Debates of March 16th, 1999

Supply

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate a question from the hon. member for Saint John. In her emotional question she reflects the view on this issue of every member of parliament representing every Canadian. We have to take whatever steps are necessary to obliterate any use of child pornography.

Arising from our earlier discussions, if new legislation is required to send a very clear signal to our judiciary, so be it. We will pass that expeditiously. I am sure all parties would move on that. If it requires the use of the notwithstanding clause of our Constitution, we will suggest that we use that.

Essentially this behaviour is unacceptable by any clear thinking individual in society. We as a parliament will take whatever step is necessary to obliterate this blight as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and always an honour to rise in the House to debate issues of such substance. I commend the hon. member who brought the multifacted issue before the House for debate. It touches on a number of very important subject areas.

Many criminal justice debates that take place in the House are done on what one might describe as a visceral level. It is fair to say that issues such as child pornography, sentencing or truth in sentencing certainly conjure up very strong emotions for individuals throughout the country, particularly those who are most affected. I am speaking of victims.

It is fair to say that significant steps have been made in the past number of years to address the inadequacies and the injustices that exist with respect to the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. I would even go so far as to praise the justice minister for having recognized this.

I would also take the opportunity to praise the late Shaughnessy Cohen for her work on the justice committee as chair and in heading up a round table discussion in Ottawa that included many stakeholders in our justice system as it pertained to victims rights.

I will speak more specifically to some of the elements of the motion before the House today. When we speak to issues such as the recent decision out of British Columbia in the case of the Queen v Shaw that talks of the ability of a person to possess child pornography, it certainly conjures up a statement made by a law professor, Victor Goldberg in Nova Scotia, at Dalhousie University, when he said that bad facts make for bad law.

Often times we tend to get caught up in an individual case and hold it out as the standard or as an example of how the law should change. Often times that is a useful exercise, but we have to be very careful because proportionality and a measured response are implicitly important in the criminal justice system.

That is not to say that I or members of the Progressive Conservative Party in any way, shape or form condone the decision that was made with respect to child pornography. The suggestion that we brought forward was that it was an instance where there should have been direct intervention from the justice minister. There should have been an immediate response.

In cases such as that one the public perception is very important. For justice to be done it must be seen to be done. This is an old legal maxim from the myths of antiquity. Having practised law, Mr. Speaker, you would understand the importance of responding quickly but proportionately.

What should have happened and what we respectfully submit should have taken place in this instance was that the justice minister had an opportunity to refer it immediately to the top court to have the Supreme Court of Canada issue a ruling on the case immediately so that there would be clarification for law enforcement agents. There would be clarification for judges, in particular in the province of British Columbia, but right across the land. There would be a renewed sense of confidence in our justice system that is so sorely lacking these days.

I want to touch briefly on the changes that have been brought forward through this new legislation, the youth criminal justice bill, which was tabled last week in the House. Again I cannot help but feel some sense of regret and a sense that it was a missed opportunity by the Minister of Justice to bring forward perhaps more meaningful legislation that would resonate across the country and restore the sense of justice.

It is fair to say that over the past number of years there has been a constant disintegration and erosion of our confidence as it pertains in particular to the way our laws apply to young people in this country.

The law itself is not all bad. The philosophy of the Young Offenders Act I think is one that we all agree with and one which we all embrace, and that is that young people do in fact have to be held to a different standard than an adult, a mature person. However, this particular legislation, rightly or wrongly, has been perceived as something that was set up to protect a young person as opposed to protecting society. At the end of the day, what justice in this country is all about is ensuring that those who choose to live within the ambit of the laws that have been formulated over the years and put in place through precedent and legislation are protected. Those laws are there to protect people who choose to live that life.

There are those who step outside those laws. They choose to do so for a reason. There are all sorts of philosophies about how criminal behaviour stems from poverty and many social ills, mental illness and others. However, at the end of the day the public has a right to be protected from those individuals, whatever the cause. They have the right to feel safe in their homes. They have the right to feel safe walking down the streets of their communities. They have the right to feel that when their children leave the house in the morning they will return home safe and sound.

What we have to do is ensure that those laws are not only properly in place but properly upheld and interpreted.

There has been much to do and much talk in recent days and months of judicial activism and the accountability level of our judges in this country. It is a very slippery slope when we begin to openly criticize our judiciary. They are entrusted with perhaps one of the most important jobs that can be performed in this country. In fact I would go so far as to say that judges, in the day to day carrying out of their duties, the individual discretion which they can exercise in a courtroom is perhaps one of the most powerful, most compelling employment situations that we see, perhaps even more so than an elected official, perhaps even more so than the Prime Minister.

It is vitally important that those judges are given the tools and the laws to enforce what they feel is appropriate in the circumstances.

The young offenders legislation I suggest was a missed opportunity to perhaps give those judges greater tools, with respect specifically to lowering the age of accountability. Members opposite have made a great deal of this situation, saying that members of the opposition are advocating a very strict hammering approach that would see young people, 10 or 11 years old, thrown in jail. That is not the suggestion and I have not heard anyone espouse that position.

We are talking about a mechanism that would put in place the ability to trigger some form of social reaction that would bring a young person into the system at the earliest possible instance. Early intervention is what it is all about, the pre-emptive strike, this approach that has been so vociferously advocated by the government and yet it is overlooking an opportunity to do this. It was from its own justice officials that this idea came forward. I believe there is a failing in that regard.

