Debates of May 26th, 1998

Supply

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thanks to you.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Thanks to me, the hon. Liberal member says. I would like an apology for that insult.

Quite frankly the Liberal government was told time and time again in the House that we should exclude rapists and murderers from conditional sentences and it chooses to ignore it and allows it to happen. Thanks to me. I would like an apology for that insult. It is the Liberal government that is at fault. The government is deliberately denying victims in this country their rights.

As far as the comment and the question from the separatists, their agenda is a little below what it should be in this country. I do not have any time to answer that real dumb question.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying what else is new on the part of the Reform.

Reform chooses an opposition day to do a smorgasbord of what is the most heinous violent criminals. It is highlighting those people in our society that the justice system is trying to work out. It is exaggerating the extent of the crime in this country. Crime has gone down in Canada. It is exaggerating and fearmongering which is typical of the Reform opposition. It highlights the exceptions to the justice system rather than the rule.

Reform's simplistic attitude toward justice, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth philosophy belongs in the jungle, not in this House and not in this country. That is exactly the Reform philosophy as far as justice goes.

I do not think victims in this country believe in an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth philosophy. They believe that the government has a balanced approach, both to youth crime and to victims rights. We are on the record—

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

The punishment should fit the crime.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair is very tolerant of heckling in debate but I am having difficulty hearing the parliamentary secretary. To that extent I have to say I feel the heckling is excessive. Perhaps members might tone it down a little so the Chair is able to hear a member speak. I am sure there are other members who would also like to hear the parliamentary secretary.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are really interested in hearing me but I will continue in any case.

As far as the young offenders proposals put forward two weeks ago, the government put forward a balanced approach focusing on front end initiatives in dealing with Canadian youth unlike the opposition who try to prevent crime by simply changing the Criminal Code or the back end of crime prevention.

I will give a brief overview of the most important changes to the legislation that the minister has announced. She proposes to replace the current procedure for transfer to adult court with the procedure of assessing adult sentences in certain serious circumstances so that justice can be provided quickly so that the decision to transfer is made at the most appropriate moment after finding of guilt. By speeding up the process we will ensure that the offender, the victim or the victim's family and the community see a clear connection between the offence and its consequences.

This change would allow that youth 14 years and older who are repeat violent offenders or who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise. The Minister of Justice would allow the publication of names upon conviction of youths who qualify for adult sentences.

At the same time the new legislation will strengthen the commitment to use community based sentences and effective alternatives to the justice system for non-violent young offenders. This new legislation will enhance the requirement that community based approaches be—

[An hon. member]

Where is it?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Shall I continue, Mr. Speaker, or shall we let the opposition—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the parliamentary secretary has the floor. I am able to hear her well so I have been reluctant to interrupt, but perhaps hon. members who are seeking to participate in the debate might restrain themselves until their time comes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are quite willing to listen to the hon. member make her presentation, but she is misleading the House because there is no legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member knows that it is improper to suggest that any hon. member is misleading the House. I caution him very much in respect of those words.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is entitled to continue her remarks and speak about her intentions and I invite her to continue.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that she intended to work closely with the provinces to help promote and expand the kinds of sentences that help youth fully appreciate the impact of their actions, accept responsibility in a meaningful way and come to terms with a need for change in their lives. These approaches provide youth with support to overcome criminal behaviour when traditional sources of support are unavailable. Equally important, they engage victims and the community in the administration of justice and thus provide greater confidence by responding to legitimate concerns that justice be seen to be delivered at the local level.

There are many models already in use across Canada. Some involve restitution, that is, youth paying back to the victim and the community for damage done. Other models involve victim-offender reconciliation programs, family group conferencing, community service orders or personal services to a victim. All of these emphasize and reinforce basic fundamental Canadian values such as respect for others, their property and their community.

The government wants to increase its efforts to prevent youth crime. Canadians want to provide their young people with any assistance they may need and help them stay away from crime.

To do so requires looking beyond the legislation and the criminal justice system at ways available to our society to deal with problems such as child poverty and child abuse, which are often an underlying cause of youth crime, and to help young people not to make the kind of choices that may lead them to engage in criminal behaviour.

The Government of Canada has agreed with provincial and territorial governments to pursue a joint child development strategy as part of the national action program for children.

