Debates of March 16th, 1999

Supply

[An hon. member]

Very respectable.

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

The people I am talking about are respectable. They do not like this bill. It is a bad bill and should be changed. Hopefully we will do that in committee.

“This new legislation is not only overdue, but also fails once again to protect society from dangerous and violent offenders”, said Garry Rosenfeldt, executive director of Victims of Violence.

“Criminal behaviour of 16 and 17 year old youth will still remain in youth court, irrespective of their crime. Thus one of the most profound and controversial loopholes within the justice system remains”.

“In the new bill, the definition of serious violent offence is so vague that it is also almost useless. Poll after poll has shown that 80% of Canadians have little or no confidence in the federal Young Offenders Act. The new youth criminal justice act will do nothing to improve that. It's a shame Ottawa refused to listen”.

This is the Ontario government. It sure loves this bill, the one this government is bragging about, when it has done very little to help Canadians.

There is another issue in our criminal justice system that raises Canadian cynicism to new levels, the use of conditional sentencing. I could go on for long. It seems I have been interrupted so many times I am not getting this whole exercise in. Conditional sentencing is a serious issue and needs to be addressed. One of my colleagues will talk in more detail about it.

The whole issue in the justice system today is that this government is not listening. It wants to blame the Reform Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives for all the problems in the country.

The Liberals have had two elections since the Tories were defeated to straighten things out. They still have not done it. They still do not have health care where it should be. The justice system is nowhere near what it should be and this is the government that has done that. It has served its time.

What do those members do now? They get arrogant. If they present a bill, we are not good Canadians if we do not like it. If we hammer the justice bill, we are against all the good things that should happen in this country.

I have seven children and seven grandchildren. I know what is happening in this country as much as any Liberal on that side with young people. We need some changes in this law and we need them now.

I hope the government will listen when we get to committee, listen to what is happening in this debate today on the issues that are before us and make some serious changes in the areas of justice. We need them and we need them bad.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opened by saying he would deal with an issue that scares a lot of people. Then he went on to build a whole case and to fuel the very point he was just making by trying to scare people in a very systematic and point by point way, painting the worst case situation in every possible point of view.

One of the quotes, which I would like the member to add substance to, was “put a bullet in the head of your husband and you get a reward by moving to beautiful B.C. to enjoy the mountains and the oceans”. I have to ask him, after I am finished my remarks, to comment on that and to flesh that out a little because it does not make any sense to me.

The whole issue of criminal justice and inner city safety is something I deal with every day. I represent a riding in the inner city of Winnipeg that is rife with many of the problems touched on by the member.

What strikes me is how there can be the same set of circumstances and two completely different views of how to deal with it. We have heard Reform over the years, even prior to my coming here, on caning in Singapore. That was one of my favourites. Spanky and his gang was the term going around at that time. I understand he is an expert on the subject. He even had a book on caning in Singapore.

During the 1997 election campaign when I was walking along the streets I could always tell when I was following the Reform candidate because people would be asking me about boot camps that would be introduced based on the American model. Reform is still advocating and promoting the whole idea of boot camps. This is unbelievable.

And longer prison sentences. All conventional wisdom dealing with criminal justice has indicated that longer prison sentences do not do anything to deter the incidence of crime. Reform members are dealing with an obsolete concept and fueling the fearmongering.

In the United States a whole generation of young black males were locked up because they were a nuisance. Yes, they got them off the streets and the Americans are showing a decrease in crime. I would argue that there is no connection between those two things. The reason there is a decrease in violent crime in many of the inner city communities is that they have the lowest unemployment rate since the second world war. That is a way to slow down property crimes. Crimes of that nature are a predictable consequence of poverty and unemployment and all of the other things we need to look at. There are two different views for the same set of circumstances. The NDP would rather deal with the root causes of crime.

What does the member mean by stating that by putting a bullet in the head of her husband the woman gets rewarded by moving to beautiful British Columbia, which again is a subject of opinion, and enjoying the mountains and the ocean?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Winnipeg and it is a wonderful city, but if I had a choice I would rather be in British Columbia.

On the question regarding putting a bullet in his head and going to British Columbia, I do not have the newspaper clippings here but I will make sure they are delivered to the member's office very shortly. There was a woman in Ottawa whose husband who worked for the RCMP was lying in bed; she put two bullets in his head and obviously killed him. She also killed the dog. She received a conditional sentence and went to British Columbia where her children are. That was her sentence. A conditional sentence.

