Debates of June 9th, 1998

Supply

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the business of supply of the main estimates at this time is on Motion No. 1 on the justice. I will confine my comments to the administration of justice. Although there is much that I would like to talk about concerning this rather weak government.

In respect of the motion of the expenditure of funds in the general areas of public safety and the administration of justice, the justice minister and the solicitor general spend a considerable amount of our precious resources. Specifically I want to talk about what is happening with this government in the administration of jails. It is associated with the correctional services that it administers. The history has been a long one but it has not been without problems and failures. Considering the difficult and problematic people correctional services deal with on behalf Canadians we owe a thank you to the honourable record of custodial staff across this country who work in jails.

I received with satisfaction the government's announcement several weeks ago that it was going to hire more jail guards. The government has a labour contract in place. I do not believe that it has been fulfilling it in recent years concerning staffing strength and being able to meet the standards that it has agreed to.

The government has an obligation to all Canadians and to the world community to operate prisons according to the standards of basic decency and human rights. Canada has been rather judgmental and condescending about human rights in other countries but how about how we operate our jails. Canada may believe that we are so much better than others. There are standards that we have committed to and that we must fulfill.

Correctional Service Canada has an awesome mandate. The average Canadian has no idea what it is like in our major prisons. I have visited a number of those prisons. I have observed that we have our problems but some progress is being made. We can do so much better.

Canadians need confidence in the ability of the government to take care of the people's business and to administer prisons in full accordance with the commitments and the labour agreements made which are well within the bounds of the international standards. A measure of a nation's stature and its civilization, among so many other things, is how it administers its prisons and treats the basic rights of even the most objectionable heinous offenders.

A budget is being put forward tonight. Canadians want to be assured that this Liberal government, which has been so poor in managing its other departments, this weak government through these requests and appropriations is fulfilling its mandate of public protection and basic decency both for the humane environment for the workers who work in jails and for their charges. We must do a comprehensive job of duly considering the keepers and the kept.

Will this government assure this House that the funds requested fulfill completely all its labour contracts and the manuals of standards of operations that it has outlined for itself? Will the funds requested permit the speedy resolution of all outstanding union grievances? Is it appropriately taking into account the dynamics of stress and administrative pressure? The best riot prevention program in a jail is a system that meets all standards, that is fully staffed wherein there are no corners cut on required staff levels, bed loads and living up to the commitments it has made. We need more capacity to provide a greater range of facilities and operations to more innovatively respond to the challenges presented by some of these very problematic individuals.

Canadians have a right to expect better of than we have been getting so far from this weak government. Canadians need to be assured that the money requested fully meets the public constituents' needs. On checking the details the government's administration of departments lately falls short of its press releases. The Liberals who smile and pronounce it repeatedly have been shown to fail to deliver. So please say it isn't so with corrections Canada or the Ministry of Justice.

I call on these ministers to place themselves on the record in this House that the administration of the federal corrections for instance meets all standards and commitments. I need not remind the minister of what it means to mislead this House. We have had many instances of the government saying one thing but in reality it finally turns out to be quite different upon examination. I challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to say it clearly, place it on the line and tell it like it is. Let the average rank and file guard on the tier or the control centre personnel read what the minister says. May what the minister says match up to the real experience of staff on the line behind the walls. They are paying attention.

Can it be described how the money is asked for, will be spent and that there will be value for dollar? Will the government fulfil its commitments? It makes its obligations to follow the rules. The shortcomings of the government in its administration of justice are well known across the country but the resources asked for under the general area we are talking about tonight in the estimates are considerable. Built into that area are the mandates of the solicitor general and the justice minister.

Let us first review what is contemplated under justice and then we will recount what the solicitor general wants. We should put what is being asked for specifically on the public record. Under the Minister of Justice and operating expenditures, the grants listed in the estimates in contributions are $477,456,000. Related to that are the human rights commission with $12,874,000; the commissioner for federal judicial affairs with $4,354,000; the Federal Court of Canada with $27,002,000; the human rights tribunal with $2,076,000; the Law Commission of Canada with $2,791,000; offices of the information and privacy commissioner of Canada with $5,760,000; the Supreme Court of Canada with $10,090,000; the Tax Court of Canada with $9,304,000; the Security Intelligence Review Committee with $1,239,000.

