Debates of March 16th, 1999

Supply

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a disproportionately large number of aboriginal peoples in our prisons which begs the question why. Is it because the laws do not favour them? Is it because police officers treat them differently? Is it because the judges or prosecutors treat them differently? I do not have an answer to that question. It is a question that needs to be studied in a responsible way. It is not a simple answer that is required.

Because of a number of variables such as poverty, people coming to the cities unprepared to make the integration and sometimes getting into what one might call slight difficulties, the situation has become more serious and more and more people have been incarcerated. There has been a repeat way of approaching aboriginal peoples in many instances which does a disservice to the aboriginal population. It does not deal with them well. In fact it deals with them inappropriately.

It is something we ought to debate in the House. It is something that should be corrected and needs to be corrected. It uses too many resources inappropriately. Obviously those who commit serious crimes need to be treated as any other Canadian citizen is.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against the opposition motion.

First and foremost we have a very broad sweeping motion which would have us believe that no initiative has ever been taken in the past few years, not only by this government but by governments that went before, which has made a difference to many initiatives that reflect on the justice system or that deal with the issues of justice. That is what that sweeping motion would have us believe.

Let us look at some facts. In 1997 Canada's police reported crimes dropped 5%. In fact the police reported crimes dropped 19% over six years. In 1997 it was the lowest rate since 1980. The rates for all violent crimes were down this year. There were 54 fewer homicides than in the previous year.

Why am putting forward these statistics? I do not mean to say that we have nothing to worry about. What I am saying is that when we cry chicken little we better make sure the sky is indeed falling. I want to be clear that this tendency to create anxiety and a sense of fear in the public is what is at the root of this kind of opposition motion.

Anyone who understands the issue of justice and the issue of creating a safe and secure society knows that creating a safe and security society, or creating any kind of society where there is social cohesion and where everyone has a sense of belonging, is not only done by legislation. It is not only done by enforcement.

We need to look at the root causes of all societal problems. We need preventive measures to deal with those root causes. We need to look at the fact that poverty, alienation, and anger at the lack of ability to become a participant in society, to get a sense of belonging in society, are at the root of some of the reasons persons commit crimes. That same political party, by not recognizing this, has said that if it had its way it would take $2.5 billion out of transfers to provinces for social assistance. That same opposition party said that if it had the opportunity it would cut aboriginal community programs by $800 million.

We want to talk about crime and we want to talk about justice, and that political party is not even interested in dealing with the root causes of crime.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River talked about how much he cared about impaired driving and about how concerned he was with the carnage that it creates. In the blue sheets of 1998 it was the Reform Party that said it would cut funding for all special interest groups. This is a wonderful word that political party likes to use. Community organizations that are seeking to partner with government to change society from the very bottom level are considered special interest groups.

If we cut funding for all special interest groups, what would happen to MADD, a significant organization in helping to deal with and bringing forward to governments policy initiatives and concerns about drinking and driving?

That party mentioned one of the things it was concerned about was drug trafficking. Let us talk about the fact that legislation enforcement is not all that is needed to deal with the issue. That party said that it would cut from fisheries and oceans $640 million. Our coast guard is there to ensure that illegal drug shipments are not passed along our coast and into the country. There is an issue of prevention. There is an issue of ensuring that safety and enforcement of our shores is carefully taken care of.

The member for St. Albert called it waste in volume 1, issue 4, of the blue sheets when the Canadian government decided to fund the United Nations fund for drug abuse controls. Let us not do that.

Am I to believe what we are talking about here is that the only way to deal with justice is to lock up offenders, throw away the key, hang them high and hang them long? Am I to believe that we should simply deal with punishment and enforcement and not look at the reality of people's lives?

Everyone who understands societal problems and the way to deal with them would be able to look at prevention, which I just spoke about; at good legislation; at enforcement of that legislation; and at the fact that many criminals can be rehabilitated, especially young offenders. How do we rehabilitate young offenders? How do we assist them to re-enter society so that they can contribute as good citizens to societal growth in all its social, political, economic and cultural ways?

That does not factor into anything I have heard across the House today. We are talking about isolationist policy here and just talking about legislation. So let us just talk about legislation.

The issue of child pornography was raised by hon. members opposite. That political party would have us use the notwithstanding clause to deal with the issue of child pornography when there is a process in place. I think one of my colleagues on this side of the House mentioned that the group across the way does not trust anyone and anything. The case is being taken by the Attorney General of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is part of the process. That is part of our legal system. That is how it works.