That is why I put the motion before the committee. I will give the minister credit. I have been asking for this to go to committee for quite a while. The committee has not handled the problem.

Violent crimes of this type should not be given conditional sentences. I think the woman would have received more time in jail had she been charged with just killing the dog. The SPCA would have created a big furore about it. But she killed her husband and she is now in British Columbia. There are many cases like that. I was going to get into this when I talked about conditional sentencing but I ran out of time.

Two gentlemen in Montreal were convicted of a brutal rape. Both men were given conditional sentences because the judge felt they did not quite understand our justice system because it is not the same as the one where they were born. They both have lived in Canada, one for nine years and the other for eleven years.

That is what is wrong with conditional sentencing in this country. The committee knows that. There has been no movement by this government to get it into committee, speed it up and start to do something about that. The parliamentary secretary gets very mad when I talk about these things, but that is our job. We are the opposition. We point out the faults. The system is not totally wrong, but there are some serious faults in the system and they have to be corrected.

My friend from the NDP talked about boot camps. I do not know if he has been to the one in Ontario but a lot of parents who have had kids go to this boot camp have written the government saying it was a great idea. It certainly beats the Liberal idea of throwing them in jail. The Liberals want to throw them all in jail. Why not have a boot camp where they can get some education instead of putting people in jail. The Liberals want to put young people in jail. We want to put them in a facility where they can get an education and learn what it is like in society, not throw them in the present jail system which is underfunded and does not work properly because of this government and the government before it.

There have been two parliamentary reports on penitentiaries in this country. One was done in 1972, chaired by Mark MacGuigan, of which I was a member and which made recommendations. The other was done in 1987. Both the Tory government and the Liberal government have done nothing about those reports.

We still have a rotten system and it is not working. Boot camps might have a place in our system. I suggest that the member visit the one in Ontario.

In my speech I did not get the chance to talk about prevention. There is no prevention. We want to look at prevention to make sure these things do not happen. That includes looking at poverty and unemployment about which the member talks. I agree with him. They are serious issues. We are not going to solve the other justice problems without solving unemployment and poverty issues. We want to look at those issues too.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member focused all his attention on the 10% plus of violent offenders and that aspect of the new legislation. We know that at the moment, sadly, we incarcerate 25,000 young people a year. Some of those of course are not in for the entire year, but putting a young person in some sort of confinement certainly is going to mark them for life. That is four or five times the rate at which we incarcerate adults in this country.

The member talked about British Columbia and we have heard some discussion about Manitoba. One of the lowest rates of incarceration I understand is in the province of New Brunswick. It has very successfully involved the community in sentencing, with pre-court handling of young offenders and more family involvement in dealing with young offenders.

I understand that the province of New Brunswick has actually closed five or six prisons recently. Imagine the financial saving on the one hand, but also imagine the improvement in the people who are going through the justice system as a result of not spending unnecessary time in prison.

Will the member give some time now to discussing the 85% or 90% non-violent offenders who are the main people we are dealing with, who are the majority of these 25,000 young people we are putting into some sort of confinement every year? Would he comment on the New Brunswick example as a model for the rest of the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to talk about that. I also suggest to my colleague that he look at Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec which have the three best records in Canada for young offenders.

I also find it very strange that the government side is getting up saying that we have 25,000 people in jail. Who put them there? The Liberals did. They have had the chance to change the rules. They have not done it. That is the whole point and they do not understand. The system we have right now came from the Liberals and the Tories.

We are talking about a system that works with young people in the system. Put some money into prevention. There is no money from the government for prevention. The government is supposed to fund the Young Offenders Act 50:50. It is not doing it. It is funding it 30%. There is no money for prevention. There is no money from these Liberals.

The Liberals will try to have us believe that it was the Reformers who put 25,000 people in jail. The hon. member mentions 10%.

I wish the parliamentary secretary would not use the word lie but she keeps on using it on that side.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

I apologize.

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

She apologizes. I will accept her apology.

The Liberals are the government. I have been on the government side where we can make laws. They can make laws. They are not making them. They are talking about them. They try to blame their faults on the opposition. In this area it is not the opposition's fault. We have been offering good solutions. We want to offer prevention. We think the money should be going into prevention. It is not going there.

