Debates of May 26th, 1998

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. member as his time is up.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to the NDP member makes it very clear to me why we have such an unacceptable level of crime in this country.

It also makes it very clear to me that the Liberal philosophy on justice—and the Liberals have held power in this country for the majority of the last 30 years—is the reason we have crime in this country to the extent we have.

The NDP member talked about the rampant gang related crime in Winnipeg. He talked about personal instances where he was affected directly, yet he offers no solutions. Why does the member not suggest that perhaps the authorities should go after the people who are committing the crimes and put a stop to them?

All we hear from the NDP and from the Liberal government are phrases like “We have to look into it. We have to do this. We should do this. We must do this”. When is the government going to start saying “We will do this”? Better yet, just do it. Start addressing crime in this country like it should be addressed, instead of talking about it with weak kneed analysts and advisors who tell the government that the protection of society and the people of this country is not the main priority of the criminal justice system, but rather it is the protection and rehabilitation of criminals and their reintegration into society.

Where do the law-abiding citizens come into this fuzzy, feel good attitude of the Liberals toward crime?

The Liberal government talks about the new legislation that is coming in. There is no legislation. There is only more talk. The NDP is already supporting this more talk philosophy. There is nothing happening from the Liberal government. Yet the NDP is already supporting it.

It is this type of philosophy that we have had in the House for the last 30 years. It has brought the country to the crime ridden state that exists. Until we change things it will go on. It will simply not stop.

How on earth can the member stand there and talk about the gang related crime in the inner cities without offering any solutions about what to do with the people committing the crimes?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, actually I ran out of time. I was just getting to that point in my remarks.

There are plenty of creative ideas in this recommendation to make a meaningful impact on the unacceptable incidence of petty crimes and nuisance crimes. The most nuisance crimes in my community are things like property crime, break and enter, vandalism, et cetera. We have had some terrible incidents with more serious crimes.

We must recognize that currently the penal and criminal justice system is being starved for funding. We give judges an 8% raise. Yet people who work in the system, whose job it is to get dirty every day and deal with some of the people on the street, have not had any kind of budgetary increase or raise in pay for eight years. They are demoralized.

I heard from a delegation from Stony Mountain penitentiary recently where people are being asked to go on open range walks alone. That is a real problem. They go on open range walks in a ward where the doors are open and people can circulate. The only reason this is happening is that the whole system is stressed or maxed to the point where it is almost dysfunctional.

I do not say that spending more money on the criminal justice system is the answer. However I know it is more costly to rehabilitate than it is to punish. When dealing with 10 and 11 year old kids surely to God the objective is rehabilitation, turning them back into productive citizens and not strictly punishing them. That costs money. Meaningful social work to turn kids' lives around costs money. I would argue it would cost us less in the long run. Every soul we save will be a net saving in the end.

They are predictable consequences of the tight money policy we have been going through. The economy was ground to a halt. Unemployment went higher. Many people are saying that U.S. cities are showing a real drop in the incidence of violent crime. In actual fact it is not more prisons. It is the fact that the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since the second world war—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I must interrupt the member.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate. A very important motion has been brought forward on this supply day. I commend the mover of the motion. It is also a subject area that is very close to my heart. As a former crown attorney the criminal justice system was at the centre of my work every day. As justice critic for the Conservative Party I hope to further my devotion to the issue.

I intend to focus my remarks today specifically on the issues that have been brought forward in the motion and hopefully on some of the points those in our party would suggest to improve the criminal justice system.

There is no more important issue in my mind than that which touches the criminal system. It deals with issues of health, education and employment and is the centrepiece for the quality of life of Canadians.

The application of criminal law is playing a predominant role in society. Sadly few have not been involved directly or indirectly with our justice system, whether as a victim, a family, a friend of a victim or a witness to a criminal act.

Many Canadians feel our present criminal justice system is not working and therefore we need to change the system in a significant way.

The Young Offenders Act is perceived rightly or wrongly as being extremely flawed, inadequate and not sufficiently addressing those of a certain designated age who find themselves involved or in breach of the criminal justice system.

There are also those who consider after the fact, after people have been brought to justice, gone through the court system, convicted and find themselves serving their debt to society either through incarceration or conditions placed on them through probation, that the National Parole Board again is falling down in its duty to protect Canadians. We can never forget that protection of the public always has to be the priority when it comes to criminal justice.

Canadians are shocked almost daily at the way our judges are applying conditional sentences. The clause itself was never intended by the drafters of the act to apply to those committing violent offences. That is completely outside the purview of what was intended when it came to conditional sentences.

It further reiterates the point I wanted to make earlier that lost faith in the justice system is prevalent. Canadians are so taken aback when they hear about sensational cases that they are losing all faith. This is an extremely crucial issue. It is one I am glad we are having an opportunity to debate today.

I share the concerns and the frustrations of many Canadians with the application of the justice system. At times at least criminal law is set up in a way to benefit criminals, not victims.

There has been mention previously by members of the House of an open house that is to occur. It will be a national forum to address some of the issues, a round table that will perhaps give us greater insight into the inequities that exist within the system. I will personally be hosting one in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on June 1. I look forward to the worthwhile and productive discussion that will take place.

Youth crime, crime prevention and ways to ensure the safety of Canadians from criminals have always been priorities of the Conservative Party. The emphasis on prevention or front end proactive initiatives has been promoted by this party throughout its history with the emphasis being on the protection of the public. I assure the House that my colleagues in the Conservative Party and I will continue to vigorously press the government to reach the goals we need to attain.

One of those goals is to ensure victims of crime become a centrepiece in the justice system. Among the measures my party has brought forward were a victims bill of rights and the abolition of section 745 of the Criminal Code, otherwise known as the faint hope clause, or perhaps it should be known as the dope clause.

The lowering of the age of the application of the Young Offenders Act from 12 to 10 years is another initiative we have put forward. The passage of legislation which would target specifically criminal gang activity and the revision of the Criminal Code as it relates to impaired driving sections are others.

Time is limited in the debate. I will try to address specifically some of the points raised in the motion. First let me speak to the very hot and topical issue of the Young Offenders Act which has been central in our news media of late. Since the Minister of Justice has tabled her policy on youth justice I believe it is appropriate to speak to this issue first.

The Young Offenders Act came into force in 1984 and has been amended several times in 1986, 1992 and 1995. These amendments addressed specifically the issues of penalties for violent offences and facilitating the transfers of violent offenders to adult courts. Those are certainly worthwhile changes, but the most recent attempts to tinker with the edges of the Young Offenders Act or throw it out altogether are inadequate responses.

In 1996 the federal-provincial territorial task force on youth justice made a number of important recommendations to the justice department. It included dropping the age of accountability, addressing serious offenders in a more efficient way and looking at alternatives to courts, transfers and sentencing.

