committee. The minister said she was aware that it was a problem and she would like the committee to look at it a little further.

Is it not time we told the courts, from the bottom right up to the supreme court, that anybody who messes with our children, who starts to peddle drugs to them or who tries to lure them into prostitution is going to get minimum sentences?

The sentence for prostitution might be one year, but the sentence for drugs has to be heavier. There cannot be any early parole to return these people to the streets. That is not radical. That is what the average Canadian thinks.

It is becoming a bigger and bigger issue in our country. I know that in Vancouver and Toronto drugs are a very serious problem. We do not find that in the polls with taxes, income and health care. That is a day to day thing at home and not something we tell the pollsters when they call. We may not want to talk about the fact that our children are involved in drugs.

It is a shock to many parents. I know this from talking with people in my own constituency who have had the unfortunate situation happen where their children were involved with drugs.

The expense to our country, the expense of getting these people off drugs and back to a normal life, is minute in comparison to what it would cost to keep that person in jail who tried to lure a child into drugs or prostitution in this country.

The Reform Party would have liked the government to send a message to those parasites who live off juvenile prostitutes. Society abhors their behaviour. We have to start somewhere.

On the one hand the government allows the police to use wiretaps to deal with the problem. The government then allows a judge to give the criminal a slap on the wrist for his bad behaviour. This is not good enough. Give on one hand; take away with the other. This is feel good legislation for the Liberals, but it is not taking the problem seriously enough.

We have talked as much as we can on this side of the House on these areas. We hope that the government listens once in a while, looks at this issue and realizes that it has to speed up.

We will have to take the minister at her word. She has said that the issue of conditional sentencing with respect to child prostitution will go back to the committee for consideration. The sooner the minister gets it there the sooner it will be dealt with.

This is a serious problem in our country. It is not a partisan political problem. It is something that members from all sides of this House want to get to work on. I think it is time we told the lawyers working in the justice department and the judges that it is the people in this House who make the laws. We are going to bring in some tough laws to solve the drug problems and the child prostitution problems in this country because they are going to affect more and more people and it will not be very pleasant.

The other side of the child prostitution sector is the government's lack of interest in dealing with johns. Bill C-51 does indicate something about this by making the communication with anyone for the purpose of obtaining an under-age prostitute an offence. This may help police to catch a few johns, but they will probably only get a slap on the wrist.

The Reform Party attempted through amendment in committee to impose a minimum penalty for johns of 30 days for a first offence and 90 days for a subsequent offence. We believe this would reduce the demand for prostitutes as it would not be possible to get a discharge or a conditional sentence or otherwise avoid jail time as one can now. It would have sent a message to these perverted people that society is getting fed up with their behaviour. Again our amendment fell on deaf ears.

Until we get serious with these issues they are not going to go away.

We ask the government to seriously think about what it is doing in these areas.

In summation, Bill C-51 was a golden opportunity to begin a process of equity and fairness in sentencing to deal with organized crime figures who live off million dollar drug deals and to deal with child prostitution and those who prey on those individuals. Instead, the government continues in an inch deep and a mile wide manner of tackling crime in Canada. By the very nature of this omnibus bill we are reminded that this government likes to wait around before it moves on specific problems and then it deals with them by omnibus legislation because it hopes no one will notice or no one will care.

We are going to vote against this bill on those three issues. Other members of my party, including the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, will talk about other reasons and perhaps the same ones I am talking about.

This is serious legislation. It deals with some of the major issues of our young people in Canada today. I hope that Liberal members on the other side are paying attention and that they will convince their minister that she should speed up the process. The government is going to push this bill through even if it has to bring in closure, which will not be the first time in this parliament.

We are going to do what we can to let the Canadian public know that this bill is not good for Canadians. We hope they will get their messages to this Liberal minister so there can be some changes made.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our justice critic, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, for sharing his time and other members for allowing me to speak to this bill.

Ray Canuel, the chief of the Vancouver city police, once said that the justice system is not working, that the Canadian public does not think it is working and that we need to fix it and we need to fix it now.

Bill C-51 was an ideal opportunity to do just that. Instead what see is another effort to nibble around the edges of serious problems, problems that range from child prostitution, as my colleague has mentioned, to issues relating to sentencing. The opportunity existed and, once again, the government let it slip through its fingers.

I will go through a number of points to provide some constructive solutions that have been around for a long time, solutions that the government would be wise to adopt as they are solutions that have been adopted and pushed forth by members from Surrey North to Moncton and members from all political parties. The government would find widespread agreement if it was to take these constructive solutions and adopt them tomorrow.

We have to look at crime in the context of resources. We have a certain amount of money. The money is limited and the demands on that money are rather extreme.

These are some examples of resources not being available to fit the demand. Many criminals, as my colleague mentioned, are being let out of jail early. Criminals have been sentenced but are not doing any time. The RCMP had to close down its training facility. The public is not served well by this.

If justice is going to serve the public well we have to implement cost effective programs. Perhaps the first thing that we can do is address the issue of crime prevention. Nowhere in this bill is that mentioned, yet the statistics and the data conclusively demonstrate that crime prevention is not only effective if done well, it is also cost effective. For every dollar that is invested there is a $7 saving.

In our country today the cost of crime is roughly $46 billion, yet we spend a little over $15 million on crime prevention each year. Contrast that with countries like Belgium, which spends $130 million on crime prevention, and Great Britain, which spends a few million dollars and the result has been a 35% drop in crime.

The cost to incarcerate a young offender is between $80,000 and $90,000. The cost for an adult can be anywhere from $50,000 to $70,000 per year. Experiments from Ypsilanti, Michigan to the Hawaii head start program to the Moncton head start program have shown that one dollar invested saves $7 per person.

We can no longer afford to give mere lip service to this issue. We must act.

We could take the best of the three programs. If we took the best of the program in Moncton, the best of the program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is the prairie preschool program, and the best of the Hawaii head start program, in front of us would lie a plan.

Then we could bring together the medical community. All women have to go through the medical system before they give birth. We could use the nurses and the physicians to identify families at risk. If we did that we could address important things such as fetal alcohol syndrome which is the single leading cause of preventable birth defects in this country.

If we look at those who are prison, there is an extraordinarily high number of individuals in jails who have been dehabilitated by fetal alcohol syndrome. This irreversibly damages a person's brain. They do not have the ability to integrate, learn and communicate with other people. It impairs their ability to act in an integrated way with society. It causes extreme frustration for children and can manifest later on in criminal behaviour, conduct disorders or worse. It is preventable, but we have to start at time zero. Head start provides that.

The Hawaiian head start program used trained volunteers. This is important because we could use women who have had their children, who are responsible parents and who can provide their expertise. It is an extremely important way in which a community could build ties. They could use this pool of experienced individuals to support people who need help.

What was the outcome of the Hawaii program? There was a 99% reduction in child abuse rates because of the trained volunteers who worked with families at risk. There is no other program that I am aware of which provided this extraordinary benefit to children and families.