We will be bringing that out in the very near future with details on how we can prevent a lot of these crimes in Canada. Then we will see how serious the Liberals are about spending money on the real problems in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to talk about the type of visual reality of the justice system that would happen in this country if, God forbid, there ever was a Reform government. It would be a justice system based on the law of the jungle, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, vigilante justice. Call it what you may, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly what the hon. member just indicated to us when he spoke in this House.

The motion itself is reflective of that. It does not matter what crime is committed in this country, let us get rid of the judges, let us get rid of due process of law, let us get rid of the lawyers, let us get rid of anything that comes between the irresponsible and fearmongering policy makers on the other side of the House and a justice system that has shown that it is one of the best in the world. Let us forget of course about the fact that they want to criminalize, maybe not throw them in jail, but criminalize 10-year olds contrary to what the hon. member said. Let us look at what is the worst in society as the rule rather than the exception.

That is what Reform members have been saying in this House for the year and a half that I have been parliamentary secretary.

They talk about fearmongering and—I will not say lies—misinformation where irresponsible policy makers want to create a society where everyone has a gun and everyone shoots whenever anyone gets in the way. That is exactly the type of society they want to promote.

There is no such thing except the exception to the rule, continuously the exception to the rule to what happened.

I believe Canadians do not share that vision of our justice system. Canadians do not have a wild west vigilante mentality in terms of this country's justice system. I do not believe that the type of justice system being promoted by Her Majesty's Official Opposition is the type of system Canadians in general want to have.

I believe Canadians believe in the due process of law. They believe in an individual having the right to a hearing before a judge and jury of his or her peers. They believe our youth have to be given the help they need whenever they need it. They also believe that their money should not be spent in creating more jails or incarcerating more people but by investing in rehabilitation. I also believe Canadians believe in compassion and in the respect of individual rights and freedoms.

Those are all the things this side of the House also believes in. The fact that Canadians have given us a second mandate is indicative also that most Canadians do not believe the system the Reform Party is promoting is the type of justice system they want in this country.

Today I would like to deal with one aspect of the motion. The motion itself was a smorgasbord of whatever Reform has been discussing in this House over the last six years that I have been a parliamentarian. I would like to deal with the youth criminal justice act which we recently introduced in this House and the government's broader strategy to renew the youth justice system.

We believe the bill responds to the extensive consultations on the strategy for the renewal of youth justice which was released by the government on May 12, 1998 with concerned citizens, governments at all levels and other partners who want improvements to the youth justice system. Canadians want to change the youth justice system and they want programs and resources to support those changes. We propose to give them exactly that, despite what the hon. member said in this House.

The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice recognizes that the foremost objective is public protection. It distinguishes legislation and programs appropriate to a small group of violent young offenders and those appropriate for the vast majority of non-violent young offenders. It takes a much broader, more integrated approach than the simplistic approach that is emphasized by the members in the opposition. It also emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation. The strategy is based on three key directions that work together to better protect the public.

First is prevention. The best way to protect the public, victims, families and youth, is to prevent crime in the first place. I think we all agree on that. On June 2, 1998 the government launched a $32 million a year community based crime prevention initiative that includes children and youth as priorities. Programs proposed by communities from one end of this country to the other are currently being funded to prevent youth crimes.

Meaningful consequences is the number two priority. Youth crime will be met with meaningful consequences. But what is meaningful? It depends on the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, something the opposition would like us not to take into account of course.

Rehabilitation and reintegration. A fundamental principle of Canada's youth justice system is that young offenders with guidance and support are more likely than adults to be rehabilitated and become law-abiding citizens. We on this side of the House truly believe and some members on the other side of the House also believe in programs that help to rehabilitate young offenders, protect the public, prevent further crimes and reflect society's commitment to youth.

I want to begin with what we plan to do to prevent youth from committing crimes. This, in our opinion, is the best way to protect society, and to help youth at the same time, as we wish to.

The way to accomplish this is to address the very causes of crime. We must use every means at our disposal to battle poverty and child abuse, which are known to frequently lead to youth crime.

We cannot wage this battle alone, however. If we are to have a long term strategy addressing the causes of youth crime, we are aware that many others must be included: individuals, organizations, and in particular the provincial governments, which are involved in crime prevention, child welfare, mental health, education, social services, and employment.

Families, communities and victims will also have a role to play in this battle against youth crime, waged within the framework of the national community safety and crime prevention strategy.