The Canadian government and the Minister of Justice are assisting the Attorney General of British Columbia in taking this case to the supreme court. Let us see what the supreme court says. If the supreme court says that existing laws dealing with possession of child pornography are in contravention of the charter then the House, which is a band of legislators, can do its job. It can look at the legislation. It can find the faults and the loopholes. It can amend it, deal with it, not believe that we must ignore the judges of the land and make this political place define what judges must do.

This is not what the country is about. It is not about political interference in the courts. It is about allowing the court to do its work and allowing legislators to do what they are meant to do if our legislation does not work.

On another component of child pornography, it is as if suddenly a month ago that political party woke up one day and realized there was such a thing called child pornography. I had never heard members of that party speak about it for all the while they sat in the House over the last five years. It was not something that concerned them. It was not something they discussed. Yet all of us know it is an issue that this government and governments before have been trying to deal with.

In 1996 we brought a bill to the House in which we increased the penalty to a maximum of five years for any pimp who in fact commercially exploits children. The very first world conference on the commercial sexual exploitation of children occurred in Sweden in September 1996. Prior to that the government had not only brought about a change in the laws to deal with pimps and to increase the minimum sentence to five years. It had also brought about some changes that would ensure that Canadians who go abroad to indulge in exploiting children in other countries would be tried in this country just as if they did it here.

At the same time we allowed for young people who were being commercially sexually exploited to be able to tell their story in court about their pimps and the people who were exploiting them, and to do so with the safety of being behind a screen so that they could not be identified.

The Department of Status of Women Canada is now working in partnership with a special interest group called Kids Friendly that is very concerned about the issue of commercial exploitation of children and with the tourism industry to start a pilot project in British Columbia and to educate Canadians to know that commercial sexual exploitation of children occurs in this country. We must be aware of it and do something about it. This is what good policy is all about. This is what a good justice system does. It looks at prevention, public education, legislation and enforcement.

A great deal of selective caring goes on across the floor of the House in the Reform Party. That party said it cares but it voted against gun control legislation, which is one of the major causes of violence, especially violence against women. I guess women are also considered to be a special interest group by the members across the way, so they would not care about violence against women. Does it really matter who that group trusts?

That group would only trust the laws it makes and those laws would not take into consideration justice. Many of the initiatives it voted against in the House were initiatives dealing with strengthening the justice system, and that party voted no.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the floor. Before I ask her a question I would say that we agree with the concept there has to be rehabilitation, and that is where the government cut money.

We also understand that a message has to be sent. The government has had tons of opportunity to bring forward good legislation. Even the Minister of Justice has said that the Young Offenders Act was legislation in need of an overhaul, and it took a long time.

You talk about special interest groups and you talk about giving—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member will please address his remarks through the Chair.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that some of the interest groups to which she has been giving money are fine, but she has also been wasting money on other interest groups like EGALE.

My question is quite simple. We agree with her that there has to be rehabilitation. The justice committee said that under the new act the age should be reduced to 10. Why did her government ignore that?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have me believe that if there was good legislation they would have voted for it. Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code, high risk offenders, implements new measures to toughen sentencing and—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since I was interrupted so many times by the government about being in order, Bill C-55 has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. minister was referring to Bill C-55 in a previous parliament from the sound of the title, but perhaps the minister can clear that matter up when she resumes the floor.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous parliament. I was trying to say that bill was a good bill because it included the introduction of indeterminate sentencing for dangerous offenders, up to 10 years of community supervision for sex offenders following their release from prison, and an extension of the earliest date for dangerous offenders initial full parole review. The party across the way voted against it.

The hon. member further told me that he thought I wasted money by funding certain interest groups like EGALE. I know members across the way tend to moralize about the groups they would support and not support. EGALE's questionnaire had to do with the amount of hate crime against gays in the country, which we know is increasing, but I guess violence against gays is not of interest to the hon. member across the House.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have to recognize that there is perception of reality and evidence based reality that Canadians will look at. Canadians have a great understanding.

I look at this motion and the only justice issue that seems to be absent from it is gun control. I would put to the minister that maybe this is finally an admission by the Reform Party that gun control is supported by the majority of Canadians. I think of the number of lines of print and speeches made in this House that centred against this particular piece of legislation when it was introduced by the government, even though public opinion polls supported it. Of particular interest would be the issues respecting women surrounding the issue, but that is one of the areas in this hodgepodge motion that seems to be missing.