Then there is the solicitor general and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with $900,459,880; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police external review committee with $718,000; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police public complaints commission with $3,123,000. It continues in the justice area.

We will be voting on every one of these tonight. For the Department of Justice operating expenditures, the grants listed in the estimates and contributions total $115,248,185. There is also the solicitor general, Canadian Security Intelligence Service with $5,580,000.

It is up to the government to respond based on what it has requested. Will it give value for money? Will the reality fulfill its rhetoric and its press releases?

The opposition is watching. Canadians are watching. What is being expended is an astounding amount of money in the general area of justice, yet the dissatisfaction about the government's justice and public safety agenda has never been worse. There is little public confidence in the justice system and Liberals are responsible. They are accountable. I challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to justify their spending requests to this House.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member and his remarks. Quite frankly, I felt it was a Liberal speech. He talked about the mandate to make sure that the administration of our prison system kept basic standards, kept confidence with our labour agreements. He talked about making sure the keepers and the kept are treated with a basic decency.

I support the member's remarks. I think our prison system should be an environment that can foster rehabilitation and renewal and not one where people are treated in a way that we see in movies where prisons are like dungeons.

The problem I have is that for the last 10 years I have been listening to members of the Reform Party and their chant constantly about cut, cut, cut, its obsession with the deficit, the debt and the fiscal framework.

Here we have a member from the Reform Party tonight pleading the prison system of Canada be properly funded. Is this a change of gears from the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby? Does this reflect the position of the party where all of a sudden it comes full circle and is now saying the cuts have gone too far, which I personally believe, and we are now going to begin, which I would celebrate, with the correctional service system of Canada and make sure that it is properly funded so that the management there, the keepers and the kept, are treated in a way that they have a decent shot at rehabilitation and renewal. Which pathway are we to choose?

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago when we brought attention to this House about how certain prisons were about ready to blow as far as riots are concerned and the management-staff relations were right on the edge. That has to do with funding. It has to do with administrative attitude and it has to do with care of how the government administers its prisons.

I was quite pleased to hear that the solicitor general a few weeks ago announced something in the order of 1,000 new staff across the country would be hired. We applaud that.

There is no change in message from the Reform Party. We have always advocated we needed more facilities, not just brick and mortar in building more jails. We need more of a broader set of complex facilities. Some of them may be without locked doors, but a range of facilities to respond to the challenges if we are to have a justice system to respond more resolutely to crime. That means there will be perhaps some type of custodial facilities. But that does not necessarily mean the old-fashioned high tiers with a dome and bars.

Certainly it does mean the kind of facility that may respond to the treatment needs of individuals and also adequately separates different offenders from each other, specializes in programs but also controls their access to the community. We also consider the protection of the community first.

Remember, the Reform Party is bringing the message to the country of fiscal responsibility so that we can generate the wealth to pay for the social programs that Canadians want, for the people's agenda we might say is to provide more facilities in Correctional Service Canada. That has been the people's agenda but it certainly has not been the bureaucratic top down agenda that we have from governments for the last 15 years.

It has squeezed Correctional Service Canada. Yet the public has been asking Correctional Service Canada to do things when it really never had the resources to do. Because of the fiscal irresponsibility in other areas and the failure to set appropriate priorities, Correctional Service Canada has really been in a tough situation.

The more the government is fiscally responsible, the more it is able to generate wealth and reorder its priorities to respond to a people accountable agenda rather than a top down agenda. That is what we are looking for.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of criticism from the Reform Party today directed toward the government's Bill C-68 on the registration of firearms.

I am a little confused. I have a titbit of information that I would like to share and I would like my hon. colleague from the Reform Party to answer.

I am reading from Hansard , November 6, 1991, the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton North who was referring to a Canadian Police Association survey. She said that over 90% of the respondents believed that guns of all kinds should be registered. She agreed with that and went on to say that she thought every Canadian would agree with that.

Just what message is the Reform Party giving? We hear it criticizing the government and now we hear the comments of the member for Edmonton North. I would like the hon. member to speak to that.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which member he was talking about. We had no Reform Party members from Edmonton North in the House of Commons in 1991. We had one member from Beaver River and that was it until 1993 when we had the Reform wave.

We have always been consistent in saying that if the gun registration program could clearly be demonstrated to be efficacious for public safety we would support it. In view of a lack of evidence it clearly appeared to be a misappropriation of public money and should be reassigned to other areas of the justice system.