Over past months the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined the recommendations of the task force. We have seen the minister's response which was released to the media. This seems to be the justice minister's preferred method of making public policy statements. On May 12 the Minister of Justice released the strategy for youth justice renewal.

What can we say about this initiative? Can we say that it has addressed the concerns not only of the committee but of Canadians at large? Sadly I have to say no. Unfortunately the minister has missed a golden opportunity. I interpret it to be a wish list or perhaps a philosophy of what Canada's worst law firm would like to see done with the young offenders system.

We are missing in this initiative concrete legislative initiatives. We do not see a commitment to funding for such initiatives. The federal government has a responsibility to enact legislation, not just to talk about it.

I reiterate this response is not what Canadians are looking for. The goal of the youth justice system must be to reduce youth crime through prevention, meaningful alternatives and meaningful consequences at times. It must beef up or attach more emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration for youth who find themselves involved in non-violent offences. There must be alternative measures or means of diverting young persons out of the justice system which can sometimes grind to a halt because of sheer volume. We need to know where the money is and money has to be put into the system in a very effective way.

Alternatives to formal court proceedings for non-violent offenders are very complicated and will need a great deal of attention, but greater emphasis must be put on that area.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always supported concepts of alternative sentencing for first time non-violent offenders. The Conservative Party has always believed that rehabilitation programs for young persons with an emphasis on education, social skills, personal responsibility and community service can be and should be developed as a priority in the young offenders system.

I applaud the announcement of the minister. It is important to see a recognition on the part of the government of the issue, but sadly we have not seen any concrete initiatives. The $32 million crime prevention fund announced through the media will be useful. There is no question about that. However it represents only 1% of the total law and order budget that exists to address problems in the youth justice system. It certainly represents a fraction of the amount of money that will be put into the ineffective gun registry.

The Conservative Party advocates providing judges with more power to impose mandatory treatment for individuals, in particular young offenders. We also advocate parents being more accountable and more responsible in the system.

The Young Offenders Act is an area fraught with difficulties. I wish I had more time to address it in a significant way and to make further suggestions. The motion includes references to conditional sentences which I have addressed somewhat in my remarks. The motion before the House talks specifically of the need to address crime in a more significant way.

The Conservative Party will continue to push the government in that direction. We recognize that efforts have been made but that they do not go far enough and we are pleased to take part in the debate.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I were both crown attorneys. I listened with much interest to what he said.

Drug abuse seems to be the matrix of much of the crime that occurs. A statistic from Philadelphia showed that something like 200 heroin addicts committed about a half million crimes in that city during a 10 year period. Could he comment on that?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the question. In the Canadian context the involvement of drugs is certainly very relevant to the commission of crime, not only persons under the influence of drugs committing crime because their sense of reality is warped but also they would be out committing crimes to feed their drug habits.

Emphasis on rehabilitative programs that help get people off the drugs I think is a focal point. Sadly in places like the maritimes where we have such a large coastline the devolution of the ports police has caused problems in terms of the availability of drugs now in coastal provinces.

Unfortunately I think that has been a failing of the member's government in the decision to take away the ports police. But I do agree that this is certainly an area that we have to focus on in our criminal justice system and hopefully further funding and rehabilitative focus will address this.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the drug situation, I agree with the hon. member and I find it strange that our prisons are the places where drugs are more readily available than anywhere else. That is the kind of system Liberal governments have allowed to carry on.

I want to ask the member a question because of his experience as a crown prosecutor. As an example, a drunk driver killed four people in a head on collision. There was no question about it, he admitted guilt immediately. He was very remorseful at the time. When they went to court and began the proceedings the first day, it was exactly two years to the day before sentencing was finally imposed. There were 18 court appearances.

Could the member please explain what kind of system would allow that kind of case to go on for 18 court appearances requiring victims to drive all the way from Saskatoon to Calgary in order to participate? It happens an awful lot.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Wild Rose raises a very significant problem in our justice system, the backlog the courts are facing.

I have to say with all honesty, having been a participant in our court system, that delay is a tactic used quite often by the defence. I have participated in that and it is not something criminal lawyers are particularly proud of, but the old maxim justice delayed is justice denied I think is very true in the case he refers to.

It is simply unacceptable to have 18 court appearances and when there are victims involved this is very telling. It is very pychologically damaging for victims to have to wait to have some form of closure on a criminal matter. When loved ones are involved and they are faced with this continual legal wrangling, it is simply unacceptable.

However, because of the caseload and the number of criminal offences we are prosecuting throughout the country we find that time and time again this does occur. This instance is perhaps not indicative of what happens in all cases but there are those exceptions where it drags on endlessly.

I cannot say specifically what happened in that case. It does happen and I am sure that through addressing this with more crown prosecutors and perhaps more judges would lessen the workload. That would be one way to address it. Alternative measures for some of the less serious offences involving property would give more time to focus on violent offences and crimes where there is loss of life.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who has just spoken. He has a seat on the justice committee, as I have, and I appreciate his input into justice matters, as I appreciate his comments today on this supply day motion.

I listened to most of the debate on this issue today and I was dismayed when I heard the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister use such strident vocabulary, couching her terms when she dealt with the Reform Party's approach to youth crime.

It is also more disturbing when I realize that she has access to the minority report I submitted and made public in response to the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act.

We worked with the committee. We travelled across the country and listened to 300 witnesses from not only the various sectors of the youth justice system but also to parents whose children had gone off track in spite of all they could do.

The parliamentary secretary and the chairman of our justice committee knows full well our approach to youth crime. It is within our report and it is contained within the private member's bill I submitted to the House on September 26.

Our approach is early detection and prevention. We had experts appear before our committee who told us very clearly that aberrant and overaggressive behaviour can be spotted as early as grades 1, 2 and 3.

We compliment the Government of Quebec which has spent money on programs where a teacher, for instance, who sees a child who needs help and care can refer that child to a program of government where the child as well as the parents may receive assistance to keep that child on track. We support that very much and that is part of our approach to youth crime.

We very much favour the diversion of young people who come into contact with the law for the first or second time in a minor way out of the court system, away from the court system.

We saw some excellent programs not only as we travelled about the country but since then. Programs such as the Sparwood program and the Maple Ridge program have a very encouraging success rate in terms of directing these young children away from the court system.

A few weeks ago my colleagues and I met with Lola Chapman, a co-ordinator of the Maple Ridge program. They began three years ago as a court watch group. They saw the young offenders system was not working. It was not helping young people. They simply began by sitting in court, watching what was going on and reporting it to the newspapers by way of letters to the editor.

It caused some concern among the court officials because they did not like to see what was happening in that system as far as their dealing with young people and the lack of success being published in the media.

It eventually resulted in Lola Chapman and her 17 volunteers having young people referred to them by the police and now by the crown prosecutor, and their success rate is phenomenal.

Three years ago we were advised that there were 45 to 60 young people passing through the weekly young offenders court. When we spoke with her a few weeks ago, it was down to eight. That is a phenomenal success rate. We support that very much.