Perhaps I should be applauding this as it may be a recognition finally that gun control is supported by members of the opposition. If that is the case, I am certainly very happy.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her comments. I think she raises a very important point. We see nothing in the motion from the hon. member across the way that deals with the issue of violence against women or hate crimes. Why should it? In the last session that party voted against legislation which would increase sentencing for crimes committed because of hate, because of sexual orientation, religion and so on, and which would increase sentencing for persons who abuse authority or power to commit violence against women.

I have to wonder if this is not of interest to that group because it is selective about the people it cares about in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about being selective. It was her party which voted against our motion that would have changed the pedophile situation in British Columbia. If we want to be selective, we can do that.

When the bill was originally introduced the government was supposed to fund 50% of the Young Offenders Act. It has never funded more than 30%. It has underfunded the prevention aspect of crime ever since it took office. The Liberals promised to do it in the red book and they have never done it. Prevention is underfunded. Only 30% of the YOA has been funded. When are they—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Minister of State for the Status of Women for a very short response.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to look at the fact that there has recently been a crime prevention initiative which is a partnership initiative that works with communities, municipalities and other groups. There will be $32 million per year over five years to deal with the issues of crime prevention.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the last speaker that I consider one victim of crime just as important as the next victim of crime, regardless of who they are.

I am pleased to speak to the Reform Party supply day motion, which can be referred to as justice day. There has been precious little in the way of justice coming from the government. I will be speaking primarily in the area of young offenders.

The young offenders legislation is a prime example of misplaced priorities by this government. In June of 1997, almost two years ago, the Minister of Justice made amending the Young Offenders Act one of her top priorities. She is on record as acknowledging that the Young Offenders Act is easily the most unpopular piece of legislation.

One would think that recognition of this sort would impress upon the government the importance of bringing forth proper legislation without delay. But did this government appreciate the demands of Canadians? No, it did not.

We all have vivid memories of the minister's continued promises, week by week and month by month, that legislation was coming. She continued to promise that it would come in a timely manner, that she was dealing with it in a timely fashion, that the legislation was complicated and should not be brought forward with a simplistic answer just to appease the citizens of this country. It was painfully obvious that the minister was just making excuses for not having the legislation ready.

We have seen how disorganized the government has been with the new youth criminal justice legislation. We have seen how the government pretends to listen to Canadians but then proceeds in the same manner as it always has. We have seen how the government continues to believe that it knows best about what Canadians should have.

I will not be dealing very extensively with the legislation introduced last week by the Minister of Justice. I anticipate that we will have sufficient opportunity to debate the failings of that legislation, hopefully in the near future. Today we are talking about the failures of this government in a whole host of justice issues.

I would like to provide a little history to the long overdue amendments to our young offenders legislation.

In 1996 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted an extensive review of the Young Offenders Act. Nearly $500,000 was spent. Meetings were held right across the country. The provinces had ample opportunity for input. The message as to what changes were necessary was absolutely clear.

The standing committee submitted an extensive report with a number of recommendations. The Bloc submitted a dissenting report. My hon. colleague from Crowfoot attempted to submit an extensive report in dissent. Instead of receiving his report and studying it to determine whether there was anything left out or anything of value from another perspective, this government played a purely political game and refused to accept his report. It said that it was too long.

The member for Crowfoot participated in the committee hearings as much as anyone. He handled almost the entire workload on the young offenders legislation for the Reform Party. He took the effort to properly critique the legislation and propose practical and positive changes for the benefit of all Canadians, but the government refused to accept his contribution. Only in Canada.

The hon. member for Crowfoot is a very determined individual. He did not give up. He instead introduced private member's Bill C-210 in which he proposed formalizing the power of police officers to use discretion in resolving minor incidents without laying charges. He personally knew about this problem in the legislation as he is a former police officer. He listened to what the witnesses had to say in this regard. He proposed that the legislation differentiate between non-violent and violent crimes.

He understood the value of dealing with first time non-violent young offenders in a more informal manner. He understood that there is neither necessity nor practicality in sending these minor offenders to court and possibly to jail.

He was not playing the political game; he was doing what was right on behalf of Canadians. Of course, he had the full support of the Reform Party with his initiative. However, the government refused to listen to him. It refused to even allow him to submit his report. Unfortunately, his private member's bill was never drawn for debate.

In my previous comments I mentioned that the minister continually promised to bring forth the youth legislation in a timely fashion. She spoke of having to consult with her provincial counterparts. They had ample opportunity to present their views and concerns to the justice committee. They clearly indicated their interest.