We are supportive of gun control. We have had handgun control in Canada since 1934 or something like that and we never objected to Bill C-17. However, it was escalated to the final level of wasting money on a program which the government has failed to demonstrate will accomplish its stated objectives.

Money is laid aside for a program and it has stated objectives, but it has failed to justify that it will deliver the stated program objectives. We are predicting at some point in the light of day after we spend several hundred million dollars down this blind alley that it will in retrospect be seen to be misappropriated money.

Why do we not spend that money on the Young Offenders Act and other facilities rather than waste it on gun registration?

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to name the member, but I found out that at the time the member was representing the riding of Beaver River.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think that clears it up.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague opposite and two things caught my attention: weak government and history.

I am just wondering what he is referring to. Is he referring to the government of 1993 that swept in with a majority? Is he referring to the government of 1997 that swept in with a majority? Which part of history does he not understand? There were two mandates and two majorities, but I will put that aside.

I listened with great interest that he wants more jail guards, rights of offenders and on and on. I did not hear anything about treatment. Is the Reform agenda more jails and more jail guards? Does Reform not have compassion? Does Reform not understand the need for treatment?

First, what history is my hon. colleague talking about? If he wants to give us a history lesson, by all means let us talk about 1993 and 1997. Second, what about treatment?

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We are talking about who is accountable and who is responsible. We believe we have had very poor administration of public business since 1993.

I will refer also to his comment about treatment. Anybody involved in corrections has long abandoned the medical model of prisoner care. We got rid of that years ago. It is not someone who has a disease and therefore some kind of treatment or medicine is applied.

When we administer prisons or programs we must provide options and we must provide consequences. We can provide opportunities for offenders to rehabilitate themselves. In some cases these individuals were never habilitated in the first place and were the walking wounded in the psychological sense and/or physical sense. We must provide some types of programming, but to say that we can just write out a prescription in the medical model ideology is a long outdated notion in corrections.

First we must have fiscal responsibility. Then we are able to generate wealth to pay for the social programs we need.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. Let me start by saying that in the last election there were two particular issues relating to justice and justice estimates on which I campaigned. One was gun registration.

During the election campaign I ended every debate with these concluding remarks: “If you in this audience do not want gun registration, do not vote for me. Rather, if you are against it, you want to vote for the New Democratic Party, you want to vote for the Conservative Party or you want to vote for the Reform Party”. In every debate that was one of my concluding remarks and the results were 28 points ahead of the Reform Party, 28 points ahead of the Conservative and the New Democrats were much further back.

My constituents fundamentally feel that it is not too much to register guns in many ways like is done in Europe. We do not want to have the gun culture in this country that exists south of the border where all too often we see the tragedy of innocent victims being gunned down ruthlessly and needlessly. More and more we are seeing young children killing other young children and their teachers.

I make absolutely no apologies for it. I stand with the chiefs of police and with victims groups. I think our party, the governing party, recognizes the need to be dealt with. We definitely do not want to adopt the culture south of our border.

Let me get on to another very important part of the justice agenda that we will be implementing. Let me ask members of all parties, all members of parliament, to play a role in this challenge.

We have put together a $32 million community safety crime prevention program which will afford opportunity to each riding across the country to join in the crusade, to join in the project to prevent crime. We will do that by working with people at the community level: police forces, service clubs, school boards, recreational and planning departments of municipalities and various neighbourhood groups. Our challenge is how we as a country can improve our record of crime prevention and have safer streets and homes.

Prior to being elected to parliament I was executive director of an organization called Youth in Conflict with the Law from 1976 to 1993. For some who might recall, Youth in Conflict with the Law was to be under the youth in conflict with the law act. It was changed to the Young Offenders Act in 1984.

I had occasion to observe the workings of the criminal justice system firsthand at the criminal courts. I also had the opportunity to work with other organizations involved in community justice and community corrections. I can say that much pioneering work was done in my community.

David Worth, head of the Mennonite Central Committee, worked with communities right across the country trying to look at alternative ways of dealing with crime and conflict resolution.

I worked with John Bilton of the John Howard Society. His organization was also very much involved in preventive work. It had anti-shoplifting campaigns which involved young people. Young people would be diverted from the court system and would go through alternative measures. Not only did this lessen the strain on the courts. It also provided a much more meaningful resolutions to the problem.