In addition to that statistic there are very encouraging statistics not only in her program but in the Sparwood program and other community programs emerging from the grassroots in spite of the young offenders system.

It is almost as an act of rejection to the young offenders system and these people are saying they want to do something to help.

The Maple Ridge program has a 94% success rate. What does that mean? We asked Ms. Chapman what she considered a success. She said any youth they accept into their program who does not reoffend within one year they consider to be a success. I agree.

In addition, in 100% of the cases where restitution was required full restitution was paid. We support that. As the parliamentary secretary knows, in our executive summary we have pointed to the need for the federal government to work closely with the provinces to initiate these kinds of programs to encourage them.

The attorney general from B.C. has now asked Lola Chapman to co-ordinate with other communities to see if she can help to move forward these kinds of programs so that we can keep our young people who fall off the track for the first or second time and who need the second chance to get that second chance from people who are volunteers and who are committed to them.

It was interesting to learn that when a young offender is assigned to one of those volunteers they stick with them. They are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They have the love and care for those young people that perhaps some of them need. That is one of the key elements to their success.

Those are the two first levels we very strongly advocate. Quebec has programs which I think are far ahead of some of the other provinces. We encourage some of the other provinces and the federal government to do what they can to provide the funding necessary.

Another interesting point is that the witness from these organizations such as the Sparwood program who appeared before the standing committee said they did not want funding. They said they would use the community resources because when federal and provincial funding is involved strings are attached and they wanted the flexibility to develop those programs to suit the community requirements, and every community is different.

We very much encourage that. It is also encouraging to hear that those programs are spreading. We talked to the RCMP in Trail, B.C. which has introduced a program with the community. It is having the same very high success rate. Over 90% of young people are being rehabilitated. We find that by and large rehabilitation in closed custody facilities simply has not worked.

The issue is very clear. To quickly get the young offender before he or she develops a hardened attitude toward the abeyance of laws and rules in the home, in the school and on the street is very important. We can deal with them in a way that they confess what they have done, they have to face the victim and the emotional expression, the groundwork is laid for the healing to begin. Those young people are often never a challenge or a problem to any member of society again in a criminal way.

In the area of federal responsibility we must not shrink from the use of incarceration in order to protect the lives and safety of members of society who are threatened by that very small percentage of very violent young offenders who do threaten the lives and safety of members of our society.

What would we do in that area? I want to briefly touch on the package the justice minister presented a week and a half ago. What she is recommending is of course only a recommendation. She has used unspecified terms without definition. We really do not know what the bill will look like. She promised one in the fall. It has taken her so long to bring even this proposal forward that we wonder why. We were able, without the battery of lawyers and bureaucrats the justice minister has access to, to bring in a private member's bill that does reflect the recommendations and the testimony of many of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee.

When we look at her proposal there are two things I have a great deal of concern over. First she has completely ignored the recommendation of her own standing committee to lower the age from 12 to 10. She has rejected the research done by Professor Nicholas Bala who was commissioned by the justice department to do an in-depth academic examination of that very question. He did the most thorough research we understand that has ever been done in the country on the question as to whether or not the age should be lowered.

He recommended it be lowered and he had a very sound rationale for doing so. He pointed out that if a 10 or 11-year old commits a serious violent crime such as murder, rape or manslaughter, a child welfare response is an inadequate societal response to that type of very serious offence.

It also became evident as we gathered testimony from across the country that the older kids are using younger children to commit crimes, knowing full well they are immune to the criminal justice system. In addition, my own view is that the justice system forms part of our educational system. When our children learn that they are immune to the police and to the justice system for any criminal act they might commit until age 12, we are sending the wrong message to them. That is wrong.

It is an error for the Parliament of Canada to decriminalize by way of age what would otherwise be criminal acts. We are not inventing anything new. Under the old juvenile delinquents act the police and the justice system were charged with the duty and the responsibility of investigating and dealing with any criminal act committed by anyone over seven or eight years of age.

The recommendation that was rejected by the justice minister was simply to reduce it from 12 to 10 years of age, not back down to age seven, eight or nine. It was to move it down where the police have the authority to deal with a young offender, whom we cannot call a young offender because there is no offence for stealing a car by a 10 or an 11-year old.

There was a young person in that situation in Edmonton. He stole over 30 cars and the police could do nothing except bring the individual home and turn him over to the parents. The social welfare workers could not touch him because there was no evidence of neglect. They cannot act on a criminal matter because they do not have the authority. It is only the federal government that can issue laws dealing with criminal matters and then it is the responsibility of the provinces to administer them.

I would like to quickly touch on the whole area of the cost of the administration of the young offender system. The federal government passes the laws and the provincial governments have to administer the laws which costs money. They enter into federal-provincial financial agreements to do so.

The province of Manitoba is now entering into litigation to get out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act. Why? Because the federal government is reneging on its financial responsibility in terms of the administration of the Young Offenders Act in that province.

When we asked the justice minister and the officials when they appeared before the standing committee during the estimates whether or not they had anything to offer Manitoba at that time to bring it back on side so it would not simply abandon the administration of the Young Offenders Act, there was nothing on the table. The government is not offering Manitoba anything. The minister is talking about $32 million in crime prevention yet one of the provinces is taking the whole issue to court to determine whether or not it can shed itself of a financial obligation of which the federal government has reneged on its part.

When we talk about funding for crime prevention the government is not even living up to the financial agreements that ought to be in place now. We find through our research that the federal government can renege and back away from any federal-provincial financial agreement it makes with complete immunity and has been supported by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Government of Manitoba knows that because it took it to the Supreme Court of Canada when Brian Mulroney was the prime minister of this country.

I want to touch on one other serious flaw I see in the package presented by the justice minister which she has promised to bring legislation in to support later this fall. She wants to have young offenders from ages 14 to 17 convicted in youth court for a series of violent offences. She has four areas of violent offences. Then the crown prosecutor will have to argue with the judge that an adult sentence should apply. This leaves the discretion to the judge as to whether or not an adult sentence or a sentence under the Young Offenders Act will be imposed.

We say that is wrong. We say that because the courts are unaccountable to the people, that discretion should be left with the agent of the attorney general who will be indirectly accountable to the people in a democratic fashion. The crown prosecutor should have the full discretion based upon the circumstances whether or not a violent young offender is moved into adult court and then if convicted, our courts have no alternative but to impose an adult sentence.

Why would we not want the judges to have this discretion? There are a lot of good judges in our judicial system at the provincial and federal levels. However we have seen what some of them have been doing with conditional sentencing. They have thwarted the intent of conditional sentencing, the intent of this parliament in conditional sentencing.

We are saying in this party and in this caucus that we would sooner give the discretion to the crown prosecutor who is indirectly accountable to the people through the attorney general of every province, rather than give that discretion to the judges. I say this not without a lot of dismay and concern and perhaps sadness. We have judges sitting on the bench who through their power and discretion of interpretation of the law and their use of the law, are using it in a manner not meant by the Parliament of Canada.