One example was in the area of funding. It was made known that the federal government was shortchanging the provinces in the area of funding for youth justice. The funding formula was to be on the basis of 50% federal dollars and 50% from the provinces. Things were getting so bad that Manitoba was threatening to withdraw from the administration of youth justice because its costs were too high and because the federal government was not holding up its end of the bargain. Remember, this was back in 1997.

Did the minister even attempt to restore funding for youth justice in the 1998 budget? No, she did not. Were funds available in that budget? Of course they were. We will remember that the government spent $2.5 billion on the millennium scholarship fund in that budget. The whole $2.5 billion was written off as an expense, even though the funds were not to be spent until future years. It was just a way for the government to claim that it had a balanced budget and that there was no surplus for other things. It just shows the misplaced priorities of the government. It just shows how the minister was unable or unwilling to deal with youth justice legislation on a priority basis. The wheels of justice were grinding slowly.

The government was not even on track. I believe the government was hoping the controversy over the Young Offenders Act would go away. It is to the credit of Canadians that they did not let this happen. They kept up the pressure for change, but the procrastination continued and the excuses for delays continued. The minister kept promising that the legislation would be introduced last fall, but then she realized that she did not have the necessary funding. She had to wait until the February budget. She said that her delays were because the legislation was so complex, that it would not be a simplistic approach.

Last week Canadians finally saw the long awaited legislation. What did they get? They got a new name for the young offenders legislation. It is now to be called the youth criminal justice act. What else did they get? They got legislation that promises to introduce a different system of justice from province to province to province. They got a system whereby very violent young offenders will continue to be protected from identification in many situations. They got a system whereby these violent young offenders will continue to be returned to our communities, where citizens will be unaware of their background and the potential danger some of them may pose. They got a system whereby violent and repeat young offenders will be subject to what the government calls extra-judicial measures, but what is in effect nothing more than conditional sentencing.

The government continues to believe that it and only it knows what is best for Canadians. The justice committee of the last parliament, a committee dominated by Liberals, a committee chaired by our late colleague Shaughnessy Cohen, on the testimony of its own expert witness, recommended that 10 and 11 year old violent offenders be subject to criminal proceedings, and the government refused to listen.

Instead, government members portray members on this side of the House as being monsters who would jail children. The minister claims that child welfare and mental illness programs will look after these unfortunate children. She refuses to acknowledge that those programs are already failing.

These young people are not properly dealt with. They are merely accommodated, when in fact they require immediate assistance to reform and rehabilitate before they venture into more violent and dangerous activities.

The government does these 10 and 11 year olds a serious disservice by merely ignoring them and hoping that other less practical measures can handle the problem. It is just more offloading on to the provinces.

As I have stated, the government is not to be admired when it comes to its handling of the youth justice platform. It has delayed, broken promises and made excuses. It has refused to listen to Canadians and to fellow members of parliament. It has let the provinces down. It does not have an enviable record.

In the upcoming debates on the new legislation we will see many further instances of the failures of the government in the area of youth justice.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest the way in which there were sections of legislation that were of some concern to my colleague in the Reform Party that were taken by the justice minister when she came forward with the new Young Offenders Act. However, I am sure he must have noticed yesterday the solicitor general deciding that he was going to come forward with legislation, amendments to the Criminal Code, which would red flag people who have received pardons for their offences if those pardons related to sexual offences.

I would imagine hon. members also probably noted that our Reform colleague from Calgary Centre has already had that legislation in its basic form go through the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, there is an argument to be made that the legislation by my colleague from Calgary Centre, in its own way, in many details is superior to the legislation that the solicitor general brought forward yesterday.

It strikes me as being strange, and I ask him if it also strikes him as being strange, that we have legislation that has gone through second reading in the House and which will be before the justice committee this week. Any amendments that the government wants to make to get it into a form that is more to its liking—although the similarities are so close that I can only imagine some tinkering around the edges—could be made and this bill could be reported back to the House of Commons for third reading and passed by the will of the people who represent Canadians in the House.

I wondered if my colleague has any idea why in the world the solicitor general would have simply lifted the Reform Party private member's legislation and put it into the situation where it will likely be delayed. The reporting requirement of sexual offenders who have received pardons will again be delayed, so that Big Brothers, Scouts and other organizations like that will not have this legislation. I wonder if he has any insight into why in the world the Liberals would be ripping off Reform legislation and, in effect, delaying its ability to be passed.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I was wondering about that myself yesterday when I heard the legislation come forward.