Dean Peachey pioneered community mediation in our community where disputants were brought together to see if with a trained facilitator they could reach a successful resolution. While originally there was a great deal of resistance to that program eventually it was embraced by the courts and the municipalities and now a system of conflict resolution exists in schools.

Ken Motts pioneered the first halfway house for provincially sentenced inmates in Ontario called Kitchener House. Unfortunately that program was closed a couple of years ago by Mike Harris and his agenda.

Another important program pioneered in my community through community justice initiatives and the Mennonite Central Committee was the victim-offender reconciliation program. Let me tell some of my colleagues how that program works. It is fundamental to the whole issue of preventing crime and creating safer and more secure communities. It also deals with the rights of victims.

A typical victim-offender reconciliation case would involve a young person who broke into a business establishment or a private dwelling. We all know people who have been victimized through break and entry. We all know the sense of violation the victim of that offence feels. Somebody has come into their home, which is their castle, invaded their private space, caused damage and committed theft. Many people who are victims of crime feel a personal sense of violation.

I recall one of the cases that I worked on under the victim-offender reconciliation model. It involved a 17 year old who was under the supervision of our organization, Youth in Conflict with the Law. During the course of the pretrial hearing before that person was sentenced for the offence we met with the individual whose store he had broken into.

There was a humorous side to the break and enter because the two young people broke into a restaurant and somehow managed to lock themselves inside. It took them a great deal of effort to break out. Mind you, they rifled the cash register and took $20. Ultimately they were caught because when the police came to investigate they followed their footprints which led to the house where they lived.

The first impact of bringing the two people together, the victim and the offender, was that the restaurant owner felt a sense of relief. He was looking upon a young person of 17 years of age who was not a scholar, who was not particularly accomplished in any area. Some could say that he had some tough knocks in life. There was a sense of relief that the person he was dealing with was not a Clifford Olson, a Paul Bernardo or whatever one's worst nightmare might be.

After we went through that exercise, the resolution we arrived at was that this young person would pay back something like $300 to fix the cash register and to make restitution for the damage caused as well as the money taken. In this case and in most cases of victim-offender reconciliation the money was paid back and the young person learned from the experience. The court made sure it was part of the sentence that the money was paid back. As well, the court made sure that the young person did community service.

At the end of the day, under our Criminal Code, break and enter is liable for life imprisonment. That really does not happen, but that is what the law allows. Any time of incarceration in this case would have been a waste of taxpayers' money. This young person would have been sent into an environment where he would have been exposed to more negative influences and probably would have come out a much more accomplished criminal.

One of the people who played a very key role in our justice efforts was Henry Bloos who was a teacher at Kitchener Collegiate. Henry Bloos used to teach law. He started a law day at KCI that eventually involved the whole regional municipality of Waterloo. Within a few years of its establishment it became the single biggest extra curricular day for students in the Waterloo region.

Once a year, starting in 1978, in order to educate the community and get people involved in community justice and crime prevention, we established what was fondly known as justice dinners. Our 20th justice dinner took place this past April and we were fortunate to have the Minister of Justice attend.

It is no longer the people I referred to previously who are putting on this justice dinner. The justice dinner is now being put on by the community safety crime prevention council of Waterloo region. That council is a project of my community, funded by regional council to the tune of $75,000 a year in cash as well as the provision of office space and other resources.

I am very happy to say that we have two members of this parliament on this side of the House, the member for Kitchener Centre and the member for Waterloo—Wellington, who were members of the regional council that gave funding to this project.

This project initially was headed by the chief of police for Waterloo region. The council includes people from justice agencies. It includes people from probation and parole. It includes people from community social services, people from the school boards, people from the planning departments and the commissioner of social services. It has fairly heavy representation from the provincial police. It includes the now mayor of the city of Waterloo, Joan McKinnon, the commissioner and director of family and children services, as well as the executive director of the Children's Aid Society. The list goes on. There are 33 members.

These people have taken up the challenge of co-ordinating in our community the services of the various governments, be they the school board, social services, children's aid, the police, the planning departments or the voluntary sector.

They produced numerous planning documents and strategies to deal with prevention in our community.

The first report came out in November 1996. The second report came out in 1997. The third report came out in 1998. They came up with a proposal to have a unified community response to deal with the issue of crime.