The former justice minister admitted in this House that he does not believe a conditional sentence is an adequate sentence for a conviction of rape. Yet we are seeing this happen all the way from B.C. right across the country to Quebec. Cases have been raised in this House.

Contrary to what our colleagues from the NDP say, I think the people of this country want those issues of crime and violation of the law and the destruction of people's lives raised in this House. What are we here for if we are not to do that, if we are not to show there are weaknesses in our criminal justice system? To suggest otherwise is utter nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, a degree of irresponsibility has created disdain for this House in the minds of too many people across the country and a disrespect for members such as yourself and myself. I should correct that. Not yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to myself and my colleagues. We are looked upon as do nothing people who just follow the whims of the leader, in this case the Prime Minister who does not really care about the victims of crime, who does not really care about the fact that since 1984 when the Young Offenders Act came in, the overall crime rate has risen 300% and the violent crime rate has risen 100%.

In closing, I thank the mover of this motion for giving me the opportunity to place the Reform Party's approach to youth crime squarely before the people. We want early detection and prevention. We want the diversion programs that are springing up across this country. We want them to expand. We want them to have the support of this government and the provincial governments.

We want the resources brought from the back end of an $11 billion justice industry to the front end. Not only will we spend a lot less money, but we will be investing money in the lives of these young people which will keep them out of the prisons and out of serious crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to read the motion that we are debating today. It states “That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety” and it cites three examples essentially in the areas of the Young Offenders Act, sentencing, and victims of crime.

In reading that motion I ask myself and more particularly I ask the opposition if it is arguing that everything in the justice system is in such a deplorable state as the motion says. Should everything this government has done in the criminal justice system be condemned? Is the opposition also condemning certain aspects or particular aspects of the correctional system? Is it condemning the system of policing, all our judges and the entire Criminal Code?

I believe the federal government is doing much more than the Reform Party gives it credit for and I would like to give some concrete examples. Rather than generalities and the sweeping denunciations by the Reform Party, let us give some facts and figures. Let us look at what is actually going on in criminal justice reform.

Let us start with the first fact that Canada along with the provinces spends in excess of $10 billion a year in the criminal justice system, not as the member who just spoke said, in the criminal justice industry, if I heard him correctly. It shows the difference between the opposition members and this government. As I said, it includes federal and provincial expenditures and it covers policing, prisons, penitentiaries and the courts.

The governments in Canada are not exactly starving the justice system. As an example, the federal government itself spends approximately $1 billion a year to support the efforts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it spends a similar amount on penitentiaries.

Perhaps the opposition is saying that the federal government is not spending this money strategically, that is, not targeting the big challenges to public safety. Let us take spending on penitentiaries as just one example because I know the official opposition is concerned about the state of our prisons.

Several weeks ago the solicitor general and the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada announced that 1,000 new correctional officers will be hired in order to strengthen the safety and security of our penitentiary system. Does the opposition disagree with the hiring of 1,000 new staff to make our correctional system better? It is not cheap but it is one example of setting priorities and then funding them.

The motion by the opposition seems to imply that the government is ignoring the allegedly deplorable state of the justice system. In this regard I believe it would be worthwhile to examine the criminal justice agenda of the government both now and in the recent past.

In the previous session of parliament the government introduced over a dozen major bills amending the Criminal Code and related statutes. For example the agenda encompassed new measures targeting high risk offenders, bills dealing with prostitution and child sex tourism, safeguards to protect the privacy of complainants and witnesses in sexual offence proceedings, and anti-gang legislation. There were reforms to the Young Offenders Act and more changes to that act are going to be launched very shortly by the Minister of Justice. In total over 250 changes were made to the Criminal Code in just the last session.

I would like to address the main proposals in the strategy for renewing the justice system for minors in order to address juvenile delinquency.

First of all, replacing the Young Offenders Act by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which gives priority to the protection of society, fosters such values as the sense of responsibility, and calls for heavy sanctions for wrongful acts.

Second, the aim of the initiative is to expand the category of offences for which a young offender may be brought before a regular court, which will include, in addition to murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and violent sexual assault, the reiteration of the facts of the crime and will lower from 16 to 14 the age at which young offenders may be transferred to an ordinary court.

Furthermore, the legislation authorizes the publication of the names of all minors found guilty in regular court and eventually the publication of the names of minors between the ages of 14 and 17 found guilty by a juvenile court of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, violent sexual assault and other stated crimes.

One of the proposals is for the potential establishment of criminal sanctions for the most dangerous and violent young offenders and the application of intensive resocialization and treatment programs and of a longer testing period.

Finally, we want to encourage the establishment of a broad range of sanctions and effective control mechanisms, other than legal ones, for small time delinquents, which encourage respect, promote responsibility toward victims and the community, help minors measure the consequences of their action and enable them to grasp the cause and effect relationship between their crime and its consequences.

As the government, we are aware that prevention is society's best protection against juvenile delinquents. This is why our strategy promotes prevention by linking reform of juvenile justice to other government initiatives involving childhood and adolescence.

I would like to give you a few examples. In the 1998 budget, the government allocated $32 million annually to fight delinquency. A new initiative to this end will soon be implemented. It is aimed at developing short term solutions and concerns mainly minors.

We are developing, in partnership with the provinces and territories, a national action plan for children to address a fair number of the underlying causes of delinquency, namely child poverty, childhood development problems, lack of structure provided by parents, unemployment and scarce family resources.

In 1997 we spent $850 million to create a more generous child tax benefit that will have a direct impact on the health and well-being of children. The 1998 budget provided for this benefit to be increased by another $850 million by the year 2000.

In 1997 we increased funding for the community action program for children. This program supports the implementation of hundreds of local projects promoting the development of children at risk.

The 1997 budget increased funding for the Canada prenatal nutrition program designed to help pregnant women in precarious situations, such as teens and women who abuse alcohol or other substances, so that they can give birth to healthy babies.

In 1994 the government launched a strategy against family violence, which provided for major changes to the criminal justice system in order to prevent family violence and for an extensive long term effort to co-ordinate policies and programs at all levels of government.

Also, the government announced its Youth Employment Strategy, endowed with $2 billion, offering school to work transition services and programs for young Canadians.

In the 1998 budget the government more than doubled its assistance to help young people at risk make the transition from school to work and this money will be used to fund company training, career counselling, coaching and literacy programs.

In response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the government is also developing initiatives that will strengthen the government strategy of promoting native justice with respect to minors, in close co-operation with native peoples.

In 1995 the Liberal government introduced the head start program. This is an early intervention program designed to provide a good start in life for aboriginal, Metis and Inuit children living in cities and major centres in the North by providing social assistance to their families and involving parents in initiatives to promote culture, health, education and nutrition. The budget also set aside additional funds to expand this programme to include children living on reserves.