The emphasis is on working with parents. The emphasis is on teaching parents the basics of appropriate discipline, setting boundaries, proper nutrition, love, care and compassion, the effects of abuse on children and how to prevent that within the context of the family. These may seem very basic and simple, but they are essential if children are to be psychologically stable children, adolescents and eventually productive adults in our society.

The Moncton program started with children early on. The key was that it used parents in conjunction with the school. The bottom line was that it turned parents who were having difficulties into good parents.

The outcome was extraordinary. It has been shown that there was roughly a $30,000 saving for every child. These programs showed a 50% reduction in teen pregancies. There was a 60% reduction in criminal behaviour and incarceration.

Not only do these programs make sense economically, they make sense from a humanitarian perspective and they have been proven to work.

The cost of justice in our country today is roughly $46 billion per year. The amount we spend on crime prevention is approximately $15 million. We need a national program. We need to use it within the context of the resources that we have today.

The Minister of Justice can take a leadership role. She can work with her counterparts in human resources development and in health to convene a meeting as soon as possible in Ottawa with her provincial counterparts. They could determine and assess what works in the provinces. They could keep what works and remove what does not. They could take poorly used resources and put them into something that works. If we use the existing resources of the medical community, trained volunteers, and a similar program to the Moncton head start program we would save this country millions of dollars.

More important, it would save a lot of people's lives both in victims and in potential perpetrators. The stats are there. The facts are there. The government needs to show the leadership to do this.

In May I had a private member's bill calling for a national head start program that was adopted by the House. This program, based on work done by members across party lines and the National Crime Prevention Council which was brought to bear as a result of an edict from the House in 1994, shows very clearly that the House will support a national head start program using existing resources.

We just need the political will from the ministers to do this. I know the ministers will find support from across party lines to do this. Alone we managed to get four provinces on side to support the national head start program. All the minister has to do is call together the rest of them and half the work is already done for her. She can do it.

If there is one legacy that the government can leave that is positive right now it is to enact this program for the future of our country, in particular for the future of the children of today and tomorrow.

I will deal with some issues that have not perhaps been dealt with. We are talking about drugs. Again, this bill could have dealt with the issue of drugs. There are some important projects that have been done that can effectively reduce the serious drug problems we have. In Vancouver we have hundreds of people overdosing and dying every year as a result of the drug problem. Children are taking drugs.

We can look at existing programs that have worked. Let us look at the Geneva experiment. After the needle experiment that failed in Geneva in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it rethought what it could do. The Geneva experiment basically legalized drugs. It was an abysmal failure but now it has taken hard drugs, particularly narcotics such as heroine, and given hard core addicts a dosage of heroine a certain number of times every day at set times. The quid pro quo on this is that individual has to come in and participate in drug rehabilitation programs, skills training. The outcome has been remarkable.

There has been a 50% reduction in hard core drug abusers who have been off drugs for at least a year. This is a recent program and so therefore we do not have much beyond that to look at. The preliminary results are encouraging. No other program in the world has worked so effectively to reduce drug abuse among hard core drug addicts.

The savings were also remarkable because there was at least a 65% reduction in crime rates among this population of individuals. Imagine if the minister were to speak to her counterparts in British Columbia and other provinces to at least adopt this in a trial program in Canada. We know what we are doing now does not work.

On the other side of the coin with respect to those people who are pushing drugs, we need to have heavier penalties. Right now, as my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast mentioned, individuals are serving a third or a sixth of their sentence and being paroled. That demonstrates to criminals that there is little or no penalty at all.

My colleague from Surrey North has worked long and hard on this and many other issues of justice. He needs to be listened to by members opposite because he has spoken so eloquently and from a great deal of personal experience.

We need to look at projects that have worked. We do not need to reinvent the wheel but we need to look at projects that have worked, to adopt them at least on pilot projects here at home and look at the international experience on these. With respect to pushing and trafficking, these issues have to be dealt with with the full force of the law.

We also want to address the issue of child prostitution. The government has an opportunity to hit those people for abusing children in one of the most egregious fashions possible. This is not child prostitution. This is rape and pedophelia, pure and simple.

These individuals need to be hit with the full force of the law and this does not mean getting off with a third of their sentence. This means being sentenced hard and being sentenced with the full force of the law. Programs need to be put in place to help child prostitutes get out of that situation and move into a life where they are not subjected to abuse that we cannot possibly imagine.

On the issue of restorative justice and shaming procedures, members across the way and in this party have articulated experiments that have been done in some pilot projects across the country. This can be applied to take the financial and economic load off our justice system in a very important way. It can provide for effective penalties that have proven in certain non-violent populations, in particular for juveniles to ensure that they will not engage in recidivistic behaviour. They would benefit as, most important, the victims would benefit by getting some retribution for the crimes that have been meted out to them.

As the Vancouver city police chief mentioned in his speech, the victims do not find they are being supported by the system because the justice system, largely because of financial reasons, is unable to mete out the penalties that are required for individuals who are committing atrocious crime.

In effect what we are often doing is lumping the violent with the non-violent, the inveterate criminal with the first time offender all into the same bunch. Many are being tossed out together with little retribution as part of the justice system.

We need to divide up these two populations as and make sure those people who are the inveterate criminals, the violent offenders, the rapists, the murderers and the child abusers, are put behind bars and will receive the full force of the law and of course engage in the appropriate rehabilitation.

Those people who are non-violent or first time offenders, juveniles in particular, can engage in issues such as restorative justice which in British Columbia, for example, has proven to be highly effective not only by keeping people out of jail but, most important, by decreasing the recidivism rate and ensuring that victims receive some retribution for the crimes that have been meted out to them.

On the issue of victims rights the government had another opportunity to pursue and adopt solutions that the Reform Party has been pushing for for a long time, to make sure victims have an important role to play in the justice system. Right now, although victims represent half the situation in crimes, they play a very small role in what happens.

It is a slap in the face to those who have been violated, sometimes in horrendous ways, that they are second class citizens within our justice system. They are not treated as the important persons they should be within the justice system which should first be seeking to protect them, provide retribution to them, provide restoration to them and provide help to them.

There are many cases where the perpetrator has been convicted and receives all kinds of help. Yet the victims are left dangling in the breeze to fend for themselves. What a sad situation if one knows those individuals or those families and the pain and suffering they have to endure.

There is much that can be done within our justice system. There is little that has been done with respect to Bill C-51. Instead of dealing with issues such as whether we should remove the prohibition on dice and gambling on cruise ships, whether we can use wiretaps in the case of certain crimes and whether we remove sentencing from one sixth to one third of a sentence, the justice system and the members responsible on the other side should have used existing solutions and adopted them.