The government is spending $32 million a year to help Canadian communities set up the necessary programs and crime-prevention partnerships.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act will be the foundation for a renewed system of youth justice, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. We all know that legislation, however harsh, will not stop young people from committing crimes and innocent people from becoming victims.

This is why we have included rehabilitation and reintegration into society in our bill.

The legislation is an important element of a broader strategy for addressing the complex problem of youth crime. The legislation provides an effective and flexible framework for youth justice and distinguishes approaches for violent offenders and the majority of less serious offenders.

It includes overarching principles and sentencing principles which emphasize that the penalty must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. It provides for greater protections of the rights of young accused while attending flexibility and streamlining procedures for the administrators of the system.

It includes a broader range of sentencing options, many of which reinforce important social values like requiring the youth to repair the harm caused by the offence. It addresses flaws in the previous system and provides a balanced approach to the complex problem of youth crime, not the simplistic approach of the Reform.

We know however that legislation alone will not reorient the justice system. It needs to be supported by programs, trained professionals and committed partners.

The February 16, 1999 budget recognized the need for additional resources to support the new legislation and renew the youth justice system. Some $206 million was allocated for the first three years and a total of about $400 million in additional resources would be available for the six year implementation period. This is a significant addition that will lead to the renewal of the youth justice system.

Canada as a whole continues to incarcerate a higher percentage of young offenders than most countries. This is a concern. Although international comparisons continue to be difficult because of the differences between systems, Canada apparently incarcerates a relatively higher percentage of young people than even the United States.

In addition, the rates of incarceration vary considerably across the country, ranging from 9% to 32% per 10,000 adolescents depending on the province.

It is sad that the great majority of young people in custody are there for non-violent offences for which community approaches will do a much better job of promoting social values such as responsibility and accountability.

Contrary to the assertion of the opposition, the government is addressing the youth justice concerns of Canadians with new laws and supporting programs that will prevent crime and ensure meaningful consequences for those who do commit crimes—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry but the hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on issues of criminal justice, particularly very important ones such as this one. We usually agree on the major thrusts and on the implementation of the Criminal Code.

However, in this debate on the motion put forward by the Reform Party, which is obviously motivated by the recent amendments proposed to the Young Offenders Act by the Department of Justice, I have a hard time reconciling the speech made this morning by the secretary parliamentary with the new thrust of the Young Offenders Act, with the new way of implementing the youth justice system in Canada.

Clearly, and even with the virtual agreement of two parties, it is in response to the pressure exerted by western Canada and the Reform Party that the Liberals reviewed the Young Offenders Act to strengthen it and to provide for stiffer penalties.

How can we reconcile the speech of the parliamentary secretary on rehabilitation and social reintegration with the possibility of having 14 and 15-year old kids being imprisoned and having their names published in newspapers, which would mark them for life? How can we reconcile these two things with the parents' responsibility?

I therefore ask the parliamentary secretary if she thinks that her speech is credible with regard to that issue?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe my speech is very consistent in this regard. As the hon. member is well aware, we have made our bill flexible precisely so that the system that is already working in the province of Quebec can continue to operate. We have, however, given attorneys general and ministers of justice everywhere in the county the right to reflect their communities' values.

It may be that Quebec's view is not one shared by all parts of Canada. It is our hope that the $206 million we have allocated to rehabilitation and to social reintegration of youth will help to create rehabilitation programs.

I would point out at the same time that we were not pressured in any way. We have made a collective decision, which is how the Liberal party operates, and it is one that reflects all views of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the government side to create a false picture and then rail against it. It is rather a phony, hollow play.

When we on this side talk about personal responsibility, government members call it fearmongering. When we talk about victim concerns rather than being too offender focused, they call it rather simplistic. Obviously we can hear today how touchy they are because there is a big problem out there in the community for which the government is responsible. They are accountable.

Just to be reasonable and to deal with facts, not false notions, we can do a lot better in the justice system. When we perform our official opposition role of pointing out inadequacies, what we ask from the government is simply to fix the problem and not get into an esoteric debate.

There is a lot of boasting today about the new young offenders bill before parliament. Will the government be prepared to accept amendments to the bill based on consultation with the community rather than continue to boast about how good the proposed bill is?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have never dealt with anything except the facts. Unfortunately that is not the case on the other side of the House. Yes, we know there are inadequacies and, yes, we are addressing them on this side of the House.