The province of Quebec deals with crime much more effectively than we do in the rest of the country. Crime is very expensive. The federal and provincial governments spend $9.6 billion a year on crime. If we include the victims and other costs associated with crime we are talking about $46 billion.

What we are talking about in the first year of this crime prevention effort is $32 million. It is a little more than $1 per capita. The money that we spend, the $9.6 billion, is more than $300 per capita. Clearly what we are trying to do is to start diverting some of the money at prevention so we do not have the victims, we do not have the shattered lives. Then we will have contributing members of society, as well as safe homes and safe streets.

When we deal with the the Young Offenders Act and with the people who exploit it, be it for economic or political considerations, let me say that we imprison 15 times as many young offenders as they do in Australia or in New Zealand. We imprison 10 times as many young offenders as they do in the western European countries. But to our shame, we incarcerate two and a half times as many young offenders as they do in the United States of America. That is a shame. That is not the perception that the Canadian public has.

The perception that the Canadian public has, if they watch the proceedings of this House or if they watch the media which likes to exploit crime, is that we have a system which is in disarray and we have a society that is not as safe as it really is. The perception has been driving the agenda and it is time for us to get together and make sure that the reality drives the agenda and that we work on realistic solutions to make Canada one of the safest countries in the world.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with great interest and I was delighted to hear what he had to say with respect to all the work that has been done in the region of Kitchener—Waterloo. I was impressed with everybody who is concerned. I was really impressed with the effort that is going on in his community to make it a better community. I congratulate him for being there 20 years for his constituents.

I want to share with him an instance that occurred in my riding right after the Young Offenders Act was implemented. A young offender committed a multiple killing and unfortunately received only a three year sentence. It is in those instances that I agree with my colleague, who I hope will find it in his heart to agree that moving toward publishing the names of the young offenders and bringing them to adult court is something that is definitely needed. If these measures were in place in our communities this killing might not have happened.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. First, let me say that there is a need for prisons to house people who are a danger to the community. There is no question about that.

I agree with my colleague that a three year sentence was not adequate. That has been changed. Under the changes that will be tabled in the House that will be changed again.

But I point out to my colleague that attempted murder and homicide make up one-tenth of 1% of crime. So we are talking about a very small number.

Most of the offences occurring under the Young Offenders Act are property offences, law and order offences.

Let me tell my colleague that his point is very correct. We have to assure the public that for those offenders, and there are not as many as people would have us believe, lengthy jail terms are appropriate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very intently to the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo and I have a great deal of respect for the work that he did within the justice system prior to becoming a member of the House. He has displayed at the justice committee a great depth of knowledge in the area of victims' rights. I know he has made a personal commitment and has been a part of various systems within his riding. He encourages restorative justice. He has spoken very eloquently with respect to victims.

On balance, given a choice of priorities, would the hon. member prefer to see astronomical and staggering amounts of money set aside by his government to further this ill-conceived gun registry? We are talking money in excess of $133 million thus far and the amount is still accumulating as we speak. It will go up to the half a billion dollar mark before this is up and running.

It is not going to impact in any significant way on violent crime. It has been stated time and time again and I think the hon. member will also agree that for crimes committed in fits of passion it will not matter whether a serial number is stamped on the butt of a rifle. Violent criminals are going to be loath to register their guns.

I ask the hon. member this question in a very non-partisan way and on an intellectual level. Would he not prefer to see his government's commitment to justice result in moneys spent in the area of furthering the cause of victims or furthering the cause of front line police officers, to beef up our justice system in that regard? Would he not prefer putting the money into some of the more innovative approaches to justice that he speaks of, some of the preventative programs he has initiated in his own constituency? Would this not further the cause of justice as opposed to this priority decision that has been made on this ill-fated ill-conceived gun registry?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question. I note that he is a former crown attorney. He certainly has some knowledge of the criminal justice system. I very much enjoy working with him. Unfortunately he missed my opening comments where I actually talked about gun control, the position I took in the last election campaign and why I supported it. To recap, victims wanted us to pass it and they supported it. My community virtually demanded it.

There is the issue that law-abiding people will register guns and criminals will not. As a crown attorney, the member will know that at some point this week there will be a raid on a motorcycle club some place. Chances are there will be all sorts of guns around. When a police officer is able to say “This gun is not registered and you have committed an offence,” then we have done something good.