I refer to my own private member's bill which is before the House now and which deals with parental accountability under the Young Offenders Act. The minister saw fit to include my ideas, word for word, into the new legislation. For that I am grateful because I firmly believe that if there is a good idea that comes from this place, then it deserves to be implemented, regardless of where it comes from.

I certainly have questions about the issue that the hon. member raised. The member for Calgary Centre has Bill C-284 before the committee right now. It is a lot further along in the system than that which was proposed by the solicitor general. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the government would not just go ahead and deal with the bill of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and amend it if requires amending.

It is quite possible that the solicitor general's image needs a bit of a boost right now. Maybe that is why the government is doing it. That could be my only answer.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's presentation and found it to be, as usual, thoughtful. It provided a number of useful suggestions.

One of the areas which I believe is currently being pursued by members from all parties in this House is the whole issue of consecutive sentencing for people who have committed a number of multiple crimes like murder, rape and violent assault. Is my friend one of the people supporting this initiative? Does he believe this is a step in the right direction in terms of sending a signal that there are people which society needs to be protected from, that in no way ought we ever to consider people who have committed a number of terrible crimes be released into the general public again?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I firmly support consecutive sentencing, especially in the area of serious violent offences and multiple violent offences. I would remind the hon. member that it is available now for judges to use at their discretion but it is never used. It is due time for this place to mandate its use in certain cases.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise very proudly as a member of the Reform Party because it seems as though we are the one party in Canada that keeps on forcing the issue on making streets safe for Canadians and for all of the people in Canada who are concerned—

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I realize this looks a little funny since I am standing right beside the person making the presentation, but it is the only way I can make an intervention. I know my friend did not mean to be misrepresentative when he said that the Reform Party is the only party in the House of Commons that is concerned about safety in the streets. I wonder if I could ask my friend to clarify that for me.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This clearly is not a point of order.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Reform Party is very proud of being at the forefront of bringing these issues to the House of Commons.

We start with the police officer on the street. The RCMP cover most areas of Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario. The RCMP budget is $1.9 billion. Even in those other jurisdictions I just mentioned they have some jurisdiction which relates to national policing interests.

The government has trimmed $174 million from the budget in which there was no fat in the first place. We believe that spending must be prioritized to ensure only those operations proven effective in fighting the war on crime continue to receive funding. My point was that it had already reached that point when the government chose to cut a further $174 million.

The RCMP fundamentally are handcuffed at a time of fiscal restraint. It had a tremendously devastating effect not only on the morale of the RCMP officers in the province of British Columbia but also particularly on their ability to get their job done.

There were assignments shut down last fall, assignments where there had already been time and resources invested, particularly overtime. Believe it or not, it reached a point where undercover operators were told they could not even use their cell phones. There were patrol vehicles that did not have tires to get out on the highway. There were other patrol vehicles for which there was not even gasoline.

What kind of planning is this? What kind of priority is it that this Liberal government has that it would permit a situation, not just in British Columbia but very acutely in British Columbia, where even the police on the street are not given the tools to be on the street.

Reform agrees that the RCMP and all governments must be accountable. However, there cannot be this gratuitous cutting every time it runs into a situation. I have been told that in many situations the RCMP are no longer able to provide an adequate level of service to the public.

I have already released to the public a confidential RCMP report. It was originally released by the RCMP. It calls B.C. a major centre for the importation of child porn.

We know as a result of the inaction on the part of this government that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction where the simple possession of child pornography is a statute that currently cannot be enforced. It is going through a long process, as one of the junior ministers said earlier. It is going through a long process but in the meantime the clock is ticking for people who are caught in this web. The clock is ticking, their cases are being put off and we are going to reach a point where the justice system is going to say their cases have been put off for too long.

On the RCMP commercial crime unit, in December 1998 a consulting firm recommended doubling the economic crime branch's budget to $100 million because the RCMP white collar crime branch was unable to do its job.

It is the Liberal government which is tying the hands by constraining the resources available to the police on the street to be able to get their job done.

We have had promises, promises and promises. Ever since I was elected in 1993 I can recall promises about money laundering. When there is illegal and illicit activity, particularly as it relates to prostitution, drugs or any of those illegal efforts, they have to find some way of getting the money they get in from that effort back into the system so that they can reclaim it so the money is of some value. The key to organized crime is to have effective workable money laundering legislation.

The person who is currently the Deputy Prime Minister was the solicitor general. The member for Fredericton was the solicitor general. Now the member from Prince Edward Island is the solicitor general. Again he is promising on behalf of this government that we are going to have money laundering legislation. Promises, promises, promises.