We in the House have a responsibility to the people who elected us. We have a responsibility not to nibble around the edges of problems but to take those problems in both hands and find the best solutions we can, the most pragmatic solutions, solutions that have worked not only in Canada but around the world, solutions that are cost effective and do the job and adopt those solutions here if only in pilot projects. Why wait to dot the i s and cross the t s? Why not implement those programs in Canada? Then we can see whether they will work.

We must have the courage to act. The continued failure of the House to act in a courageous manner, to deal with these problems in a substantive way rather than in a superficial way is one of the failings we as members from across party lines have seen over the last five years.

This is not rocket science. We can do it. We can improve the justice system. We can effect important constructive solutions to make the streets safer for all Canadians now and in the future. Above all, we can adopt programs to prevent crime.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent for me to ask a short question of the member.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not concur with the hon. member's request, not because I am opposed to questions, but because the debate had already begun, the rules for had been laid down and there was not to have been any question period.

I am pleased to again speak to Bill C-51. As my colleagues have had the opportunity to examine this omnibus bill in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I will devote the time allocated to me to raising certain aspects covered by the bill.

First of all, I would like to take a few moments to make a progress report on the work in committee.

In his speech at second reading, my Bloc Quebecois colleague from Berthier—Montcalm placed heavy emphasis on the importance of committee work. He indicated that, when analysing an omnibus bill, parliamentary institutions needed to be efficient.

Too often, committees fall victim to obstruction by the party in power. I have some knowledge of this, for I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We are aware that the government and the Liberal MPs sitting on this committee do not want us, first of all, to address the impact of the Employment Insurance Act. In fact, the opposition parties have formed a strong coalition calling for an emergency debate on the impact of the Employment Insurance Act.

Along with my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, I deplore the fact that there is systematic obstruction by the Liberal MPs who sit on the committee. When an omnibus bill is what is being studied, a bill as complex and detailed as this one, one may well wonder about the quality of work that is going into it.

I described this omnibus bill as a tutti frutti bill when I spoke on it for the first time. It contains a number of amendments to the Criminal Code. It is a bill that goes in a number of different directions and affects a number of different aspects of the Criminal Code.

Nevertheless, the sessions of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-51 went off very well, according to what my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm says. Despite the committee members' rejection of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois—I will return to this point later—we did enjoy some healthy discussions on the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice.

The Liberal MPs must not have any illusions, however. As I have said, committee work is too often obstructed. We ought to reflect upon the necessity of calling meetings when the dice are inevitably loaded in advance, when there are foregone conclusions. Consensus in committee is a rarity.

There are discussions, of course, but the outcome is known in advance. The government rarely makes use of the recommendations made by the various parties, particularly when the opposition parties have reached a consensus.

It is very rare for the party in power to adopt suggested directions, although these would often be beneficial to the entire population.

The members of the opposition have to roll up their sleeves and jump back into the fray. I believe one has to have a hard head when one really believes in an amendment like the one we would like to see in this omnibus bill. One has to be determined.

It is not always easy to get across to the Liberal government that it is not on the right track. We are very much aware of the example the Prime Minister gives to his troops by his arrogant attitude and his refusal to ever go back on what he has said, even if it is something incomprehensible, as it often is, and not in the public interest.

I believe the Prime Minister often sets a poor example for his troops, and does not show them frankly and honestly how to carry on debate.

It is not always easy to get this government to listen to reason, this government we would describe as arrogant. One has to keep at it, sometimes even drawing a picture when that is what is needed.

This is the spirit in which the Bloc Quebecois has carried out the mandate entrusted to it by Quebeckers since it was first elected in 1993. We have confronted the House of Commons head on, in order to defend the interests of Quebeckers. We worked exceedingly hard to move the heavy Liberal machine, which, as we say in Quebec, is too often asleep at the switch.

Propelled by this desire to change things, very early, along with the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and other members from the Quebec City area, we started a crusade to enable cruise ships to operate their casinos on the St. Lawrence.

It may seem banal, but this amendment will have a significant economic impact for the Quebec City area, as I will explain during the course of my speech.

The cruise industry represents several million dollars to our region. In fact, on average, tourists each spend about $110 per visit. Given that each ship has between 1,000 and 1,500 passengers, it is not hard to imagine that a significant increase in the number of calls by these ships in our ports will have a strong economic impact on our communities.

However, this increase will not be possible unless the needs of the passengers on these ships are taken into account. At the moment, many of these tourists enjoy casino cruises, and casinos are increasingly popular with people on cruises. In an effort to respond to the demand, ship owners provide casinos for their clients.

Up to now, Canadian law limited the expansion of the Quebec tourist industry that depended directly on the influx of cruise ships. Since the Criminal Code prohibited the operation of casinos from Anticosti Island on, a number of carriers did not call in Quebec City.

The legislation provided that the casinos had to be closed at Anticosti Island and before the port of Quebec City. This meant two or three days where the casinos were closed on the cruise ships. So their stay was considerably reduced in order to not upset passengers. The situation does not occur in international waters, because access to ports is direct.

The effect of this prohibition was to slow down the economic growth of the Quebec City region, a slowdown it did not need. Because of the Criminal Code provisions, the number of ships that stop over in Quebec City every year has dropped by about 25. This creates an economic shortfall of several millions of dollars.

It is for this reason that the members in the Quebec City region and the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans have been waging such a battle on this important issue of being able to operate casinos on cruise ships. It represents $2.5 million in lost tourism dollars every year in the Quebec City region. This is why the industry has been after the government for so long to amend the legislation.

The member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans introduced a bill in 1997 to remedy the situation. All the members for the Quebec City region supported his efforts, of course.

Faced with the government's apathy and its refusal to take action, the member introduced his bill again in 1998, hoping to bring about changes for the economic benefit of the Quebec City region. After much pressure from the industry and from Bloc Quebecois members, the government finally woke up—it did not have much choice—and realized, after many years of listening to our arguments, that the situation could not go on and that something must be done. It had no choice but to act or look like it was dragging its heels.

That is why we have been hounding the government since we were elected in 1993, and we know that industry representatives have been doing the same for ten long years. The government had no choice but to introduce this amendment authorizing casinos on cruise ships sailing on the St. Lawrence River.

Although the government has finally decided to take action, it must not be forgotten that its lethargy has cost the Quebec City region dearly. Too many years went by before the Liberal machinery finally decided to do something. Today, we applaud this legislative change allowing gambling on international cruise ships.

There are many other areas where the federal government's lethargy is having a detrimental effect. Gambling on cruise ships is but one example, and consideration of Bill C-51 has helped us identify more examples of this government's lack of political resolve.

In introducing her bill, the justice minister was proud to announce she was out to control the activities of organized crime. And then she proceeded to introduce a change to the accelerated parole review process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

First of all, let us make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois has for some time been condemning the absurdity of the accelerated review process. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, repeatedly questioned the Minister of Justice, asking her whether she thinks it is right for a major drug dealer like Joseph Lagana, who laundered nearly $47 million, to get paroled after serving only one sixth of his sentence.