I also mentioned that it is too easy to obtain guns in this country. We do not want to repeat some of the mistakes made south of the border where children are killing children and their teachers. We must have control of firearms. During the election campaign I was very up front. At the conclusion of my remarks I said if you do not support Bill C-68, if you do not believe we should have gun control, do not vote for me, vote for the New Democrats, the Conservatives or the Reform Party. There was a lot of support for it in my community which was attested to by the results.

The member talked about the expensive cost of crime. He knows that the cost of crime in Canada is $46 billion. What we spend at the government level is $9.6 billion. What we are talking about in terms of crime prevention is really a small amount of money. We are talking $32 million.

The member will know that I have lobbied the justice minister that we should reallocate some of the money that we have now allocated under the federal government budget. Thirty-two million dollars represents 1% of the federal budget for justice and the solicitor general. Let us reallocate something like 5% over the coming years. Let us help communities to come up with the plans, the strategies and the projects to battle crime and to work on crime prevention.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter. I notice the member for Wild Rose is lamenting the fact that he has not been recognized by the Chair to speak, but I would simply ask him to be patient.

I and other Canadians would like to think that what we are debating and discussing here tonight is somehow relevant to ordinary Canadians from coast to coast. Yesterday in the House what became crystal clear to all Canadians from coast to coast and to every member in the House, if they already were not aware, is that this House of Commons for all intents and purposes is irrelevant. It does not mean anything. Decisions are not taken in this Chamber. Decisions are taken behind closed doors, in the Prime Minister's office and in the House leader's office. Five men get together and decide what the business of the House will be.

Yesterday while this House was sitting, not a single, solitary government member was present during debate. As a result of the total and complete abdication of its responsibility to govern, the opposition parties passed a motion which carried unanimously. That motion would prevent the government from introducing any form of closure.

What is more important is that because of the abdication of responsibility of the Government of Canada, and we are talking about the Government of Canada. Think of what could have happened yesterday in this House because of the fact that there was not a single Liberal member present. The opposition could have declared war yesterday.

Members laugh and chuckle but as a result of the absence of the Government of Canada, the opposition could have completely abolished the Department of Foreign Affairs. The opposition could have defeated the government on a vote of confidence. That is the respect the government has for this Chamber, for the House of Commons. Not a single, solitary member was present.

I do not think Canadians recognize how totally irrelevant the House is. That action yesterday crystallized for Canadians how irrelevant this place is.

In an hour or so the government wants to pass through this House some 70-odd votes. It wants authorization to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars. It expects, as a result of a backroom deal by five House leaders, that this House will totally expedite all the business of the House this evening. I think not.

The people of York—South Weston put their trust in me. They voted for me in the last election campaign not to be a party to backroom deals.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were a few points of order today about the relevance of speeches. We are dealing with justice. I do not hear the word justice mentioned and I do not see any relevance in this speech to the topic at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member for York—South Weston knows that the motion we are debating before the House is a motion to concur in the estimates of the Department of Justice and that the speeches are to be on the subject of justice. I know that he is coming to that subject very shortly in his remarks.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I am speaking about is justice. It is democratic justice. It is criminal justice.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member knows that the estimates of the Department of Justice are a different thing from the abstract notion of justice. They are rather concrete and deal with dollars and cents. That is what the subject of the debate is this evening. I invite the hon. member to direct his comments to that.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that the debate is irrelevant.

We are talking about the justice department and the allocation of sufficient funds, some $193 million to fund justice. What I am saying is that it is irrelevant what we are talking about. But I will speak about justice and how unjust it is to put the House through this debate to talk about the criminal justice system. If members want me to talk about the criminal justice system, I will talk about it, but it is irrelevant because decisions have already been taken in the backrooms.

I had a bill before the last parliament to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code. That bill, to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows convicted killers to apply to have their release date reduced from 25 years down to 15 years, was passed by the House of Commons at second reading. It was passed by the House of Commons with some 80 Liberals, and I was part of that caucus, supporting that motion.

Let me give another example of how irrelevant the House is. The House passed the legislation in principle to repeal section 745. That was the intent of parliament. It expressed its will, each member in a free vote. What did the government do? It killed the bill at committee. That is what it did. It pretends to be democratic. It pretends that the private members process is important. It pretends that somehow what we do in the House is relevant, but it is irrelevant.