I mention these facts and these examples, in essence this track record, not to encourage our government to rest on its laurels but rather to show that the government began with a major criminal law improvement agenda and it accomplished very much of it step by step.

This administration has not abandoned its criminal justice agenda. On the contrary, it has continued a sensible, well targeted agenda of selective law reform and program development.

I have already alluded to the major reform process of the Young Offenders Act. The Minister of Justice has also stated her commitment to the interests of victims of crime and has made announcements in this area. She has also indicated that crime prevention is a priority and over the past few years the National Crime Prevention Council laid the groundwork for a broad based crime prevention strategy and the government has indicated that it will spend $160 million over the next five years on crime prevention initiatives. Moreover, this crime prevention strategy will give priority to the needs of children and youth and they will be community targeted programs.

We all know the early years of a child's life hold the key to forming attitudes and to producing law-abiding citizens. Crime prevention strategies as promised by the government will link up to youth justice reform and will draw individual communities into the process of making our neighbourhoods much safer.

I said there were two reasons for referring to the legislative and program reforms from the last session. The second point is that the changes made to the Criminal Code over the last four years are starting to pay off. I use an example that I think shows the criminal justice system is not failing or falling, as the Reform Party would lead us to believe, into a deplorable state, but rather much improving.

I refer to Bill C-55, the high risk offender bill that came into force on August 1, 1997 as chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1997. The bill targeted three areas. It built on the success of the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code, it created a new sentencing category for sex offenders called long term offender, and it created a new form of restraining order or peace bond designed as a means of deterring certain individuals from committing violent personal injury offences.

The dangerous offender law was changed to make an indeterminate sentence of detention mandatory in every case in which a dangerous offender finding was made. The initial parole review of dangerous offenders was also changed so that the review would occur four years later than previously in the law.

Than life sentences for murder and certain other offences, the dangerous offender measure is the only sentencing provision in the code that calls for indeterminate incarceration. Bill C-55 made this mandatory. It was already evident that the dangerous offender procedure worked. A study at the time indicated not only that prosecutors were using it to go after violent sex offenders but that use of the procedure overall was on the increase. Since Bill C-55 there has been an even greater increase in the use of dangerous offender applications.

Moreover, the early identification of potential dangerous offenders has been made easier by the creation of a national flagging system and by complementary efforts on the part of the provinces.

The flagging system which was launched two years ago involved a special Royal Canadian Mounted Police database that allows police and prosecutors to put a special flag on the file of a convicted offender so that any prosecutor in Canada can check the RCMP CPIC database to identify the most serious cases.

Some provinces, notably British Columbia and Ontario, have their own mechanisms in place to identify and investigate violent offenders with a view to a possible dangerous offender application. There is evidence that Bill C-55 and the national flagging system have made this task easier and, more important, a lot more effective.

Bill C-55 also created a new long term offender category. It resembles a dangerous offender category procedure in its operation but targets a slightly less serious category of sex offender. In fact, if the dangerous offender criteria are not met it is quite possible that he will be covered by the long term offender category in which case, having been declared a long term offender, he is still subject to up to 10 years of intensive supervision being added to his initial sentence.

There have only been two long term offender designations so far but the tool remains available to prosecutors and the courts and we can expect to see more of these designations as more experience is gained with the new procedure.

The other main component of Bill C-55 was a new peace bond as section 810.2 of the Criminal Code. Essentially it allows someone to seek a restraining order where there is evidence that an individual poses a significant risk of committing a serious personal injury offence. The court can impose a restraining order for up to 12 months with conditions attached to it such as a requirement that the individual report any change of address to the police or correctional authorities.

Canadian police forces were already reporting success with a similar peace bond in the Criminal Code which targets potential pedophiles. Section 810.2 is not only an additional crime prevention tool but is now being used extensively across the country, particularly in Ontario. Parliament has given police, prosecutors and the courts one more useful tool to prevent crime.

I think the section 810.2 peace bond is worth mentioning because provinces are starting to use these restraining orders in conjunction with community notification orders. There is a growing trend in Canadian provinces to identify offenders who after released from prison still constitute a potential risk to the community but who can also be controlled by appropriate notice to the community and supportive programs for the ex-offender. We are finding that provinces are using section 810.2 orders as a complementary measure to ensure that ex-offenders stay on the straight and narrow.

I raise Bill C-55 as only one example of a measure that is having impact and responds to the trends in the administration of justice in the provinces and the public concerns regarding crime. It is a measure that demonstrates this government's concern for public safety.

I will list many of our initiatives to show that the Reform motion is totally out of bounds when it states our system is in a deplorable state.

The government has introduced legislation recently for the creation of a DNA databank which will certainly go a long way toward helping the police in their efforts to solve crime. We have introduced $32 million a year in funding for community crime prevention programs. Over 5 years that amounts to $160 million. We have also, through the solicitor general's office, undertaken nationwide consultations on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to improve the overall effectiveness of Canada's correction system.

The government has introduced legislation for a comprehensive new extradition act in order to fight international crime more effectively. Let us not forget the strengthened gun control legislation we introduced as well as the amendments to the Criminal Code to prevent use of the drunkenness defence for general intent crimes of violence, including sexual assault.

We also introduced measures to deal more effectively with high risk offenders through Bill C-55. We passed legislation to improve public safety through changes in the parole and corrections system, including measures for easier detention of sex offenders in penitentiaries until the end of their sentences and measures to strengthen rehabilitation and treatment programs for sex offenders.

We amended the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act to make it easier for peace officers to obtain DNA samples from suspects. We passed equally tough anti-gang measures, including the creation of the new criminal offence of participation in a criminal organization. These tougher sentencing provisions and additional police powers to seize the proceeds of crime and organized crime and to conduct surveillance of gangs have been used very frequently lately, especially in my home province.

We amended the Criminal Code to toughen the laws on child prostitution and child sex tourisms. We amended the Criminal Code to tighten the faint hope clause, making it more difficult for offenders to obtain the right to apply for early parole and to prohibit persons who commit multiple murders from using section 745. We amended the Criminal Code to ensure that those who commit crimes of hate receive harsher sentences. I could go on and on with the list but I know time is running out.

I want to reassure Canadians that this government will certainly not sit on its laurels. We have a very heavy agenda for the next session of parliament and we will continue to ensure that the priority we have set, not only in our ministry of the solicitor general but also the ministry of justice, the safety of Canadians, is met with concrete action.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada. I appreciated the outline of what his government had done which he placed before the House. That was refreshing, compared to what we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who gave a strident and almost nervous response to her participation in the debate. She simply attacked our critique of the laws and the manner in which some of them were being administered.