The Bloc Quebecois did not simply question the justice minister on this issue, it also proposed solutions. Indeed, my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, presented a bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to deny high-profile drug dealers access to an accelerated parole review. The amendments proposed by the hon. member not only addressed organized crime, as the minister proposes in her bill, they also went beyond that to encompass conspiracy and money laundering.

The solutions of the hon. member for Charlesbourg were even submitted to the justice committee as an amendment to Bill C-51. We know what happened; the Liberal majority rallied around the minister and refused to pass them. This refusal is typical of the Liberal government's lack of courage as far as money laundering is concerned. If the minister really wanted to deal with this dangerous problem, she would follow up on the Bloc Quebecois proposals.

Among the recommendations were the withdrawal of the $1,000 bill. In our opinion, this is an extremely sensible proposal. What we are asking of the government is very simple: not to issue any more $1,000 bills. That would have a direct effect on money laundering.

Obviously, it will take this government a few years to understand, just as in the case of amendment for the cruise ships, that Canada is a money laundering centre. It will take the government even longer to realize that having $1,000 bills in circulation helps the cause of money laundering.

The Liberal government cannot be pushed. It prefers a step by step approach. It does not appreciate our telling it what to do, even when what is needed is obvious.

The government, which we consider arrogant, wants to seem to be taking initiatives, although we have long been proposing solutions. Despite this strange situation, the Bloc Quebecois has not given up. We will continue to ride this government to get it to act rather than remain complacent.

We have introduced private members' bills to get things moving.

I know something about this because I myself introduced two private member's bills. Both were rejected by the Minister of Justice, even after I had devoted a great deal of effort to raising awareness among stakeholders. There was a great deal of support for my bills, and several members here in the House were behind me.

Faced with this situation, the Liberal government had no choice but to proceed, but it took all the credit. It turned it into a government bill and made us wait two years for the amendments to the Criminal Code, instead of giving credit to members who have the public's interests at heart. One amendment involved sex tourism; it would have made it an offence to engage in sex with children in another country. The other had to do with genital mutilation of African girls who are now Canadian citizens.

I worked very hard on these two bills and they were rejected by the then Minister of Justice.

After much pressure from stakeholders and from members, the Liberal government finally caved in and agreed to amend the Criminal Code, because it had no choice.

We are not about to give up. After a careful review of a situation, we do everything we can to bring about the amendment of legislation that is outdated or contrary to the public's interests.

The Bloc Quebecois has the interests of Quebeckers at heart.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. I have many remarks, some of which will echo comments already made by other parliamentarians here today.

I will start by saying for those who are listening to this debate or who are reading Hansard that this is an omnibus bill. That means this bill is a catch all, as has been commented on by other members in the House. The bill affects not just the Criminal Code but other statutes as well. It is a fairly large omnibus bill. Like all complex and large pieces of legislation, there are some good things in it and there are some things that cause me some concern. The government has gone some way to deal with crime issues in this bill but perhaps not far enough on others.

It is to me no coincidence that this bill comes before the House today at this particular hour. I was just speaking with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who comes from the same province as I come from. He is a member of the Conservative Party. He and I sit on the justice committee.

Yesterday this bill was not on the Order Paper but it is today. Ironically at this very hour the Minister of Justice is appearing before the justice committee to deal with the extradition bill and to answer questions from members of the justice committee who might have questions for her. I certainly have many questions but of course it is difficult to be in both places at the same time. Is it a coincidence that this bill comes before the House today so that I cannot question the minister? I do not know.

I will move on to talk about some of the aspects of the bill. I do not want to be hard on the Minister of Justice.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

There is no conspiracy, Peter.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I am told there is no conspiracy. I am told that by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I agree with her because I am sure she would like to be at the justice committee today as well.

Let me talk about some of the good things in this legislation, and there are some good things. One is the year and a day rule that is changed in the Criminal Code.

The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice has talked about the history of this aspect of the legislation. It is an old anachronistic piece of legislation. It is time that it was changed. I think we in all parties can agree that the Minister of Justice by amending the Criminal Code to get rid of this section has done a good thing.

There are some other good things. Toughening the laws that deal with those who abuse children in the form of child prostitution is a good move. I have had many conversations with colleagues in my party from Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax who see the growing trade in child prostitution. We recognize that this has to be dealt with by tough measures in the Criminal Code. I think the bill, by amending those sections that deal with prostitution, goes some way to deal with that.

On the issue of telemarketing fraud, as technology invades all our lives, changes the way we work and changes the way we do business, it also unfortunately creates one of the enhanced opportunities which technology creates, the opportunity to commit crime in different ways. Telemarketing fraud is one of those ways.

Telemarketing scams are widespread. They cost North Americans billions of dollars yearly and do not know any borders. It is important that the changes cracking down on telemarketing fraud are a first step in dealing with that kind of crime.

Particularly susceptible to that crime are seniors and people who perhaps are not as sophisticated with the whole telemarketing system as younger people who have grown up with the technology. It is important that the government recognizes the people who are vulnerable and deals with that appropriately. I think the bill does that. I am somewhat congratulatory to the minister for dealing with that.

The counterfeiting proposal has been addressed by other members today. That too is a good measure. Money laundering is a serious problem. Last year I was contacted by a radio station in Montreal that wanted to know my opinion on the fact that Canada was named as a nation of primary concern by the United States because we were a source of money laundering. It is not something that makes Canadians proud. The government has taken some initiative to end money laundering and to deal with counterfeiting.

The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke before me referred to her colleague from Charlevoix. The taking out of circulation $1,000 bills is a good suggestion. I do not know why the government would not accept it. It is something that could go some way toward stopping money laundering. Unfortunately the government has not accepted it. It could have improved the legislation somewhat if it had done so.

The bill also deals with conditional sentencing. Conditional sentencing is a section in the sentencing provisions. It is an opportunity to deal in a particular way with those who commit crime. It ought not to be abused. When it is abused it harms all those who might take advantage of the program.

The government has made some necessary changes to the conditional sentencing provisions so that when an offender is alleged to have breached or violated his or her conditional sentence and is arrested, the conditional sentence will now be stopped from the time of the offender's arrest until the conclusion of the court hearing. That is a progressive move by the government.

There is, however, the downside of the bill. There are some things in this omnibus legislation that cause me concern. One of them that we have to balance—and I am not saying it is entirely wrong—is the section that amends the Criminal Code to allow for a non-contact clause at bail hearings.

Many people may know but some may not know what that means. At the time of arrest there is a delay between the time of arrest and the time the bail hearing is held to determine whether or not an offender is permitted to be released or whether he or she ought to be incarcerated.

At the time of the bail hearing the judge can impose all kinds of conditions. One may be that the offender have no contact with certain individuals. That is a necessary protection because with some offenders there may be a concern that they will threaten other witnesses or that they will interfere with the administration of justice.