Until and unless members of the House take a stand, our parliamentary system will continue to degenerate. Canadians will continue to lose confidence and have contempt for this institution.

Is it any wonder that collectively we are looked down upon by Canadians? Collectively as politicians we are told day in day out, justifiably so by Canadians, that they have no confidence in this institution of parliament. They see things like the government abandoning its responsibility yesterday and not a single member being present. They see the House of Commons passing a bill to ameliorate the criminal justice system with respect to 745. There is the hepatitis C issue, and the list goes on and on. Is it any wonder that we have to hang our heads in shame?

The government with the complicity of the opposition parties wants to pass a bill in less than a day to increase the pay and benefits for members of parliament. Think about it. When it comes to our own collective pockets we are prepared to pass a bill—we are not, the backroom boys are—and members are not objecting. They come to me. I have had maybe a dozen or 15 members ask me as an independent member to please hold up consent. Please do not give unanimous consent to this. They are afraid to speak out because they will be reprimanded by the powers that be, by those unelected people in the Prime Minister's office who have control.

I have said time and time again that we do not live in a democracy. We say this sometimes frivolously, but the reality is we do not live in a democracy. This is nothing short of a glorified dictatorship. This country is run by half a dozen people, half of whom are unelected, as some hon. members have said and I have repeated many times. Unelected people make decisions with respect to the public interest.

Where is the public interest? Who is watching for the public interest? I am not setting myself up as some saviour for the public interest but I have been given a voice as a result of the people's mandate in York—South Weston.

Pay and benefits, run it through in a day. Why is that bill dealing with remuneration, pensions, salaries of members of parliament not being referred to a parliamentary committee? Why is it that witnesses are not being called?

Why can members of parliament, the political parties, not serve the public interests as opposed to serving themselves? I would like to attend an open meeting an give my views on pay and benefits. There has to be in the process some transparency.

The House leaders met, all the political parties in this chamber, and took a decision with respect to pay and benefits. They expect everyone in this House, including me, to support it. I think not. I do not intend to. I am going to insist we not participate in these votes these evening and that we, as a parliament, sit down and find ways to make this parliament more democratic. That is the only way to do it.

When I woke up this morning I expected three votes at 5.30 p.m. today. I was in Toronto. Then I get word that there are 70 some votes taking place today. Most members did not know. They were told to hurry back. Is that any way to run the Government of Canada, by having no members present when the House of Commons is sitting and then pile up these votes? Two weeks ago we had about 100 votes in this House. I will say without equivocation that the majority of members—

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure I grasp the relevancy of this debate to the justice estimates. I do not see the connection.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have already indicated to the hon. member for York South—Weston the need for relevance in his remarks to the justice estimates. I know he will go back to those estimates very quickly.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears the government does not like listening to what I am saying. Well, tough. I was given voice to speak and I will speak.

He wants me to speak about justice. Let us talk about criminal justice. The member was elected in Etobicoke. He was given a mandate to represent the people of Etobicoke, not to be a trained seal. He was elected, as I was elected, to speak out on their behalf, not to defer to some unelected people. I want to tell the hon. member what the people of Etobicoke are saying to him and what they expect of him as their member of parliament. They expect him to come into this House, to go to caucus and to speak out about criminal law reform.

I ask the hon. member what has he said about criminal law reform in the House of Commons. Has he simply deferred. The member laughs. Let him laugh. I hope his constituents recognize how ill served they are in the House of Commons. If I can help in any way to inform his constituents I intend to do that.

Let me get back to justice. It relates directly to the comments I made about the relevancy of parliament. If this parliament were relevant it would be passing laws to ameliorate, to fix, to reform a criminal justice system in this country that is broken. It is a criminal justice system that allows an individual who raped and murdered 11 children to make a mockery out of the criminal justice system by applying and exercising his rights.

Had the government not stopped and blocked my bill, Clifford Olson would not have had the opportunity last summer to make a mockery of the criminal justice system. He forced the families to relive the trauma, the feelings of total devastation of learning their children were raped and murdered. This government decided that Clifford Olson, not the public, could have a say. I use Clifford Olson because he is probably the most notorious example. The member from Etobicoke agreed with the position of the Government of Canada.

Section 745 is a travesty.

This government supports a criminal justice system that caters to the accused, to the convicted, to inmates and to prisoners and sets aside the public interest, the interest of victims. Is it any wonder Canadians have lost faith in the criminal justice system, in parliament?