Canadians realize that legislative changes are only one piece of the puzzle. Legislation alone will not stop young people from committing criminal acts and innocent people from being victimized. An efficient approach to deterring youth crime must reach beyond the criminal justice system and include crime prevention and a series of other programs and services to help children and young people.

This is the basic message conveyed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in its report on the Young Offenders Act. The provinces and territories have been key partners in seeking new direction for the justice system as it applies to youth. More important, Canadians have made a major contribution by expressing their fears and concerns, and by demonstrating their support for reasonable and balanced solutions.

These values—not those of the opposition—are the ones Canadians want our justice system to reflect. We must do a better job of ensuring that this is the case. There are effective community-based alternatives, but they are not used to their full potential. We rely too much on incarceration, as the opposition often advocates, but this solution, while simple, does not help young offenders, victims, or communities.

The Reform Party would want us to believe that the criminal justice system is in a deplorable state. This is not what the statistics show, but of course Reform members do not know how to read or write. The victimization rate has gone down between 1998 and 1992. The picture we get when we care to inform ourselves seriously is a far cry from those levels advanced by those who want us to think that we have to lock ourselves up for fear that we might be attacked if we dare walk out on our streets.

The Reform Party has been claiming that the system is broken ever since it came into this House in 1993 but it does not have any hard facts to prove it. Yes there are crimes. Yes there are victims and one is too many. That we agree on. But it is not a fair statement to say that the whole system has to be abandoned.

Why is it then that the opposition continues to claim that the system is broken when Canada's justice system is at least as effective as any of the other western societies? What is it that is broken in Canada? What is it that we are not doing in Canada that is much more efficient elsewhere?

I would suggest, if the members care to listen, it is because of the very failure of the opposition to demonstrate that crime is rampant in Canadian society that it has to resort to empty rhetoric and petty politics to instil the fear of crime and to try to put this government on the defensive.

The best way to fight crime is to ensure that crime is not committed. As the Minister of Justice indicated on May 12 when she outlined her strategy for the renewal of youth justice, crime prevention is at the heart of a criminal justice system that works effectively.

A second phase of the crime prevention initiative will soon be launched. These initiatives and others, which include the strengthening of aboriginal communities, place a strong emphasis on dealing with the root causes of youth justice and helping communities to support and provide guidance to their children and youth which is a key ingredient in making our young people less vulnerable to a life of crime.

As for victims, I would caution the reliance the Reform Party has been placing on a victims bill of rights. Such a bill could only address matters within the federal government's jurisdiction. I believe that the federal role in that area is rather limited. As the hon. member of the Bloc reminded Reformers, I would like to remind them that there is provincial jurisdiction in this area, in the administration. They often forget that.

I want to remind the House that the justice and human rights committee is looking into the issue of what can be done to help the plight of victims. In fact there will be a national forum for victims rights here in Ottawa in early June. They also forget that. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice will be interested. We encourage hon. members to hold more town hall meetings to get the real opinion of Canadians as they often do when they hold their town hall meetings if they are willing to listen.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this a very short question because I see there are lots of people who would like to ask questions.

I am just curious about a comment the hon. member made and would ask her for a response to this question. She claims that the crime rate is down 13%. At the same time her colleague from the solicitor general's office was complaining in a press conference that I was at that incarceration was up 28%. Could the member possibly explain, if incarceration is up 28% that maybe crime is going down because the bad guys are off the street.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, statistics across this country do show that crime rates are going down. There is a certain percentage, but I am not sure it is 28% as the member would like us to believe, of violent criminals that is going up.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That is what your member said.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

That is why we have to begin at age zero, as I said in my speech. We have to begin to take care of the problem that exists in terms of poverty and other problems which exist in this country in order to ensure that we prevent crime, not throw people in jail as the Reform Party would like us to believe.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague from the government could confirm exactly what she said about prevention being the best way and not throwing everybody in jail without looking at why they are there.

Could the member please give me her thoughts on the kind of system we would have if the Reform Party was the government today? What would Reformers be putting toward prevention if they are talking about tax cuts? And yes we know there are some people in this country whose taxes are too high and some large companies that do not pay enough. Could the member please explain to the House what kind of system we would have?

We know that with the cuts to the social programs now, there is no more room to cut. We know that with the Reform Party there would be no real social programs. Could she please explain to us what kind of crime prevention program we would have in this country with the Reform Party governing this country?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question but I do not purport to talk for the Reform Party. I will talk about what this government wants to do. The Reform Party members can speak for themselves. They are on the record and have proven themselves true to form again.