In changing the legislation the government is saying that at the time of arrest before the bail hearing a non-contact clause can be imposed. The good side of that is that if the judge has concerns about witnesses being interfered with or the administration of justice being interfered with it gives the judge an opportunity to prevent that. On the other hand, if there is a presumption of innocence we have to ask very real questions about a judge being able to impose a non-contact clause.

There is also a particular area that causes me concern, that is the family law area. Although this is a Criminal Code change it spills over into the family law. In many cases when there are allegations of domestic violence or allegations of any kind of crime being committed, this will allow the judge to impose a non-contact clause which may interfere with family court orders that are currently in existence involving access to children, custody or whatever. It is one in which we have to find a balance. There are some good points to be made in favour of it but there are also some concerns.

The final item is the gaming provisions that have been addressed by other members who have spoken today. They cause me particular concern. I have to ask why gaming provisions, provisions that deal with people having the right to gamble on international cruise ships, have been lumped in with very serious changes to the Criminal Code. We are dealing with child prostitution, money laundering and conditional sentencing. Somewhere in between all these important changes are sections that deal with international cruise ships and the right to gamble.

It was my suggestion that those sections ought to be taken out of this omnibus bill and introduced on their own merit. The debate concerning those is different than the debate concerning amendments to the Criminal Code and the criminal element. Had the government done that, there may have been all party support for some of the very necessary changes to the Criminal Code to make our communities safe. The failure of the government to do that makes me wonder if there is not some sleight of hand here.

I have real concerns about the cruise ship provisions. The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke prior to me is in favour of them, at least I took that from her speech. I should put before the House, just to illustrate what we are dealing with, that I come from a community where casinos were just introduced. That has resulted in a large casino in the downtown core that has siphoned off business from many local small businesses on the main street: the local restaurants, bars and entertainment venues. Many of those businesses have lost their revenue to the casino. The casino has hired many people. Some of those who were displaced in one section have found jobs in the other.

The legislation will allow tourists on cruise ships to gamble when they are in Canadian waters. This will have a direct impact on the community I represent. Tourism is being touted by many, especially on the government side, as the saviour of the economy of Cape Breton. We have managed to attract a large cruise ship industry. It has done some economic good. Many people on cruise ships come to the main street to buy souvenirs. They take part in activities, attend museums and purchase goods. They go to the restaurants. However there is only so much money to go around.

I have a real concern that by encouraging cruise ships to allow gambling when they are in Canadian waters—and I appreciate that within five nautical miles of the port they will not be able to do that—we are siphoning off some of the disposable income that might better be spent in the community where these tourists are destined.

Let us be absolutely frank. The reason for having a tourist industry is to invite people to spend money in our communities on goods and services local people can produce. I question the wisdom in terms of economics of allowing cruise ships to have onboard gambling. I questioned some justice department officials who appeared before the justice committee on this issue, as did other colleagues of mine, and I have not received satisfactory answers.

The other side of that gaming provision allows the provinces to introduce dice games. There are people who have real concerns about the influence of gambling in their communities. We know gambling can be an addictive form of behaviour. We all know the stories of people who have gambled away their life savings in some situations because they could not help it.

Those sections cause me concern. It would have been prudent and wise for the Minister of Justice to separate those sections of this omnibus legislation and introduce them separately in the House where they could be debated. We now have to accept the bill in its entirety. We can be supportive of cracking down on crime, making communities safer and preventing child prostitution. The minister is also asking us to accept provisions dealing with gaming. It would have been nobler, perhaps, had she separated those issues.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It is an omnibus bill that we will not be able to address in its entirety in the short time we have allotted. However I will take a stab at a few aspects of the legislation.

Any bill that comes before the House respecting criminal justice should start from the premise that the most important thing the criminal justice system in Canada can do is set out a first principle, that the life and protection of law-abiding citizens and victims must be the highest priority of that system and of the government. Sadly and unfortunately often times we see a criminal justice system that seems to stand that principle on its head. I would argue that too often the rights of criminals come before the rights of law-abiding citizens. We need a complete philosophical change, which I will discuss later.

I will deal with the provisions in Bill C-51 to end the accelerated parole hearing after one-sixth of a sentence for anybody who has been convicted of a crime as a gang member. This raises a bigger issue, the whole idea of having automatic parole. As an Albertan I can say people back home feel very strongly that it is crazy to have a system with automatic parole. Why have sentences when people are released automatically after one-third or two-thirds at the most? It is crazy and unbelievable.

The criminal justice system is full of terms and language that mean absolutely nothing. If people are convicted of two or three crimes the judge might say on the first one that they get two years; on the second one, three years; on the third one, four years. However they will all be served concurrently and the effect is that they spend at most four years in jail. It is really two-thirds of them because people never serve their full sentences. They are out after two-thirds. We have a situation where none of the language we see in the Criminal Code or in any provision that lays out sentencing means anything. It is always a complete exaggeration of the time the person will actually have to serve.

As a fundamental of the justice system when we sit down and consider it, we should have some assurance that it is relatively close to what actually happens. If it says a sentence of five years and the judge metes out a sentence of five years, then there should be some possibility that the person will stay in prison for five years, but that is not the case in Canada today.

It is the same with provisions that allow criminals who are sentenced to a life term to apply to get out of jail, the faint hope clause. When we say life in Canada, it does not mean life. It means 25 years. It is really not life. When people are sentenced to 10 years, they are so-called sentenced to life. That is ridiculous. With the faint hope clause we find out that the 25 years is not necessarily going to be what they serve. Prisoners could be out in 15 years.

When we look throughout the criminal justice system we run into this. It is time we revised all of that. Instead of getting a bill such as Bill C-51, we should go back to the drawing board and set up a system where a sentence that is going to be handed out actually has some correlation to what is served. That makes sense to me.

It is time for a fundamental change to the criminal justice system. And while removing the accelerated parole hearing for members of organized crime may be a positive step, it really is a baby step. It is a tiny step in fixing the overall problem.

I want to focus on the issue of conditional sentencing. I cannot say how counterintuitive this is to most people back home. The government philosophy is that if one commits a crime in Canada, only as a last possible option would we consider putting that person in prison. If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person is violent and is going to reoffend, then perhaps they might go to jail. Other than that, we see an increased reliance on the whole idea of conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentencing is referred to in Bill C-51. I do not believe this government understands how much that provision is being abused. I want to emphasize that by pointing to a case in my own riding, in the town in which I live, Brooks, Alberta. It is a long tale so I hope members will bear with me for a bit.

People I know in the town of Brooks who run an insurance outfit had hired a woman to do their books for them. They found out that over a period of a couple of years this person had stolen not a little bit of money but tens of thousands of dollars. The woman was eventually found out and she was convicted. We were thankful for that. I think Gwen and Paul Vickers were probably pretty happy to find out that the system worked to that point. The person was convicted.