I can go on about the Young Offenders Act. The minister kept repeating in due course she would bring in amendments. What has she brought in? Absolutely nothing.

This government has been in office for five years and it has done nothing meaningful when it comes to reforming the Young Offenders Act which invites 16 and 17-year olds to break the law. It treats 16 and 17-year olds like children.

If you are 16 or 17 you are old enough to drive a car, you are old enough to get married, you are old enough to leave home, but the criminal justice system in this country says you do not know the difference between right and wrong and we are not going to treat you like an adult. What pure nonsense. They know the difference between right and wrong and they ought to be dealt with in adult court.

That is the line the Liberals continue to throw back, that we want to lock up children. That is a crock. Subject the 16 and 17-year olds to the criminal justice system. Age will always be a mitigating factor at sentencing, not with respect to culpability.

If a 16-year old murders or rapes or robs or commits any serious offence, once there is a finding of guilt, let the defence make an argument for leniency because of age. This government says they are to be treated more leniently. Is it any wonder that the police and those involved with the criminal justice system have no confidence in it?

We all know who Paul Bernardo is. He is rotting in a jail somewhere in Kingston, but he is going to have the same right that Clifford Olson had. What about his accomplice? Paul Bernardo will be able to apply in about 10 or 11 years to chop the families of the victims after the crimes he committed. What about his accomplice? She is eligible for parole today as we speak because of the criminal justice system. Talk about justice. She will be released from prison and there is nothing the system can do in less than eight years I think it is.

[An hon. member]

She can vote.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

She can vote. She can even have her sex changed, believe it or not. Cable television in their cells, computers, photocopiers. Clifford Olson had access to computers, photocopiers. He was entering poetry contests in the United States. He had pornography in his cell. He was sending pornography.

This is the criminal justice system we are talking about. This is the criminal justice system crafted by Liberals, by bleeding hearts in the sixties and seventies, and it continues to be protected. This criminal justice system continues to be protected by the government. Is it serving the interests of Canadians? No. If you ask Canadians what they want done, they want a fair criminal justice system. They want a criminal justice system that puts the rights of citizens before the rights of criminals.

What action has this government taken? Very little. The government is big on photo ops whether it is in Naples or Rome or Havana or other parts of the world, but when it comes to concrete action here in the House of Commons, the government deserves an F . We are talking about the criminal justice system here and I could speak for hours about the deficiencies of the system and how the public is not served.

We have two penitentiary systems. Who is serving the public interest? We have a provincial system. If you are sentenced to two years less a day, you go into the provincial penitentiary system, provincial parole board. If it is two years plus a day, you go into the federal penitentiary system. Who is being served by that? It is because of turf wars between the provinces and the federal government.

We have a system that does not work. Is the government prepared to fix the system? No. We have a criminal justice system that provides for concurrent sentencing. Someone can walk out of this place, kill one person, plan in a very deliberate way the murder of two, three, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, commit an act of terrorism, kill two hundred people and the penalty is the same.

One would think if we had a fairer system of justice, consecutive sentencing would be provided for. In the case of Paul Bernardo who was convicted of murdering two innocent young women, instead of being eligible for parole after 25 years at the very least, if we had consecutive sentencing he would not be eligible for 50 years.

No, the Liberals do not want to change that. They do not want to change that because the backroom boys have said no. I know individual members of parliament, if there were free votes in this place, if this place were relevant, could correct the criminal justice system. We could correct a lot of the deficiencies within the system.

Before we do that we have to correct this place. We have to make the Parliament of Canada relevant. It is time for electoral reform. It is time for parliamentary reform. I know there is considerable support for it.

I was recently in British Columbia where I gave a speech about the lack of democracy in this country. When I speak to people in other countries or in Canada, when I point out to them some of the realities of Ottawa, they become very disturbed. They become very concerned and ask what they can do.

Let me give an example in the minute that remains. We call Canada a democracy. In the last election campaign more than six out of ten people who went to vote did not vote Liberal. They did not vote for the Prime Minister. They voted for other political parties. They voted for other individuals. They rejected the government, over 60%. Only 38% of those who voted voted for the Liberal government.

As a result of our electoral system, one man is given virtual dictatorial power with the support of 38% of the electorate in Canada. Is that democracy? I think not.