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.