The Vickers found out that the system broke down in how the judge meted out the sentence. The person found guilty of this crime received a conditional sentence. Her name is Ms. McKennit. Ms. McKennit received a conditional sentence. Tens of thousands of dollars were taken from the Vickers. They did get a good chunk of it back. I do not think they got it all back. Ms. McKennit was sentenced to a conditional sentence which essentially meant that she had to stay at the farm where she lived.

There is a problem with that. The government went ahead and put in place the conditional sentencing without giving money to the provinces so people could follow up and make sure the sentence was actually being carried out. Therefore, we have a situation in the little town of Brooks where one person has to supervise all the people on conditional sentence and parole. There is no possible way they can ensure that this sentence is being served out.

A lot of people question right from the start whether or not it is a just sentence because in effect people are being sent home to watch television or to do whatever. In fact during the day from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. the person does not even have to be at home. They can wander around the community and only have to be at home in the evening. But there is no way to supervise that.

The government has gone ahead with conditional sentencing but has not provided any resources to the provinces to ensure that the provisions of conditional sentencing are carried out. It is an absolutely empty sentence because the one person who is there to supervise cannot possibly do it.

We have seen this situation before. The government effectively downloads in an area that is its responsibility in terms of sentencing but when it comes to administration it is the provinces'. The provinces do not have the money and so the whole thing does not work. It is toothless and completely useless.

It would be bad enough in the case where somebody who has stolen tens of thousands of dollars effectively goes home. That is their penalty. They go home. A real tough penalty. That is bad enough, but what about all those cases, and we see so many of them now, where people are guilty of extraordinary violence and are found guilty of it? Yet the government allows these people to be sentenced under conditional sentencing provisions.

People who are guilty in some cases of violent rape are sent home in the community where they raped the person. That is their sentence. They do not serve one day in jail. How can that be just? That is not just in anybody's books. But this government seems to think that somehow if violent rapists are sent to their homes, it is a just sentence.

I would argue that it is completely wrong-headed. It is contrary to natural law. It is contrary to everybody's common sense. That is not a sentence. The only sentence that is being meted out there is to the victim.

I know my colleague from Abbotsford has spoken often in this House about a situation in his community. A young woman was brutally raped. The man was found guilty and was conditionally sentenced to stay at home in the community. The woman lived in the same community and feared for her life and her safety because that animal was released back into the same community. There was no one to supervise him. He is sitting at home and the victim cowers in fear.

I wonder what goes on over in the justice department when those types of things happen.

There is another situation in my riding. A woman is living in absolute fear because her ex-husband will get out after two-thirds of his sentence. He has written threatening suggestive notes in the past and has had a girlfriend monitoring the woman's home. She is living in absolute fear. She has lived all around the province trying to get away from this man. He will be released very soon. She is deathly afraid her life will be in danger, that this man is going to take her life. I have sent the file over to the justice minister. I have not heard anything. This woman is living in absolute fear that she will be harmed and possibly killed by this man.

I cannot believe that the government sits there on its hands and does nothing when there are so many examples of this going on across the country. We know that in many cases judges use conditional sentencing to sentence people who are violent, who are bound to reoffend. That is so crazy. It is so wrong-headed. It is contrary to everything that Canadians believe in and the government does nothing. I do not understand. I wish somebody on the other side would stand up and enlighten us, tell us how this contributes to protecting the public. I do not see it.

It may save a few bucks by putting people at home. As the Reform Party finance critic I can say that our party is pretty tightfisted on a lot of things, but we would be more than willing to find the money somewhere within that existing envelope of spending where we know there is lots of waste. We would devote that money to putting violent criminals behind bars and to the greatest degree possible we would not let them out until we knew they were not going to commit another crime. That is common sense.

It makes me very angry when I see women in my riding having to live in fear because this government cannot get that through its head. The government does not understand the sense in that. It is unbelievable it allows that to continue.

By way of expanding the debate a little, I want to say how wrong-headed this government is and how its priorities are mixed up. When the Liberals came to power, one of the first things they did was to push through the gun legislation. Some of the members who have not thought it through perhaps think it will somehow help with the crime problem in Canada. Of course we already have had a handgun registry for a long time. I defy members across the way to point to a single crime that it has helped prevent or solve in the last 60 years. Of course every time we make that challenge, they cannot rise to it because there are no examples.

This legislation will cost somewhere in the range of $140 million or $160 million. In B.C. the government is withdrawing funding for the RCMP. The government has a chance to show that it is serious about dealing with the problem of crime. It could take the money that is being spent on a program that ostensibly has never worked in this country because we have tried it already with the handgun registry and it could give it to the RCMP. We could have RCMP on the beat around the clock. They could have their planes in the air and their boats on the water to watch for smugglers of various kinds.

There is a huge drug problem on the east side of Vancouver today. We have third world rates of HIV infection there because drug use is so rampant. What do we have here? We have a Liberal government that has decided it is much more important to medicate itself with the illusion that somehow this registry is going to solve the crime problem. On the other hand, it denies funding to the RCMP who would actually do something about the crime problem. There is a real misallocation of resources.

We know that for five years the government has been under fire over the Young Offenders Act. It is five years since we came to this place. We have made it an issue weekly. We get up in this place and excoriate the government because it has done absolutely nothing about people's concerns about the Young Offenders Act.

For 18 months the justice minister from Edmonton, Alberta has said that her number one priority is the Young Offenders Act. If that is the number one priority, we would hate to see the number two priority because she has done absolutely nothing. Here is the only legislation that we have received of any kind to deal with criminal justice in a long time. And these are very, very minor changes for the most part. If her real commitment is to fix the Young Offenders Act, what is she waiting for?

We know that Canadians from coast to coast want that act dealt with and they want it dealt with now. We propose three big changes over and over. This is not the Reform Party's wonderful idea. It comes from the people of this country.

People want young offenders, ages 15 and 16, who are guilty of a serious crime dealt with in an adult court. That makes sense to me. They want to see them dealt with in an adult court because regular people understand that the highest priority of the justice system is to protect the public, not to protect the criminals. I submit that is exactly what happens when these young people are allowed to be sentenced under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act. They barely get a slap on the wrist. We are saying if they do a serious crime, if they are charged with rape, murder, armed robbery or serious assault, those sorts of things, then by all means let us get them into the adult court.

Second, on the other end of the Young Offenders Act authorities need to have some power to deal with young persons who are 10 or 11 years old who steal cars or start fires. There was a 12 year old in Toronto who was suspected of rape a couple of years ago. All the police could do was catch him and release him, only to have him mock them on the front page of the Toronto Sun because he knew there was nothing the police could do. The authorities need to have power to deal with these people, not so they can go to a federal penitentiary, break rocks into gravel and make license plates, but so they can at least get some counselling.

Finally, why are we protecting the names of young people who are found guilty of serious offences? Why are we doing that? We believe that the criminal justice system is there to serve the public, not to serve the offender. If there is somebody guilty of a serious crime, a dangerous criminal, should we not know their name? I think we should.

That is a common sense proposal. I know my Liberal colleagues across the way have heard it.