As far as victims are concerned, I remind the hon. member that we have dealt with victims as a priority in the justice system, including in the new legislation that we tabled last week.

As far as making any comments on consultation, I do not think there has been any piece of legislation which has had as much consultation as this piece of legislation that we have introduced in the House.

A justice committee did a consultation. The ministers of justice across the country have been consulted. A number of organizations and a number of Canadians have been consulted. There has been extensive consultation as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. There will be further consultation according to the process we have established as a parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good thing go back to the motion itself, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to deliver criminal justice programs and laws that reflect the will and concerns of the majority of Canadians, including issues like child pornography, young offenders, impaired driving, conditional sentencing, drug trafficking, home invasions, police funding, consecutive sentencing, corrections facilities and illegal immigration, and as a consequence, have put individual safety, and in some cases national security, in jeopardy.

One is forced to conclude that this motion was prompted, as I said earlier, by amendments to the Young Offenders Act, among other things, but that it is also a reaction to the shocking case in British Columbia relating to child pornography.

I have some misgivings about the misconceptions this implies. The motion is based solely on perceptions, on emotions, on exceptions, and on the misinformation the Reform Party has been involved with ever since 1993, as justification for its desire to make some extremely significant changes, to the Young Offenders Act in particular.

I am not saying today that everything is rosy and wonderful and that we have the best system in the world. That is not the case. All systems need to be modernized and improved. There are areas where the government does not perform and should. There are vitally important areas where the Liberal government does nothing and should do something.

More dollars are laundered in this country than anywhere else in the world. What is the federal government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. We are proud to be the country laundering the most dollars. It would be easy to intervene. The government could simply outlaw the use of $1,000 bills, as the Bloc Quebecois member for Charlesbourg has been suggesting for a while now. Nothing is happening.

Epic battles had to be waged here to get the Liberal government to pass minor legislation on gangs. It does not go as far as we would like. It is not right for criminal gangs to call the shots as they are doing across the country without any intervention and the heads of the gangs being caught.

Certain laws protecting public security contain weaknesses. In terms of police services funding, the government could certainly put more money into prevention. Then there is the victims element.

There must be compliance with the Canadian Constitution as well. Odd to hear this from the mouth of a Bloc member, but there is a Canadian Constitution, and the people in this House do not appear to really know what it is about. It sets out responsibilities. But, as the Bloc member pointed out, not even the government complies with the Constitution, intervening in provincial areas of jurisdiction. Perhaps it should set an example.

The bottom line is that there is room for improvement in the system, but perhaps we should not expect to amend the Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act by debating this kind of motion, or by citing specific cases that have made the headlines.

The Young Offenders Act is something I take a great interest in. I am familiar with the Young Offenders Act because a consensus was reached in Quebec. Efforts to address youth crime have been going on for 25 or 30 years. Lawyers, criminologists and specialists fought just as hard with the Government of Quebec of 25 or 30 years ago as they did with the federal government to bring about the structure we have today, and all stakeholders are proud of their achievement.

Members will surely understand my mistrust with respect to any sort of amendment to a bill that could undermine Quebec's approach to youth crime.

When I see this sort of à la carte legislation being proposed, when I see legislation purporting to be very flexible, according to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary, legislation that each province could enforce as it saw fit, I wonder. Why does the federal government want a Young Offenders Act then? Why does it not withdraw completely and leave the provinces with full jurisdiction over youth crime?

Quebec would immediately praise such a move on the part of the Minister of Justice, if she had the courage to make it. But I am afraid this is not about to happen. The whole thing is a smokescreen. It is not true that the new way of doing things with regard to criminal justice is as flexible as the government would have us believe to get Quebec to shut up, as federalists often try to do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I hope that the members from Quebec who are here are listening and will ask me questions. I will be pleased to answer them.

The Minister of Justice, and even Reformers, rely on statistics that do not demonstrate any need to make amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

I will quote the figures mentioned by the minister herself when she introduced her amendments. They are from Statistics Canada, which means they should be precise numbers. The crime rate among young people has dropped 23%, even for violent crimes. That is those crimes targeted by the minister's proposed amendment, those that prompted her act and propose changes. There has even been a 3.2% drop since 1995.

Contrary to what a Liberal member said, juvenile crimes do not account for 10% of all crimes, but for less than that. One should look at the actual figures before saying things that make no sense.

That is why, given the statistics quoted by the minister, we must arrive at the conclusion that she is blindly amending an act that is good.

I attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice, which examined this issue. I heard all the stakeholders, including some from western Canada, British Columbia and Ontario, and they said the problem was not really the act itself but the related funding.

In Quebec, people said “It is not the act that presents a problem, but the financing. Please do not change the Young Offenders Act. Maintain the status quo”.

Some 25 or 30 years ago, we in Quebec decided to invest in rehabilitation and social reintegration instead of in bricks and mortar for jails in which to keep young people locked up, so that they come out at age 25 or 30 with a fine education in how to commit crime, and an inability to do anything else. What we do instead is to invest in the individual, to focus on the heart of the problem. We have excellent success rates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Of course it does not make the front page headlines when a young person who committed a murder at age 15 and was placed in rehabilitation now, 10 or 12 years later, having been rehabilitated, becomes an anonymous member of society, marries and starts a family, has a job, and is not dependent on society. This does not make the front page, of course, but it is a situation we see daily as a result of the way we apply the Young Offenders Act.

Members will understand, therefore, that it is impossible for me not to react when I hear inaccurate statistics and information given in this House. I will speak out as strongly as possible against any such attempt by either the Reform Party or the Liberal Party, who seem to get along very well when a detour to the right is necessary. I will be quick to stand up and defend my point of view, which is a point of view shared by all Quebeckers, and we know what we are talking about.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the speech by member, colleague and friend from Berthier—Montcalm sad.

If there is a point of consensus on this bill it is the remarks by the head of the Quebec Bar, Jacques Fournier. He said that this bill was not only in line with the philosophy of the Quebec Bar, but that the government had once again demonstrated that it is flexible and that it is following up on the extraordinary work done by the legal community on this issue in Quebec.

I understand that the opposition has to oppose. It is very frustrating for a colleague like the member for Berthier—Montcalm, whose voice revealed in a way that he was trying to defend the indefensible. I would ask him, however, what he wants exactly, given that we are being flexible and especially that we are providing the funding, because I am interested in this matter. The Centre Mariebourg in my riding helps prevent crime in its way and works with young people.

Is the role of the member for Berthier—Montcalm to defend the indefensible and to come up with all sorts of ways to promote his own political cause? Should he not, in any case—and we are all familiar with his intellectual honesty in this regard—applaud the work of the minister and the flexibility of this government, which works? What wears him out in the end is that the system can work within Canada, is it not?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the member for Bourassa takes this approach, because I have tried to avoid petty politics when it comes to the very important topic of crime. If the member had followed the proceeedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, he would know that on several occasions I set aside partisan politics in order to raise extremely important points for the betterment of the law, which I hold very dear.

In this case, I am being told what Quebec's president of the bar said. Quebec's president of the bar represents his peers. I am a member of the bar, and therefore he must represent me. He is also supposed to represent his committee, which has examined the issue. Other members of this committee include Ms. Toutan, Me Bois and Me Trépanier. Although I have not discussed the issue with them, I have heard what they have to say and they are squarely against the president of the bar's comments. They will apparently sort this out among themselves. Quebec's president of the bar did not inform any of them that he would be attending a press conference with the Minister of Justice, and, in particular, none of them was aware of his new view of the Young Offenders Act in this great land, Canada.

I will leave the Quebec bar to sort this out among themselves. Things will undoubtedly be said to which we will not be privy, but I am certain that there is still a consensus in Quebec and that it is opposed to the amendments the minister is proposing.

If the minister, her parliamentary secretary, or even the Liberal member for Bourassa were convinced that the Quebec approach is the best one, how can it be that they, as federalists who want only the best for Canada, have not been successful in selling this idea in English Canada? How can it be that, in order to put Quebec in its place, they are creating national standards and then telling Quebec “If you want any money, you'd better put up and shut up”. Yet, when it comes to what will be implemented in western Canada, flexibility will be allowed, a flexibility that is not part of the law.

Today, there are some reflex reactions that did to exist previously, and that will eventually have an impact on how young offenders will be handled in Quebec, and this I cannot allow. If the Liberal members from Quebec can, they will have to bear the responsibility for their actions. I, as a lawyer and an MP who is doing a serious and professional job here, cannot accept the minister's approach.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the rest of the day and this very scintillating debate. I am pleased to be participating in this debate.