My hon. colleague referred to 250 changes and covered them quite well. There is not a hope of the child sex tourism law being enforced, in other words stopping Canadians from travelling to another country and engaging in sex with children. This is window dressing to create the impression that they are doing something when we do not have enough money to send to Manitoba to keep it onside in the administration of the Young Offenders Act. We are to expand funding to do what for child sex tourism? It is window dressing.

We saw what the government did with the faint hope clause when thousands upon thousands of Canadians signed petitions, phoned and e-mailed members of parliament, to get rid of it completely. They did nothing. Clifford Olson was allowed a full court press with a judge and jury. We saw that happen. It is tinkering again and it is window dressing.

Where is effectiveness? Where is safety for society? Where is fair and just punishment for crimes committed?

We supported the new gang law which was moved through the House and passed a year or so ago. The chiefs of police asked us to support it because it would at least open the door to an area of legislation not before entered into by parliament, organized crime. How many individuals have been charged for belonging to a criminal organization or for such a crime? We looked at that and we saw how ineffective and how unenforceable it was.

The member touched a couple of times on our concern about and our labelling of the justice system as being in a deplorable state. When a province initiates litigation to get out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act as Manitoba is doing because there is insufficient funding coming from the federal department to maintain its financial agreement, surely it is the greatest sign that at least in this area the administration of justice is deteriorating badly. I have never in my lifetime seen such a precedent as this one.

Could the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada tell the House today whether or not his government has taken any action to keep the Manitoba government onside? He must bear in mind that when the justice minister and the justice officials appeared before the standing committee weeks ago they had nothing to offer the Manitoba government.

From that time until now has there been any agreement or offer made to keep Manitoba onside? Suddenly the province of Manitoba will not be there to administer the Young Offenders Act and the federal government will have to do something about it.

Could the hon. member tell the House anything about dealing with the crisis in Manitoba with regard to the administration of the Young Offenders Act? Could he offer anything? I would be pleased to hear what the hon. member has to offer in that area.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for five years. I guess it is inherent in our democratic system or a tradition for the opposition to criticize the government and for the government to try to advance legislation and ideas. It would be refreshing from time to time to hear concrete ideas from all opposition members.

Far too often we hear criticism, criticism, criticism and never any concrete suggestions whatsoever to improve the system. We are constantly striving to improve the system. I recall several attempts by the government to improve the system. We are always confronted by Reform Party members in particular who vote against us. They have had a fixation on trying to solve a particular problem. They always invoke the memory of the Bernardos or Olsons of the world when we try to enact legislation. Section 745 legislation was a clear example of that.

Had we had the co-operation of the parties—and I know the Reform Party agreed but the Bloc reneged on its commitment—Clifford Olson would never have been able to have a section 745 hearing. The member knows full well that the amendments and changes we have put in place will prevent serial killers such as Clifford Olson from even applying under section 745.

There are other initiatives like DNA, for example. I wish we could evolve to a point where opposition and government members would work more closely together but I do not think that will happen. It is the duty of opposition to criticize and I guess it is our duty as government members to advance and to take the criticism.

In direct answer to the member's question, just because the administration of justice is the responsibility of the provinces does not mean that legislation is bad. The member has identified a problem in the area of funding. I reassure him that the Minister of Justice and our government are currently negotiating with not just the two provinces mentioned but with my home province of Quebec to make sure the provinces have the right tools to ensure the administration of the YOA act and other acts is adequate. I believe also, though, that the provinces have a very important role in this regard. It is not just the federal government.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to continue in the same vein as the Reform Party member who just spoke, the question is, did the minister come up with the money and did he suggest to the province of Manitoba that it take over responsibility for enforcing the Young Offenders Act.

Given that the parliamentary secretary represents a riding in Quebec, I hope that he is making his point of view known to cabinet or at least to his minister when he meets with him. I remind him—and there is even agreement on the other side about the figures—that an amount of between $77 million and $82 million is owed to Quebec by the federal government for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

Before finding money to help Manitoba enforce a law, and since Quebec has been enforcing the legislation for quite some time, I would ask the government to pay its debt of between $77 million and $82 million.

This being said, my question has more to do with the speech made by the parliamentary secretary. If the hon. member was present when the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa spoke, he may have noticed that the secretary of state mentioned that narcotics are at the root of several problems, that they are largely responsible for crime in Canada. We know about narcodollars, money laundering, etc.

I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Since Canada is known internationally as the number one country for money laundering—possibly hundreds of billions of dollars annually—what is the federal government waiting for to introduce legislation that would prohibit this and make it impossible to launder money in Canada as in other countries including the United States where it is a lot more difficult to launder money than it is here?

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good question. Our government is concerned by this issue. We have been consulting the various stakeholders for two years now.

I can assure the House and the hon. member that, by this fall, the solicitor general will introduce a bill providing for various controls over money laundering, as well as other appropriate measures.

Colleagues in other departments—and I am referring to the likes of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—will try to review the legislation to stop or prevent organized crime from committing crimes in our country.

It should also be pointed out that Canada and the United States share the longest undefended border in the world, which makes it easy to enter our country. We are nonetheless addressing the issue, and I can assure the hon. member that the minister does understand the issue and will soon be introducing legislation.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey North.

I just want to make a few corrections for the Liberal member opposite who just spoke. He said that Reform has not given many concrete suggestions. How totally inaccurate that is. Look at what happened to the victims bill of rights that was passed in the House. The Liberals consequently swept it under the rug. Listen to what we said about DNA samples and how they should be treated just like fingerprinting to give the police an adequate tool. The Liberals dismissed that out of hand. Time after time we give positive suggestions and they are completely disregarded. For him to say that we are not giving positive suggestions is totally inaccurate.

This afternoon we are dealing with a topic of great concern to all Canadians right across the country. As I go through my speech I know the Liberals will say that I am using examples that are not representative of our justice system. That is again totally inaccurate. The examples that I will relate are good examples that illustrate what is broken and what needs to be fixed. The Liberals should be listening very carefully.

The first example is Billy Jo who was not hungry to see the man who raped her rot behind bars. However she did not expect him, a few weeks after his conviction for rape, to be at her local grocery store. She said “I expected him to be in prison”. She is 24 years old and lives near Windsor, Ontario. She said “I was amazed and very angry to see him there. My first reaction was to protect my children. I was scared for my kids. He had never seen them before and I didn't want him to. I shoved them under my coat and I rushed out”.

This man received 18 months of house arrest. Why? It was because of the government's policy, the thing it is so proud of, of conditional sentencing which allowed this person to spend not even one day behind bars for a brutal sexual assault. That is a symptom of what is wrong with our justice system.

Let us put this in context. What is the primary purpose of government? In a civilized society the primary role of a government is to provide for the peace and safety of its citizens. When Reform chose this topic today and wanted to have the government discuss it, it was striking at the very heart of why we organize ourselves in a civilized society.

We need the rule of law. We need proper enforcement of the law. We need to live by rules that we have all agreed upon, and they must be properly enforced so that the citizens of a nation are free to pursue their lives.