I suggest that this government has its priorities standing on their head. The real issue is that we have a criminal justice system that is there to serve the public and that puts the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims ahead of the rights of criminals. That is completely missing in this legislation.

I encourage members across the way to put some pressure on the Minister of Justice, who is from Edmonton, and tell her that not only Liberals feel strongly about this, but remind her that the people of Edmonton and Alberta feel extraordinarily strongly about it.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I address my question to my colleague from Medicine Hat.

He has cited many examples as to why Canadians today, with each passing week, are losing faith in the justice system of Canada. It does not matter where we go.

My hon. colleague talked about conditional sentences, parole and the Young Offenders Act. Every day in some newspaper we see the results of a justice system that is breaking down. Cutbacks have been made to the RCMP in my province and there have been cutbacks right across Canada, while crime is running rampant.

Would the member for Medicine Hat not agree that a public losing faith in their justice system will only amount to more and more crime simply because there is no punishment being meted out through the justice system?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain.

I spoke at a school the other day in Foremost, a little town in my riding. I spoke to the grade 10 social class. We talked about the Young Offenders Act and about the problem of crime.

We know that amongst young people crime is escalating. Some of the crime is extraordinarily violent. One of the most disturbing trends is the increase in violent crime amongst young women. That is an area that the government must address.

One of the things which came out of that school visit was how young people are most often the victims of youth crime. When I go to schools in my riding, or when I speak around the country, I talk about the issue of crime. I ask grade 10 or grade 12 students, or whatever grade they are in, “Do you think that the penalties in the Young Offenders Act are just right, too tough or too soft?” Unfailing they say they are too soft. The reason is that young people are most often the victims of youth crime.

I remember in my province the terrible case of young Ryan Garrioch who was brutally murdered in the schoolyard by another young offender. A young man, just coming of age, lost his life because of youth violence.

The government must start to take this issue more seriously. I believe my friend is right. Crime is escalating. We see it amongst youth. We have to do something about it. It has been five years. I do not understand it. I plead with the government to do something.

The minister has said for 18 months that this is her highest priority. She has done nothing. She has let the people down in her riding of Edmonton. She has let the people of Alberta and the people of Canada down. I entreat her and her colleagues to take this issue seriously. Today many people are being needlessly hurt and in some cases killed. We need to do something about this and I hope the government will get busy and do it right away.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments. They are thought provoking and, in that light, I have two questions which I would like the member to comment on.

The first one is that I have read recently that crime statistics are down and that the homicide rate is the lowest it has been for 30 years in this country. There is every indication from those statistics that in this country homicide rates are down. I would like to have the member's thoughts on that.

Secondly, we have heard a number of stories, anecdotal evidence if you will, from the hon. member concerning cases that he has heard about. I appreciate what he has told this House, but oftentimes I am concerned that we hear the interpretation of events. We are all subject to that. We read the headlines. I wonder if he was in the courtroom for those cases and if he has heard the other side.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments.

First of all, he mentioned that homicide rates are down. I believe that is a fact and it is important to note that.

I think he will also acknowledge that youth crime has been increasing in this country and a lot of it is violent youth crime. That causes me a lot of concern. While homicide rates are down, I do not think we should allow this whole debate to go to sleep. We need to continue to discuss it.

Following up on that, it points to the fallacy of the government's argument with respect to the gun registry, that somehow guns are the reason we have the level of homicides that we have in the country. The gun registry is yet to be put in place and, if I recall, homicide rates are down to a level equivalent to 1969. That absolutely explodes the fallacy we heard from the government that the gun registry was going to be the thing that would cause homicide rates to go down.

The member asks whether or not I was in the courtrooms. It is a good question. In the case of the Vickers family, to whom I referred to earlier, I was not in the courtroom. However, I have carried on a long discussion with the Vickers family and also with the crown prosecutor through correspondence. I have not talked to him directly, but I have seen his responses to the family with respect to some of their concerns. The crown prosecutor, whom I know personally, is an extraordinarily intelligent crown prosecutor. He presented a very fair case when he was scrutinizing for the Vickers family what had gone on. I am convinced that in this case he was being nothing but absolutely accurate in his depiction of what happened in the courtroom.

I left out some of the details of this case because I did not want to exaggerate what had gone on. There are a number of things that are being alleged that I have not mentioned simply because I do not want to exaggerate what happened in that particular case.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member with great interest. However, I am always a little concerned when I hear members of the Reform Party address the issues like crime, the Criminal Code, law enforcement and justice.

I too am a Canadian citizen and, like them, I am greatly upset by especially despicable actions.

For instance, when I am sitting in this House and I hear members of the Reform Party say, as I have hear them say previously, “God has created men unequal. One should not interfere with God's established order. There are poor people and rich people, and that is God's will”, I think the worst place to learn criminal behaviour is prison. Indiscriminate imprisonment of anyone who has made a mistake, because they are young or maybe because they made one mistake, is not a solution. With their conservative attitude, Reformers are the ones who never show any compassion.

I think that education should prevail. With its young offenders legislation, Quebec can boast about having the lowest youth crime rate in Canada. I realize that, low as it may be, it will always be too high. However, building the future on prison megaprojects does not ensure that we will live in free, democratic and safe societies, where the relationship between individuals is harmonious.

This is what worries me about the Reform Party's position. Like all members of parliament, I agree that crime must not pay. Being a criminal is nothing to be proud of, that is right. But they failed to stress prevention and education, and stubbornly dig their heals in.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a couple of good points. The Reform Party does believe that prevention is very important and we could and should have a whole debate in the House with respect to that. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca did an excellent job of pointing to preventive measures that can be taken.

I also take issue with some of the things that my colleague has stated. I think that the primary purpose of the justice system must be to protect the public.

With some criminals, my colleague must know, it is much more prudent, in fact it is in the best interest of the criminal, to put them in prison where they cannot do harm to other people.

We are simply saying that too often today we see people who are released from prison or who were never put in prison who should have been put in there. That does not mean that we do not believe there should be rehabilitation. Of course there should be. But the primary purpose of the justice system should be to protect the public.

That is the Reform Party position. I am sorry if I did not make that very clear to my colleague.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill deserves the support of parliament in large measure. It is an omnibus bill and, by definition, an omnibus bill is a housekeeping bill and can in fact be quite tedious.

A particular provision that caught my eye with respect to this bill was the homicide and criminal negligence provision, the year and a day provision, which permits prosecution even though the victim may have survived beyond a year and a day by virtue of the advances of medical science. That makes perfect common sense. It makes all kinds of sense, given our present state.

However, may I suggest with respect to an omnibus bill that the devil is in the details. I would like to, if I may, draw the attention of the House to one of those details, namely, gaming. The apparent effect of the amendment would be to amend the criminal code with respect to international cruise ships that are exempted under certain provisions of the Criminal Code.