I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have brought forward this motion to deal with the criminal justice system, to deal with the way laws are interpreted by the judiciary and to look into issues like child pornography, young offenders, home invasions, impaired driving, conditional sentencing, consecutive sentencing, correctional facilities, illegal immigration and a number of others.

I do not think we, and particularly members on the government side, should feel defensive. We will not suggest they are responsible for every aspect of our criminal justice system and its interpretation. We also will not suggest any party has the corner on truth when it comes to dealing with these issues.

However, it is important to share our points of view in hopes that some changes will occur. I do not expect a single member of parliament, if they were honest in terms of representing the views of their constituents, would say there not improvements to be made to the system.

The government has recently introduced changes to the Young Offenders Act which, on a personal basis, I believe is a step in the right direction as changes are obviously required. I think there are improvements that can be made to the bill. My friend from Quebec who just spoke pointed out some of his concerns. The Liberal member reflected the fact that we are being flexible so that communities in different parts of the country can be reflected in the way the Young Offenders Act is interpreted and used.

Perhaps it is a strength to acknowledge that parts of the country such as the province of Quebec have had incredible successes dealing with the young offender issue provincial jurisdictions much more than some other jurisdictions. We can therefore learn from them.

On the other hand, we have to be concerned that we will have a number of systems dealing with young offenders across the country that reflect these realities in parts of the country. Do we really want to have a justice system that is different in one part of Canada for some Canadians than in another part? There is a national standard when it comes to interpreting the Criminal Code. These are issues we have to discuss and consider.

My friend spent some time talking about the Shaw decision surrounding the issue of child pornography. I think I reflect all our views when I say we share a deep concern the moment it is legal to have child pornography in one's possession for personal use. One would have to ask what other use there would be. Building material? I doubt that. It is obviously for personal use.

In British Columbia a judge has said that it is okay to have child pornography in one's possession as long as one is using it for one's personal use. That is a terrible situation. I think MPs from all parties would say that is not right and that we will take steps to ensure that is changed. Every time there is an individual with child pornography of some sort in their home it means that some young people have been abused and taken advantage of in a most degrading circumstance.

This is obviously an issue of concern because we are hearing it today. The parliamentary secretary ought not to take these criticisms personally. We are simply putting them on the table and saying these are issues that must be dealt with in whatever form it might take. If it is a change to the Constitution by using the notwithstanding clause, so be it. If it requires new legislation, so be it.

There is also the issue of impaired driving. I think we are all concerned when we listen to our local divisions of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others and read their literature about the carnage on our highways that is attached to those people who, for whatever set of reasons, choose to drink and drive. Perhaps we need to get a little tougher on them.

I think it was the state of New York that announced a change in policy where if someone is found to be driving his or her vehicle and drinking, the vehicle is impounded and sold. The driver does not get it back under any circumstances. That will slow people down and make people think twice. It is hard to say whether that is a solution but we have to look at all aspects.

On a personal basis, there is the issue of illegal immigration. This is a huge topic and deserves a full day of debate in the House of Commons. There are a lot of people who work hard to enter Canada in legal ways by going through all the proper channels in time consuming processes and so on. We also see people who short-circuit the system and then go underground. There are thousands of people who abuse our immigration laws in that way and therefore wreck it for those who are legitimate applicants. This is something we have to take more seriously.

In the last few days I think we all had visits by police forces across the country, the RCMP and others. They visited almost every member of parliament, pointing out their incredible frustration with working hard to nail some drug dealer only to see the drug dealer getting off in court on some bloody technicality and being out there hours later selling drugs on the street to young people. There are all kinds of abuses. I do not know how police officers can stand it.

[An hon. member]

They do not make enough money.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

They do not make enough money. I do not think we could pay police officers enough for the work they do on our behalf.

They were here the other day pointing out the frustration they experience in attempting to uphold the laws. We are probably not short of laws but it is the way the laws are being interpreted, the way they are being administered, and the way the judicial branch is dealing with the laws.

I will go back to the Shaw decision in British Columbia. We would be remiss today if we did not mention one of the more unfortunate issues relating to our corrections system, that is the large number of aboriginal inmates in our jails. A large number of first nations men and women are incarcerated in Canada by and large because they often cannot afford a good lawyer to argue their case. As a result of living in conditions that can only be akin to poverty and being unable to get the legal advice and support they require, they end up serving time in jail, which as someone said earlier is really a crime college.