As far as this government is concerned, the National Crime Prevention Council that was set up by the federal government made recommendations to this government concerning crime prevention.

Poverty is an important issue in terms of preventing crimes, starting at age zero. This would include taking care of nutrition, helping parents and single parent families to deal with the problems which start early and helping dysfunctional families from the very beginning. We are investing, as is on the record and as was our commitment in the election campaign, $32 million in terms of community based crime prevention initiatives. As I said in my speech, we will be doing the launch of these initiatives in a few days.

I want to assure the member that the recommendations of the National Crime Prevention Council are the basis of a lot of crime prevention initiatives. We consider community based initiatives as being the most appropriate way to begin. That is the route we are taking.

Yes we have to take care of other social problems such as poverty and child malnutrition. We can talk about fetal alcohol syndrome and all the other syndromes. Those are the types of initiatives we are looking at in terms of funding and making sure we prevent crime at zero age.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice would explain the numerous contradictions between the statements of the current Minister of Justice and those of her predecessor, who both represent the same Liberal Party and promote the same policies.

I will only quote a few short statements from the predecessor of the current Minister of Justice. During Oral Question Period, the then minister said “We must not amend the Young Offenders Act. Amending the act will not solve the problem of juvenile delinquency”. The former Minister of Justice also said “The idea is not to stigmatize these young people for life by publishing their names in the newspapers, which could prevent them from continuing their education and getting a job. Rather, we should follow Quebec's example as closely as possible in dealing with young offenders”.

How does the parliamentary secretary to the current Minister of Justice explain that the minister did a complete turnaround and yielded to the pressures of western Canada, among others, on a very simple issue, by publishing the names of young offenders, which squarely contradicts what the Liberal Party used to suggest?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question, I would like to reassure the hon. member by saying that our position has not changed. Our approach remains balanced, with crime prevention on one side—and I have already told the House of our initiative of $32 million—and the treatment of those needing rehabilitation on the other.

As we said when we announced them, the proposals are aimed at less than 1% of young offenders, the most violent and repeat offenders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the members of the Reform Party to listen carefully, as I am sure they will have questions to ask me.

First, I think the Reform Party is right to question Canada's criminal justice system. Unfortunately the arguments that lead us to criticize the government over criminal justice are at the other end of the spectrum from those of the Reform Party.

This difference once again illustrates the incompatibility of Quebec's expectations and federalism as proposed by the government opposite and especially as proposed by the Reform Party and the people in the west. I could debate this all day long. I know the subject well and am passionate about it.

It is vital that legislation to do with the criminal system be well thought out. Legislation must not be established on the basis of specific cases or stories from the Journal de Montréal or other gossipmongers in western Canada, but on the basis of a very thorough analysis of the situation. Only then can we draft the necessary legislation, and it must be for the long term and not just to resolve a particular problem or a public irritant.

The Reform Party proposes a motion and attacks three subjects from three different directions. I will deal briefly with each one.

The first, the Young Offenders Act, is another matter I could talk passionately about, because it is important. I have always held and do so still that, a young 14 or 15 year old in trouble with the law for having committed a murder or armed robbery in a convenience store or elsewhere has a problem, but society too has a problem, because this is a societal problem.

As for the Reformers, they criticize the Minister of Justice for not having gone far enough. They are calling for the electric chair, or almost; nothing will ever be enough for them, they want the problem solved once and for all. As far as we are concerned, when a series of amendments were made to the Young Offenders Act in recent years, we suggested that, before these amendments were implemented, the western provinces should first try to apply the legislation as it then stood to determine whether anything could be done with it.

In Quebec, we have been investing in a rehabilitation system for 20 or 25 years, and the Young Offenders Act as it stands works.

There is always room for improvement. As long as a 0.1% rate of repeat offenders remains, not enough is being done. There is obviously room for improvement. However, will it serve society to throw young persons in prison for life, in a different wing from adult prisoners perhaps but sharing cafeterias and dayrooms with real criminals? I think not.

Will the problem be solved by publishing the name of a 16-year old who has committed murder? Will branding him on the forehead ensure public safety? No. The law must be enforced.

The provinces have sufficient latitude under the existing legislation to help these young people return to society as anonymous citizens, earn a living, have a family, in a word re-enter society—that is the basic idea—and become anonymous citizens.