I will relate three principles today that I believe must be used to test to see whether our justice system is the proper justice system. First, the laws must simple, clear and easy to understand for everyone in society. If the laws are too complex and not easy to grasp they will not be respected. Those laws must be fair.

Second, the laws must be enforced equally. If they are not enforced equally and if every citizen is not treated equally before the law, that law will not be respected. There must be no exemptions. There must be no special status for certain people under the law.

The third principle is that if the laws are broken, there must be clear consequences or punishment. If we do not have that in our justice system, we will not have the respect for the law that we should have.

Because this government is not taking those three foundational principles into consideration when it passes laws and enforces those laws, we are having the problems we are having. They are three basic principles of justice. That is why we are debating this topic today. This government has failed in implementing these principles in the legislation and in the enforcement of that legislation through the country's law enforcement agencies.

The laws are too complex. I have had a lot of dealings with the gun registration system. It is not fair and it will not be respected. It is much too complex for one thing. There are 128 pages of legislation with almost as many pages of regulations which were brought in. The Liberals a couple of weeks ago defended it by saying it is no more complex than the Income Tax Act. Just think about that type of defence, saying that it is no more complex than the Income Tax Act.

Another thing I know about that system is that someone can get up to 10 years for not registering a firearm. It may be a firearm that is lying in the basement of their house. It may be an antique. It may not have been looked at or used for a long time. To be made a criminal and to be imprisoned for 10 years because of that is totally unacceptable. It causes people to disrespect the law.

There is the example I already gave of 18 months not even in closed custody for a brutal rape. Compare those two. That is why people ask questions about what is going on.

Again the firearms act will not be applied equally to all citizens. Citizens of a certain race living in certain areas will not have that law apply. The justice minister said that we have one law for all but it will be flexible in its application. There is a problem right there.

There are certain provinces wanting to opt out of the Young Offenders Act. Over half of the population of Canada, the provinces that represent over half the people of Canada want to opt out of the registration system. There is a problem when a government is trying to impose something on people that they are resisting. They have not agreed that this is a law which they want.

Let me talk about another very recent example in my riding. A horrific murder took place approximately a month ago. A young mother was killed by her husband. The house was burned. Her body was found later. The trial is not over, however when the man was put under arrest, he was released on bail. What would be an appropriate bail to set for someone like this? Do you know what it was set at, Mr. Speaker? Three thousand dollars and he was let out. That man is walking the streets today. Not only that, but the judge gave him custody of the children. The people in that community are very angry. They are very agitated that we have a justice system that would allow for this kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker, you do not know the agony it has caused me as these people contact me and relate their concern. They question a system that is going to allow for this kind of thing.

The law needs to be seen as fair to all and applied properly. Members can look at the case that I have just sketched very briefly. I will not go into detail. Look at it through the eyes of the victims. The parents of this woman who was killed see what is going on. They are absolutely shocked.

What about the terrible murder which took place in the southern part of my riding where these people lured an elderly gentleman out and brutally killed him as he tried to help them with their vehicle. What happened to them? This was murder. They were punished and are out two and a half years later. We have huge problems.

I have visited the inmates in the prisons across Canada. I have asked them what advice they would give me as an MP in the House of Commons. These are inmates in the prisons. Several of them have told me voluntarily “I wish they would have gotten tougher with me sooner. When I started acting up as a young person, I wish they would have done something”. People who have fallen afoul of the law, who have received sentences from 10 to 25 years are saying why do we not get tougher sooner with young offenders.

I am not even half done my speech. There are so many things which I think are important. I will try to squeeze them in later in the day. All of these things have to be put into perspective.

I wanted to talk about the family and the need for strengthening the family in Canada. We need to have this balance. We are not just talking about becoming tougher. We have to apply the law fairly. There are other aspects. I will emphasize them later on in the day. I hope I will have time to do that.

This whole topic and the three principles I have related need to be emphasized over and over. I wish the Liberals would test their laws by them.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville is making some excellent points which need to be brought out in terms of this debate, it seems to me it would be in order to ask for unanimous consent that his time be extended.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the time for the hon. member?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government would not give unanimous consent but so be it.

I listened to the member's speech. He made some excellent points. I would like to ask the member a question. I was always taught to believe that when a government is elected its foremost responsibility is to the law-abiding citizens of the country. At least that was always my belief. Since I have been in parliament I no longer doubt that it is the case, but I know that it is no longer the case with the government.

I would like to get the opinion of the member. It seems that the criminal element of our country has far more rights than the victims do today. We had a case in my constituency a little while ago where a husband stabbed his wife to death. He stabbed her 37 times. He was only given three years. What kind of a message does that send to our youth and to the rest of the Canadian citizens who are looking for some kind of leadership from this government which they have yet to receive? Does the member see the same problem? Does the criminal element of this country seem to have far more rights than the victims?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague makes a very good point. The criminal element does have more rights than the victims. That is why we brought in the victims bill of rights several years ago. The Liberals swept it under the rug and refused to bring it back to parliament. It was a bill that was passed with huge support in this House. I do not know why it has been stalled.

Criminals today have access to all kinds of money for their defence but the victims have access to virtually nothing. The criminal is read all of his rights. He is told all about the wonderful programs that are available and all the things that he has access to, such as legal aid and so on. The victims have access to none of them. The victims have to constantly contact the courts and the police to find out what is happening in a particular case and how the people who have committed the horrific crime against them are treated. Those are just two examples of how the criminal in our society is almost elevated and given all these wonderful rights and the victim is given nothing.

When those criminals get into prison I cannot believe some of the things that are given to them that the rest of the people even in my little community never enjoy. Golf courses, wonderful pool tables, terrific training facilities, cable TV, health and dental services, all of these things that they assume are their right. I could not believe that some of them live at a standard that is higher than the seniors in my community. Fourteen wonderful cottages. The only responsibility they have other than making sure they clean the microwave and that the TV is turned off at night is to keep it clean. Seniors in my hometown shake their heads when they see the type of facilities that are provided for these people.

We have to seriously question the justice system that allows this injustice to take place.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to such a worthwhile motion today.

While I have not been here as a member of parliament for very long, I have been here long enough to understand that today's debate will likely not encourage the government to pursue meaningful changes or improvements. The government does not appear to be too interested in changing the status quo. In fact I would go so far as to say it is primarily responsible for most of the ills and complaints that our citizens have today.

This motion makes three specific recommendations: one, to strengthen the Young Offenders Act; two, to abolish conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and three, to introduce a victims bill of rights. These three issues are prominent reasons why I became a member of parliament.

Previously I had been actively involved in pursuing improvements to the Young Offenders Act. I was able to review the proposals made by the member for Crowfoot in his minority report subsequent to the 10-year review of the Young Offenders Act. His proposals helped me to choose the Reform Party as being the most likely opportunity to achieve improvements to our laws.