If a young offender who is in some difficulty wants to become a full time criminal, there is no better place to learn the art of crime than in jail. If a young offender breaks the law in some form we have to be very cautious and see jail as a last resort. Steps need to be taken in an attempt to break the cycle of crime as opposed to sending the young person off to crime college, as I call it.

If we are to make our streets and neighbourhoods safe, we cannot rely on the police to do it. We cannot rely on the judicial system itself to do it. We all have to be part of the solution. In other words, communities have to buy into the fact that they too have to be part of the security.

I am thinking of the various protection plans which exist in neighbourhoods, the neighbourhood watch approach. People look out for one another. If they see a suspicious character they call the police. If someone is breaking down someone's back door, he is probably not an uncle trying to get in.

This brings me back to the whole issue of adequate funding for our police forces. I do not think there is a single jurisdiction in Canada or a single taxpayer in Canada that would not wilfully add a few cents to the tax load if it was going into better policing for neighbourhoods and safeguarding streets and communities across the country. I think we all admit that government funding when it comes to security, particularly in terms of funding our police forces, has not been sufficient. As a result Canada's security has suffered to a certain extent.

We have to send a signal, which I think this debate today will help to do, to the judicial aspect of our system in Canada. Many people have suggested that we have a good legal system but there is not much justice in it. Often we see justice being set aside for all kinds of spurious reasons. I hope the judges, particularly the ones that have made some terribly goofy decisions in the last little while, will take note of our discussions today.

I want to make an appeal in my closing comments. While we are dealing with crime and how to deal with those who break the law or have been alleged to have broken the law, we need to spend some time looking at the causes of crime. Why do people break laws? Why do people decide to do something they know is illegal?

I suspect there are two fundamental causes. One is people do goofy things. I am thinking particularly of many young offenders who do something as a result of youthful exuberance or a moment of misjudgment. They are not criminals; they just do something stupid. I suspect an odd one of us in this room has probably been in that category at one time or another.

Second, let us admit that a fundamental cause of crime is extremely dysfunctional families that have become dysfunctional often because of some element of poverty.

I am not linking poverty and crime. I am saying that high levels of poverty, excessive levels of poverty, often lead to very dysfunctional families and result in dysfunctional behaviour in society and consequently to crime. Let us spend some time on the causes of crime, not only on crime itself.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member from Kamloops. I heard him make reference to the rate of incarceration of our aboriginal peoples. He also made reference to looking at the front end, trying to look at prevention and so on.

I have often thought about two statistics that are not normally linked. I wonder if the member has some independent thoughts on them. I would like him to share them with the viewers and listeners. They relate to what we all know so sadly as fetal alcohol syndrome which affects the aboriginal population in a statistically high way. We also know that victims of fetal alcohol syndrome have traditionally and statistically provable high rates of incarceration.

If we look at those two statistics independently in the broad population there is a definite linkage. If we look at them specifically in the aboriginal population, it would be very interesting to know what the link is. We are possibly understating the true impact of fetal alcohol syndrome and how it is ravaging the population, particularly in terms of the rate of incarceration of aboriginal peoples.

I have never actually seen a study that links those two statistics. Does the member from Kamloops want to make any comments in that regard?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the inquiry by my friend from Vancouver Island North because he has identified one of the very serious issues confronting our society as a whole but particularly concentrated in some aboriginal communities, the whole issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and the victims of it.

It is fair to say that any individual suffering from the results of fetal alcohol syndrome will have a difficulty functioning well in society. People who have difficulty functioning in society often tend to be marginalized, tend to get into situations where there is very little hope in terms of having a successful future, and therefore often turn in desperation to acts of violent crime. Particularly they get caught up in substance abuse issues in their own communities or homes and violent crimes.

The member has done the debate a great deal of service by flagging an issue that is not only of concern to us all but probably ought to be much more of a concern: the ramifications of substance abuse generally in our communities. I thank my friend from Vancouver Island North. That is a positive aspect of this debate. We are all putting items on the table for consideration in the hopes that somebody somewhere is listening.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that all of those who spoke today referred to child pornography in B.C. Anyone involved in child pornography is sick. We have to take necessary steps. We all have to come together, fast track and do whatever has to be done to correct this situation in B.C., because we do not want anyone else across the country doing it. We have to think about those little children.

The Prime Minister told me that in 1972 he received pictures of little girls and at that time he was trying to do something to straighten it out.

What steps does my colleague from the NDP think all of us collectively should take to straighten out this matter immediately?