In this respect, Reformers should listen to what the experts are saying, in Quebec. While political scientists may be caught up in their own views, there are also criminologists, sociologists, those enforcing the Young Offenders Act, those involved, to whom problem cases are referred and who enforce the law.

I referred briefly to the ACFAS earlier. These experts, who have gained renown across Canada and even in the United States, have made it clear that, in Quebec, enforcing the Young Offenders Act has paid off. As I was saying, Pierre Noreau, a political scientist at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscaminque, said “Twenty years ago, Quebec chose to equip itself with a system for handling troubled youth that is more sophisticated than in most other provinces”. This is the secret of our current success.

Having heard what the Reform Party members have had to say, there is absolutely no way we will ever be able to reach agreement with them on the Young Offenders Act. We have two different ways of looking at the problem. The Reform position is incompatible with ours. Increasingly, as the government takes a position on the Young Offenders Act, it is getting in line with the Reform Party view, the view of the western Right, and its position is becoming increasingly irreconcilable with the Quebec position.

It is unfortunate, because the separatists, as we are labelled here, used to be able to talk to those the other side, the federalists, on a matter of great importance, and to reach an agreement on it, for the good and the protection of society. The Reform Party is not the only one to be concerned about this issue, we too are concerned about it. But our solutions are different.

The second point deals with parole for violent offenders. The parole system is part of a theory of criminal justice based on offender rehabilitation. That is the initial premise, and the basis of the legislation. If they are against it, they need perhaps to address the initial premise, the objective of the legislation, which is to rehabilitate the offender and reintegrate him into society.

Some offenders are harder to reintegrate than others. Some, certainly, cannot be rehabilitated. I am told that pedophiles do not respond to treatment. Is this true? Is it false? I do not know. I am a lawyer, not a doctor. I am told that, regardless of the treatment or drugs used, a pedophile cannot be cured. This problem must be viewed in a different perspective from other offences. The whole parole system must be structured accordingly.

Since Bill C-45 was passed, the formula used to expedite the release of some offenders after they have served one-sixth of their sentence has been of concern to the public. Obviously, people cannot agree or be pleased with what is going on, particularly when they see individuals such as Lagana and others like him, major drug dealers and big time money launderers—according to the media, and this seems to be confirmed in the legal files—released after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.

Considering all the problems created by drugs and the money they generate, we cannot be pleased to see these individuals released after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.

The Bloc Quebecois does not just criticize. It proposed an amendment to the act, to try to solve the problem. We think the problem has to do with how the parole board defines non-violent criminals. I could give a presentation on a supreme court decision in the 1980s or 1990s, the Smith case, in which the court associated drug money and any money from crime with violent crimes.

Money laundering does not seem like a violent crime, but where does the money come from? It comes from crime. After weighing the facts, the supreme court judges reached the conclusion—and I respect their very legal rulings—that it was violent. The legislation could perhaps be amended to bring it more into line with the Smith ruling and deny such people parole.

My final point is the victims bill of rights, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a provincial concern. Certain provinces are undoubtedly more advanced than others. I was delighted when the deputy attorney general of the province of British Columbia appeared before the committee and told us everything that was being done in British Columbia for victims.

It is perhaps not enough and more perhaps needs to be done, but under no circumstances must the federal government interfere. If the federal government has money, British Columbia said it should hand it over to the provinces, who are responsible for implementing the legislation. They will invest this money where it is needed.

I could go on for hours, but my time is up.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague who sits on the justice committee, as I do. He talked about the administration of justice within his province.

It was a judge from Quebec who, using alternative sentences, allowed two men who raped a young girl to walk free on conditional sentencing.

I would like to know if the member believes that is the proper use of the law or whether, if he had the authority and the power, he would limit the use of conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders as the government indicated.

When the conditional sentencing bill came through, Bill C-41, and some of the judges began to use in a manner that the justice minister today felt was inappropriate, he introduced an amendment. It required the unanimous consent of this House to introduce it in the manner that he did.

That was to caution the judges that the safety of society must be taken into consideration when conditional sentencing is used. It was a warning to the judges about using it indiscriminately when violent offenders are involved.

I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that the administration of justice in the province of Quebec overall does have some concerns. There is a biker war there. We have seen murders, including the murder of a young child. We saw the gangland type of execution of two prison guards. We have not seen that for years, certainly not in my lifetime, in the other provinces.