Just days ago the Minister of Justice finally announced her youth justice strategy. After almost a year on the job we expected some comprehensive legislation in response to last year's justice committee recommendations to significantly change laws regarding young offenders. Instead of legislation the minister produced a strategy. The minister has become so fond of the term “in a timely fashion” to describe her intentions regarding change that I believe she may have difficulty in understanding what that term actually means.

The Young Offenders Act was first made law in 1985. The 10-year review was not completed until 12 years later. It then took a year for the minister to ignore some of the key recommendations and merely announce what she hopes to do in the coming fall session. Meanwhile she intends to spend many more months studying, reviewing and analysing. I have heard that law professors are known for studying and analysing. I guess those among them who come to this place have difficulty in understanding that a minister has a responsibility to do something about a problem, not merely study it to death.

I appreciate that these comments may sound somewhat harsh but young offender legislation is of particular interest to myself and my family. Each day the minister reacts “in a timely fashion” means that additional victims in communities have to live with what even she has admitted to be seriously flawed legislation. And it is seriously flawed in spite of the attempts by her predecessor to address the failings of the Young Offenders Act, but I will save further comment in that regard for a future date.

On the issue of victims rights, I introduced Private Members' Bill C-294 last December. It is intended to balance the rights of victims and the rights of criminals. For years Canadians have complained that this government falls over backward to ensure that criminals receive all their rights and all their freedoms while not being nearly so vigilant as to ensure that victims and society at large also receive due consideration for their rights and freedoms.

My bill would provide a formal recognition of victims as a party to the criminal justice system. The system would be mandated to keep victims informed of developments in their case. There would be provision for the broader use of victims impact statements and restitution could be ordered for psychological harm done to victims.

Over two years ago the former justice minister promised to address his government's failure to properly amend our laws and to fully recognize the interest of victims. At that time he stated “Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”.

Almost a year ago the present Minister of Justice stated: “We have not done enough to accommodate the interests of victims within the criminal justice system”. Canadians are still waiting. Our laws are still inadequate and the government still has done nothing to address the interests of victims within the criminal justice system.

The justice committee has finally begun to consider the issue, but will the government have the fortitude to act? Only time will tell. Hopefully for the sake of victims of crime and society at large it will approach victims rights in a responsible manner, but I know better than to hold my breath.

I will now move on to the issue of abolishing conditional sentences for violent offenders. It is distressing that we even have to resort to a motion in an attempt to convince the government to do what it should have done over three years ago. The former government brought conditional sentences into the Criminal Code in 1995 through Bill C-41. Reform has no difficulty with the concept of alternative measures and conditional sentences, but we did argue to limit them to non-violent offenders.

The former minister in his infinite wisdom decided that he would not and could not give credit to the Reform Party for exposing his failure to appreciate the ramifications of unlimited conditional sentences. He initially held the position that of course the courts would not apply conditional sentencing for violent offenders. We all know the courts did use these lenient provisions for violent criminal acts.

The court said that if parliament intended to limit the provision it should have said so in the statute. What did the minister do? He pretended that it was a problem of interpretation by the courts and to assist them he again tinkered with the legislation. In Bill C-17 which passed in 1997 he made minor changes to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to try to direct judges as to when to permit conditional sentences.

He should have said something more to the effect that thou shalt not use conditional sentences for violent offenders and drug traffickers. I guess that was too direct and uncomplicated.

What kind of mess are we in? For one thing the former minister has definitely helped his colleagues in the legal profession. A little legislative issue has generated millions of dollars for those at the legal bar. It has cost taxpayers in many different ways. Cases have to be appealed, justice is delayed until cases are finally adjudicated to closure, appeal courts are clogged with matters that never should have been an issue, and our crowns are tied up with arguments and cases which should have been straightforward. After three years of outstanding government ineptitude the minister of timely fashion has announced that maybe we should study the issue of conditional sentencing to determine why it is being used for unacceptable violent offences. Perhaps she should review some of the decisions of the various courts of appeal. She will soon realize how our justice system is being thrown into disrepute over this provision.

Derek Anderson Austin, convicted of cultivating marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, received a conditional sentence. He had a long record, including possession, trafficking, four failures to appear, driving while disqualified, unlawfully at large and obstruction of police. On appeal the court of appeal stated: “We are very surprised that such a person would be given a conditional sentence”. What happened? Nothing, because the sentence had already been served.

There are those who receive conditional sentences together with community service. The lawyers ensure that some or all of the community service is completed before an appeal can be heard. At that point the hands of the appeal court are tied as the offender has already been punished and it would be illegal to incarcerate them. The former minister of justice solved the problem of our growing prison population by providing even those who deserve to be imprisoned with this lenient and abused conditional sentencing provision.

Court cases are brimming over with examples of individuals who obtained conditional sentences in appropriate circumstances but the courts of appeal were barred from rectifying matters because some or all of the sentence had in effect already been served.

Ronald John Schmidt received a nine month custodial sentence for sexual assault. He told his seven-year old victim not to tell anyone or he would do it again. He appealed for a conditional sentence even though none existed at the time he was sentenced. He was granted a nine month conditional sentence. There are a number of cases of sexual assault by persons in positions of trust over children where conditional sentences have been imposed. Conditional sentencing does not carry with it society's denunciation for these offences. Deterrence will not be effected by such leniency. Parliament's support for these inappropriate sentencing provisions will only reduce the standards of our country.

There are hundreds of other cases of improper and questionable use of conditional sentencing for violent offences but my time will not permit me to go into them in detail. We have a flawed Young Offenders Act and a minister who is taking forever to do what she could have done years ago. We have promises upon promises to address victims rights issues but the government wants more studies. We have a sentencing regime which permits violent offenders to serve their sentences at home.

Yes, the House should condemn the government for its inaction and for its failures with respect to our criminal justice system.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest. I have a couple of questions for him.

As I travelled around my constituency back home in Okanagan—Shuswap, I had occasion to drop into the schools every now and then. I am finding more and more often as I visit the schools and talk to the young people that they themselves are afraid. They are afraid of a few people of their generation who have some of them living in fear, fear of wearing certain clothes to school and fear sometimes of taking money to school in case it is taken from them.

I would like to know if the member has run into that type of situation as he has travelled around his constituency. Is this also going on in his area?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is an important question.

Before I became a member of this place I spent a lot of time in the schools over the past five years talking to young people about violence, trying to work with them and trying to make them understand the ramifications. It certainly has been my experience over those years from the number of young people I have talked to in the schools that there is fear among our youth. They are the majority of victims of youth crime.

I dare say that when a class full of high school students is asked what it would do with the Young Offenders Act I find that most students would be far more harsh than anything members have ever heard from the Reform Party.

That explains the kind of fear students experience in their schools. It is not only something I have seen in my riding or the hon. members has seen in his. I have seen this throughout B.C. at every school and youth group that I have had the pleasure of addressing on these issues.