In addition, provincial governments under certain limited circumstances would be able to conduct and manage dice games without the heavy hand of the Criminal Code upon them. Apparently this has been a request put forward by both Ontario and Quebec.

I would like to address this addiction by all levels of governments to the business of gambling. The province where I come from, Ontario, raises something in excess of $2.4 billion of its revenues from this addiction. This translates into approximately 5% of all of the revenues of the government.

I could stand to be corrected on my numbers but that is my recollection from newspaper articles.

The governments of Canada and the Government of Ontario in particular are heavily addicted to revenue generated by way of gambling. It is certainly within my memory that this was not always a source of revenue for any government. Governments have now become dependent on their gambling fix in order to meet the ever growing demands on their treasuries.

This bill facilitates that addiction and, I would argue, is not necessarily a public policy we should encourage.

Gambling by definition is largely a recreational pursuit enjoyed by a great number of people and abused by a relatively small number of people.

There is, however, a parallel to the government addiction to revenue generated from alcohol. Alcohol is clearly enjoyed by a large number of people and abused by a small number of people. However, in the decriminalization of that activity, we have diffused the criminality associated with the consumption of alcohol from the streets of Chicago in the prohibition days to the streets of all our communities.

I dare say that if any member asked a police officer what is the greatest contributor to crime in our society, that police officer might well answer the criminality associated with the consumption of alcohol.

The effect that we intend, mainly the reduction in criminality with respect to the illegal disruption of alcohol, has been replaced with criminality of other forms, mainly drunk driving, spousal assault, et cetera.

In the decriminalization of any activities, society in general and governments in particular frequently do not calculate the bottom line, cost to the populace, while they merrily rake in the revenue from the activity. This is most readily observable in the revenues generated from alcohol and probably less observable in the revenues generated from cigarettes.

However, I would submit that the revenues that are generated from both those activities do not go back into serving the populace that has the addiction by virtue of the ready availability of those products. In other words, revenues raised in alcohol and cigarettes far exceed government expenditures for those members in society who become addicted to those products.

In a perverse way, governments become the handmaidens in the addictions of their citizens.

It is my view that governments should not be participating in creating addictions among their citizens. I would argue that there is a parallel being developed here. As governments decriminalize certain activities they create a dependency in a certain portion of the populace and that dependency is not compensated by making those revenues generated by the decriminalization available to those who are addicted.

Therefore governments in general and particularly the Government of Ontario become handmaidens in the addiction while not giving any hand with respect to the help for the addiction. This is in my view a rank form of hypocrisy and bad public policy.

Time does not permit me to give example after example of individuals and families ruined by their addictions to these social pastimes. I would further argue that the hypocrisy of government cuts out its high moral ground of leadership and in fact erodes its ability to lead the populace in directions for society which are good directions.

If I may be permitted a small illustration, prior to becoming a member of parliament I was on the board of an organization called Christian Indigenous Development Overseas. The concept was relatively simple. We lent money to micro enterprises in third worlds. We lent money to people who had no security. We lent money to the people who were the poorest of the poor. We had projects in the Philippines, in Columbia and in Jamaica, and no sensible banker would ever lend money to these folks.

Our message, however, was quite simple. If you work hard, if you are an honest person, you will succeed. When we started this project we were assisted by CIDA and by the Wild Rose Foundation of Alberta. For every dollar we raised our funds were matched somewhere in the order of three to four dollars. It was a very successful formula and widely acknowledged as a good use of resources.

However, the Wild Rose Foundation decided to generate its revenues in part from gambling activities. As a funding organization we questioned whether we could receive funding generated from gambling activities. It seemed to us that we were being hypocritical. How could we use the funds that were generated in a somewhat less than honest way from something other than hard work and then give the funds to people who were desperately in need and to whom we were giving the message work hard, be honest and you will succeed? We felt we were being hypocrites.

When the Wild Rose Foundations declined to withdraw from gambling activities we felt we had no alternative but to withdraw our request for funding.

Just as we felt we were being hypocrites, this bill puts an additional layer of hypocrisy on all governments. There has been virtually no debate with respect to the larger social policy issue. While I support the bill and will in the end vote for the bill, it is my view that the social policy issue needs to be addressed.

The addictions of governments to revenues generated from these kinds of sources versus the benefits to society affected by the decriminalization of these kinds of activities is a broad social debate and one that is ongoing.

However, I suggest that an analogous ground might well be to how corporations prepare the balance sheets. Frequently the picture of a business generally on a balance sheet is quite limited. One has assets, one has liabilities, one has income and one has expenses. What the environmental movement is teaching us is that there is more to the bottom line than what appears on a balance sheet.

I suggest that the analogy is appropriate here. There is more to the bottom line than what appears on the balance sheet. We do not know what social damage is caused by our governments' addition to these kinds of revenues.

I would argue that in gambling we do not put on to the bottom line the actual cost. We do not know what the impact of gambling is on the populace at large and the cost it has to society.

To carry the analogy further, government similarly has a balance. It has revenues and expenses. I will not get into assets and liabilities because there the analogy really breaks down because of the way governments count assets and recognize liabilities. However, we do not really know what the social costs or the welfare costs or the addiction costs are to society. It certainly only minimally impacts the bottom line of governments but it does impact us all in society. It hits society's bottom line but it does not hit governments' bottom line.

As I said, I will support this bill because there is a lot of good work in it and it tightens up areas that need to be tightened, but the whole area of gaming needs to be addressed by parliament.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the member. He has spoken very well. He has spoken to the point that Canadians very often would like an answer. On this bottom line the member has mentioned, we fail to take a look at it. When someone makes a study, they do the revenues from cigarettes, revenues from alcohol, revenues from gambling, but no one really puts a price tag on the results of these commodities within society, how much they cost the Department of Health, how much they cost the social structure with family breakdown and so on. We should be as a government taking a look at the bottom line.

Does the member feel that the bottom line with regard to revenue more often than not generally clouds the real issue, that society does not see it as such and that we have a hard time dealing with it?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his good question. It is not something to which I have an immediate answer. If governments back away from these addictions, these sources of revenue, other problems will spin out. The classic example is that of mafia activity in these areas because they are so lucrative.

I do not know that there is not another way to deal with those issues. The difficulty is correlating the family-social-individual breakdown to the availability of these products and activities and their decriminalization. I am being perfectly candid. I do not have that answer.

The environmental movement has recognized this. A Harvard professor has recognized that damage to the environment can be quantified. If Kyoto is anything, it is nothing other than a glorified accounting system so those kinds of issues can be addressed.

I do not know why good thinking people could not arrive at some sort of accounting system that would bear some similarity to the quantification of environmental damage. How could we quantify damage to individuals, society, families, et cetera, over that portion of time?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, criminal justice is very important to Canadians. I would submit to the member that Bill C-51 is hardly a burning priority for most Canadians. His minister has had 18 months to bring forward changes to the Young Offenders Act. Could he tell us why, if that is her number one priority, we are still waiting 18 months later?