Before we start to cast aspersions on the administration of justice in the other provinces, perhaps the hon. member should take a look at some of these extraordinary criminal occurrences in his own province.

I would like him to answer that question. Is he satisfied when that judge in Quebec, as do many judges across the country in all provinces, uses a law created in this House, called conditional sentencing, in a manner that allows a convicted rapist to walk free?

Does the member support that? Or, if he had the power, would he change that? If he would change it, to what extent would he change it? Or would he simply allow what the government is allowing, which is for the appeal courts to deal with it, plugging the appeal courts with case after case? The attorneys general of the provinces and the crown prosecutors are appealing ridiculous decisions made by the lower provincial courts which have allowed violent offenders to walk free through the use of conditional sentencing.

I would like the hon. member to express his concern one way or the other, if he has a concern over that particular piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's comment is somewhat surprising, since the Reform MPs are the only ones criticizing the administration of justice at the present time.

I have never criticized the justice system of any province, I was merely repeating the allegations by the Reform member who spoke before me, criticizing not only the administration of justice but the very decision of the judge who stepped down, more or less labelling him as incompetent because he waited so long before indicating that he ought to be disqualified.

I have not criticized the administration of justice. On the contrary, I believe that the provinces, all in all, do a very good job with what resources they have available. I am very pleased with what I see at first glance as far as the administration of justice is concerned, in Quebec at any rate.

As I have said, there is room for improvement. What the Reform Party wants, however, does not exist—a kind of machine you would load up with the facts, pull a handle, and out would come the result at the other end. That is not how things work in real life. There are cases where the facts have to be examined, legislation that has to be applied, there are no miracle solutions, and at the present time the legislation is good, overall, although there is room for improvement.

I will not go into specific cases, as they want me to, because that is not the role of a member of parliament.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this particular motion on this opposition day. The topic is an important subject which Canadians want to talk about. There is a great deal of interest in the subject and it is very timely to be raising it at this particular juncture.

The YOA, victims' rights, the whole subject dealing with crime and urban safety is something that I am very well aware of and deal with every day. I live in an inner city riding, the city of Winnipeg, that is home to some of the worst street gang problems, breaking and entering, nuisance crimes and a lot of property crimes.

Next to health care, the number one issue that arises from the people in my riding is: Why are their streets not safer? Why can they not feel comfortable? They want to live the way we used to live in that community when I was growing up. My father would give me $5 to go to the store to buy a quart of milk when I was eight or nine years old. I would ride my bicycle to the store, buy the milk and return home.

Now a parent simply cannot do that. They would not be acting in a responsible way if they sent their kid to the store with a five dollar bill. It would not be smart. They would not be doing their child a favour.

It is the number one concern. It is a quality of life issue. People want it to be dealt with. They want it to be addressed. They have a right to be angry. Even a lot of the choleric language that I hear from members of the Reform Party I can frankly understand. I can relate to it. We all have a right to be angry when our streets are not safe and we do not feel that our families are safe.

I recently held a round table on this subject in my riding and two nuns who run a safe house for street kids in the inner city of Winnipeg came to that meeting. They told me some stories that might be useful for members of the House to hear.

First, to give an idea of the nature of the problem, in the area surrounding around the safe house people no longer sleep in the outside rooms of their homes. They sleep in the inner part of their homes, in a den or in a living room that is away from any outside wall because there is gunfire every night. Every night around Rossbrooke House in the inner city of Winnipeg people hear shots going off as gang members threaten each other with firearms. It is serious. It is not once in a blue moon, it is every single night and families will not sleep in their bedrooms because they are afraid of stray bullets coming in through the windows on the exterior walls. Those are urgent circumstances.

They also went on to talk about some of the services they provide in this safe house. They provide a refuge for the 9, 10 and 11 year old children who are being harassed and threatened into joining these street gangs. The older gang members, when they approach these 10 and 11 year olds, whom they want to perform certain crimes for them because they are under a certain age, do not taking no for an answer. In fact, they do not threaten the little children with beating them up. They say “If you don't come and join the gang and do what we want you to we are going to beat up your mother or your sister or some family member”.

We should try to put ourselves in the position of a 10 year old child who has an 18 year old thug telling him “If you don't do this tonight I'm going to your mother's house to beat her up”. It takes a lot of courage for some of these children to say no to the gangs in my neighbourhood.

