Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-284 introduced by the member for Calgary Centre.
The bill deals with sentencing, release on parole, and Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms, all topics familiar to us in the House.
Over the last 10 years, various justice ministers have presented a variety of legislative initiatives, some of which were specifically intended to introduce stiffer penalties and delay the release of those convicted of crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.
In 1992, for instance, the House considered and passed an important bill introduced by the then solicitor general and intended to replace the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I must point out that, after a few years, even this act was constructively amended.
With all due respect for the member who introduced this bill, I cannot understand why the House is devoting time to issues that have recently been extensively debated here and in committee, especially when we know that the time allocated to private members' business is limited.
The proposals have been made, however, and I will take the opportunity available to me for comment.
All Canadians know of examples of terrible crimes and what happened to the victims of these criminal acts. From the comments sent to riding offices, mail received and reports in the media, we know that some of our fellow citizens are living in fear of crime and feel that the government has not been successful at protecting society at a time when people's perception is that the law is being flouted.
I would emphasize that this is not a view held by all Canadians. Far be it from me, however to ignore the concerns of individuals and groups wanting us to take a stronger stand against criminals.
Not long ago, the crime rate rose every year. More crimes and different types of crimes were being reported, because victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment were less stigmatized and less afraid to speak out and help in the efforts to bring their aggressors to justice.
However, in recent years, violent crime has declined. Despite the vast media coverage of sensational crimes, the general public must be better informed about the way the justice system works and about the measures taken to reduce crime.
Clearly an informed public is more likely to see the gaps in the system it knows only superficially. Those directly responsible for the security of Canadian communities, from the police through prosecutors, judges and, at the end of the line, the federal and provincial criminal law systems, must respond to the criticisms that arise from increased awareness and greater surveillance. This is the least we can do as legislators.
When we look at the statistics, we can see many factors affecting individuals' vulnerability to crime. For example, geographical location is a factor. More violent crime occurs in urban centres than in the country.
What I want to point out is that crime is not endemic everywhere in the country. I agree that many Canadians have no choice but to live where they are and they never know who they will run into one day.
However, it is also reasonable to think that, for many other Canadians, the only violence they will witness will be what they see on their televisions in the evening.
We must respond to these concerns and we must do so in a very effective manner. In the case of individuals, problems may often be dealt with directly by referring them to community and victim support groups that are available within the Ministry of the Solicitor General, from the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board regional offices throughout the country.
In addition, most police forces assign officers to community service duties and many courts are monitored by representatives of victims service organizations. This direct intervention by our staff members and constituency offices to provide information and assistance is the most satisfactory and personalized solution to constituents who are feeling baffled or neglected by the criminal justice system.
When protests are prompted by system faults, the system must be changed from within, or if necessary, must be altered through the legislative process.
As is sometimes the case in isolated and regrettable instances, the correctional system's failures can be traced to human error where established policies and procedures that would protect the public are ignored or often misapplied. Extraordinary incidents occur with some tragic unfortunate results.
We must do everything in our power to reduce the number of these incidents, but an ineffective response can be worse than no response at all. Piecemeal legislation change is not a solution to the problems perceived.
I believe Bill C-284 is too narrow in its focus and too punitive. The law must be fashioned to accommodate a range of offenders in any given category. That is not to say that there are good people who commit violent and deplorable acts and bad people who are convicted of the same type of offences. There are however levels within each class of offender that lead us to believe that some may more readily resume a law-abiding lifestyle than would offenders who are serving sentences for similar offences.
This bill would reject the guiding principle of correctional services, which is that the public is best served if “the criminal is put back on the straight and narrow”. Inmates who react well to the opportunities for treatment, training and education offered by our system can return to society one day as law-abiding citizens.
Regardless of what we do for, or to, them, these individuals will be back in the community one day. Consequently, those who no longer constitute a threat must benefit from all reasonable opportunities, so that they may again be part of society as soon as possible.
Not only would the present bill restrict those opportunities for too many criminals, but it would also lengthen sentences without taking court deliberations into consideration, as well as punishing criminals for what they might do after serving the entire sentence for what they have done.
Now that I have mentioned some of my reservations concerning this bill, I will use the rest of the time allocated to me to remind my colleagues of a related initiative carried out during the last session of Parliament on behalf of the Minister of Justice and the departmental portfolio of the Solicitor General.
Bill C-55, a cohesive and complete set of reforms which came into effect last August, enables the courts to order the surveillance of certain criminals for up to 10 years after the end of their prison sentence.
In earlier initiatives we also revised the Criminal Code in order to allow the courts to ban persons found guilty of sexual offences involving children from the vicinity of schools, community centres and playgrounds.
In parallel, criminal harassment and stalking have become offences on which it is now easier to act because of certain clauses in the Criminal Code. The efforts expended to tighten up the legislation relating to these categories of criminals may have escaped the notice of the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
That is surprising, because I know that he is greatly interested in this and other related issues. Nevertheless, provisions and proposals of this nature constitute opportunities for frank discussions, in my opinion.
I will be satisfied if, as a result of this debate, the public acquires more knowledge of this part of our correctional system. The hon. member who introduced Bill C-284 obviously shares my opinion, and I congratulate him for his perseverance in bringing criminal justice into the public eye and thus helping to make Canadians better informed.