The head of criminal intelligence at Interpol has said that police are losing the fight against criminals in cyberspace and will have to take giant strides to catch up on the information highway. He stated: “Drug traffickers, pedophiles and money launderers have found the Internet to be an increasingly effective tool as the number of users hits 100 million”. In my office I have an intelligence report to the RCMP about information technology and just how far ahead of the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies are those who use the system illegally and illicitly for their own purposes.

The government also saw fit to see the Regina training centre for new police officers temporarily closed. What happened to the people who were in the system, to the men and women who had decided they were going to join the RCMP and were already in the system and then boom they were out the door? That is the end of them. Now there is a fresh start.

Meanwhile a tremendous number of people in the RCMP, because of this lack of funding and the lack of ability to get the job done, are becoming increasingly frustrated. They are also reaching a voluntary retirement age.

What was the government doing in permitting the Regina training centre to be shut down? Of course it did not permit it; it simply squeezed off the resources so that the Regina training centre could not be funded.

I have been involved with the APEC inquiry by the public complaints commission in Vancouver. To date it has spent $1.3 million. That is just the money for the public complaints commission, let alone all of the lawyers who are there to protect the Prime Minister's interests. Millions and millions of dollars will go into the APEC inquiry. If the Prime Minister would simply agree to turn up and tell his version of the story, we would save millions of dollars just for that one event alone.

One other issue of particular interest to me is the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. It is operated through a national police service. CPIC allows the police forces across the country to have access to criminal records.

The Canadian Police Association says “This priceless tool is in desperate need of resources to update the system”. It points out that CPIC is a 20 year old technology. The sharing of information back and forth across the country by police forces as they roll up behind a vehicle or as they accost an individual is absolutely invaluable, yet CPIC is on the verge of total collapse.

CPIC is completely bulging at the seams with information. It needs approximately $200 million to upgrade the system. Where have I heard $200 million before? I remember, $200 million is the amount of money the government is spending registering the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The irony in this is that if the government in its meagre effort were to put that information into CPIC, it would destroy CPIC by overloading it.

What is better? Do we spend $200 million to go after law-abiding citizens to register their weapons, or do we spend $200 million on a system that will track vehicles, track AWOL prisoners, track people with criminal records, track all sorts of criminal elements? Where is the best place to spend resources? Considering the way in which this government strangles the ability of our police forces to do their jobs, I suggest that the $200 million could be more intelligently reallocated.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I too met with the RCMP and the railway police when they were here last week.

It is important to note that Reform members do not have a monopoly on justice in Canada. They do not have a monopoly on being sympathetic with the police when Reform says the police need more money. Let me also say there is hardly a group that does not come here that in their opinion does not need or require more money. It is very difficult as a government.

My father-in-law often said to me that it is easy to be in opposition. Opposition members can say anything. They do not have to prove anything. They simply open their mouths and anything can come out and when it does, they never have to prove it. To a degree and in fairness, the opposition's job is to try to poke holes.

I sometimes get saddened that we do not talk about the good things in Canada. We do have a low crime rate. There is no doubt about it. Reform members want Canada to be like the U.S. with a gun behind every door. They want to have health care like in the U.S. The reality is that is not what Canadians want. This government has put money into health care and education. Yes, it has tried to put money toward tax cuts. Yes, it has a zero deficit. Yes, it has started to pay down the debt. We have done a lot of good things.

When I met with the police officers last week, they told me they understood and accepted that. And yes, they said they required more money and I believe they probably do. One of the things they pointed out was that if they had more money, particularly for some of the special projects, and perhaps this is what my hon. colleague across the way was referring to, they would be able to have those proceeds go into the community. The Liberals were the ones who allowed that to happen.

I support more money in that direction also, but in correlation and in a rational and responsible way with everything else we have to do.

My hon. colleague did not make any mention of the fact that our colleague from Kamloops talked about poverty being a major cause of crime. Could my hon. colleague talk about poverty within the nation?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would sooner speak about the fact that this government has decided one way it can save money is to go to a 50:50 release program by Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board.

The statistics are these. There are 14,000 inmates incarcerated in federal institutions. There are 8,000 federal offenders on conditional release, 753 of whom are now missing. That is 1 in 10, not too good a statistic. Forty five convicted rapists remain missing. Fifty per cent have been missing for more than a year. Now the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada has a quota system asking for the elimination of 50% of the inmates who are presently incarcerated. That is a good way to cut down on expenses but all the more need for us to have a CPIC system that would work and be able to keep track of the people they are deciding to shoo out the door presumably to cut down on their costs.