That is why the house that Sister Eileen and Sister Bernadette run is so critical. They offer a refuge where these courageous children can go to feel comfortable and safe for a little while.

The other thing they pointed out is that it is difficult for the criminal justice system to deal with some of the young street gang members. They are almost getting to the point where they are hyper acute. They are difficult to deal with because there is no place they feel safe or comfortable. They are always on edge like a caged animal. They are always restless. Their heads are always spinning around because they are not safe on the street and often they are not safe in their homes. At home they often face a violent situation. All the predictable consequences of a poor family upbringing are very prevalent. So it is very hard to reason with them. Using reason and logic does not work when somebody is frightened and not thinking rationally. It is very hard to negotiate with them, even in the safe environment of Rossbrooke House.

I wanted to preface my remarks with some of that background of what it is like in the inner city of Winnipeg where I live currently, which has the gang problem, and why this particular issue is so important to me and to the people I represent.

However, I do not believe this argument is going to be fruitful or beneficial because of the sentiment, the tone and the content of the remarks that I have heard from the opposition, at least so far today, and I am sure there will be much more to come as the day goes on.

A lot of us are victims in the inner city of Winnipeg. I have had my home broken into many times. I have actually caught kids breaking into my home. While I was holding them for the police one of them kidnapped my four year old son to use as a trade-off. It was a blackmail situation. It turned into a horrible mess. Ultimately the kids did not get charged, but I got charged with assaulting the kids who broke into my house. It took me six months to clear up that mess. So I have been there. I have been a victim.

We have a right to be angry, but there are different ways of dealing with it. If we are serious about implementing change we have to go beyond revenge. We have to go beyond the hang 'em high mentality that I have been hearing here too much.

Members of the Reform Party have indicated that victims are victimized twice in the system, once when a criminal does something to them and once by the criminal justice system. I would argue that there is a third time the victims are victimized in this country. They are victimized a third time by the exploitation that takes place in this House of Commons when their personal issues, when the crime that they just went through, is dragged before the House of Commons for cheap theatrical purposes to try to fan the flames of some kind of discontent around our criminal justice system. That I have seen time and time again. I think it is really shameful.

In the recent tragic case of the death of Reena Virk, the very next day members of the Reform Party were jumping up out of their seats saying “These kids are going to have to be punished. We are going to sentence them like they are adults”. Those kids were not even charged yet, never mind convicted. What about the presumption of innocence? Yes, perhaps there was a group of kids involved, but all the information we had was from a radio story that indicated that a young girl had been beaten up by other young people. Yet members of the Reform Party were on their feet virtually calling for the gallows for these kids.

Fortunately the justice critic for the NDP challenged them and said “If you are so anxious to hang these kids, build the gallows right here in the House of Commons. Build it the right number of feet high and bring these 14 and 15 year old kids in here and hang them. You guys do it yourselves because we are not going to be a party to it”.

It was a pathetic thing to witness and listen to people drag out the worst possible aspect and dig deep for that most base sort of thing that all people have in them, hatred and intolerance. Reformers are capitalizing on that. In fact they are marketing the malice which some people have inside them. Reformers seem to be experts at digging down and finding the worst in the Canadian public, pulling it out and slapping it on the table.

I have heard graphic details about sexual assaults and pedophiles coming from those members. Every time they stand up they seem to have some new horrific case, and the bloodier and gorier the better. They recite them in great detail in the House of Commons, not because they are trying to do anything constructive in protecting Canadian people, but because they want the cheap populism that comes with being associated with that kind of enforcement.

It is sick. There is a morbid fascination that Reform members seem to have with dragging these issues before the House of Commons.

The extreme right wing in every country has always been heavy handed in terms of criminal justice. Let us face it. The extreme right wingers, and we can go all the way through history, will avoid the obvious comparison which we are getting tired of using. Not only in Europe but in any right wing, fascist dictatorship we see a very heavy hand in terms of criminal justice issues, often extending beyond human and civil rights.

These things seem to get mixed up and confused in the rather simplistic world view of the Reform Party. Reformers get the issues of individual rights, collective rights and human rights jammed into some unworkable, unmanageable ball. I do not think they have thought it all through.

We are critical of certain aspects of the criminal justice system. However, I do not share the opening remarks of the member who put this motion forward as they were full of a lot of sensational terms—