With respect to the resources that have been allotted to this initiative, this legislative change that is to occur for our young offenders, it is fair to say that there are scarce resources under the existing system of the Young Offenders Act and even with the injection of money that has been proposed this will not adequately compensate those in the social services, those in child welfare, who are going to be utilized even more so under this particular legislation.

It is once again a very tricky shell game that has been brought forward, much like we saw with the budget itself and the suggestion that greater resources were going to be put into health care. It does not compensate for the amount of money that was taken out.

The same can be said of our justice system. Over the past number of years, particularly since 1993, we have seen drastic cuts to our policing services and our social welfare services that work so closely with law enforcement and our judiciary. Mr. Clark, the leader of our party, has made this a priority. He very recently held a press conference to point out the inadequacies with respect to the funding that has been allotted in particular to our national police force, the RCMP.

We are very glad to see that the decision has been made to reopen the RCMP cadet college in Regina, but there is the obvious question: Who closed it? Who made that priority decision to stop training police officers in this country?

It comes down to political decisions and political will to change the law. There is an ever present opportunity on behalf of the government to respond with laws that are not only appropriate but which address the problems being brought to light by members of the opposition and by members of the government.

As we speak, there is a bill at the justice committee to increase the discretion of a judge to allow for consecutive sentences for the worst of all possible crimes, the most heinous crimes perpetrated in today's world, such as sexual assault and murder. This bill came from a government member, yet the resources and the effort being made by her own party are extremely discouraging when one considers the effect which the adoption and imposition of this bill could bring at the end of the day.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss these most important issues. We are in the process of bringing about, hopefully, much needed change to impaired driving legislation. This has been itemized as something of great priority in this country. The issue of drug trafficking and organized crime has also been given a keynote appearance in this debate. We hope there will be further debate on these very important issues. We in the Progressive Conservative Party embrace the opportunity to participate in this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He made some comments about the RCMP training centre. This is a very significant issue that sends a very strong signal about where the government is coming from when it comes to supporting our police forces.

My understanding is that the RCMP anticipates that it is going to have a 50% attrition rate over the next five-plus years. That is a very high rate of attrition. The bubble is going through in terms of the high percentage of people approaching retirement. In order to replace that natural rate of attrition a certain number of recruits must be going through the system. It would be a challenge under the very best of circumstances if that training centre were open today, but it is not and it has not been. We do not know where the government is going with all this.

What on earth can be going on in the mind of the government that would allow this to happen? Sure, it will not affect major things in six months or twelve months, but there are downstream ramifications for our national police force, which is one of the most important symbols of this country and one of the most important practical organizations we have, although it is receiving no support from over there.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on that and maybe shed some new light on the subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I know he has a personal interest in such matters.

The short, flippant answer to what is going on in the government's mind would be, not very much. However, to delve into this situation and to put it into perspective, the cadet training college has been closed for upwards of four months now. Yes, that may be a short term saving for the government in terms of its bottom line which, as we know, is what is driving the finance minister these days. However, the bottom line is also that the short term gain is going to result in very long term pain.

As the hon. member has pointed out, much like the nursing shortage that is going to emerge in this country in years hence, the same could be said of policing.

The RCMP is a very proud institution with a great deal of history, but officers need proper training. Even with the reopening of the facility, there is talk about shortening the actual training period.

This comes down to a very shocking decision with respect to priorities on the part of the current government. Why it would do so is beyond me. Most individuals with whom I have talked in the policing community or in law enforcement find that this is simply a staggeringly shortsighted decision.

I commend the government for at least having recognized that it was a mistake in the first place and for reopening it; however, I cannot help but make the analogy with the current budget. The government is basically coming in the back door, taking out the furniture and the television, and wheeling an old rocking chair in the front door. It is taking out more than there was in the system in the first place.

I thank the hon. member for the question. I hope that greater emphasis and greater priority will be placed on criminal justice and on the training of officers so that in the years and months to come we will have a sufficient police force, a sufficient pool of trained officers to draw from so that Canadian communities will once again receive and enjoy a level of protection. There is a thin red line of protection—and I use red because we are talking about police scarlet letters—that exists between the policing community and the community itself, and the protection which it has come to respect and deserve from the criminal element.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. Regrettably, we have to rise to demand that this government make changes to the justice system which reflect the views of the vast majority of Canadians.

Regrettably, it is we in the opposition who have to remind the government constantly of its responsibility to react to what Canadians are saying, rather than reacting to its own philosophies when it comes to criminal justice.

I am going to talk about the criminal justice system as it relates to impaired driving today. Before I do, I want to take this opportunity to relate something which was very disturbing to me.

On Thursday, March 4, I read in the paper that a 57 year old woman, a grandmother, had just been released from prison after spending six months in incarceration. On Saturday, March 6, I read in the paper that another person had been sentenced to six months in prison.

The second person, on March 6, was sentenced for the act of child abuse, sexually molesting a child. This person, according to the report, was unrepentant. He saw nothing wrong with what he did. He received a sentence of six months, of which he will serve probably two and a half months under the Liberal justice system.

Let us return to Thursday, March 4, when this 57 year old lady was let out of prison. She served six months in prison because she dared to cross into a bubble zone around an abortion clinic to kneel and pray.

If anybody in the House, anybody in the Liberal government, could show me some sense of justice in the relationship between those sentences and crimes I would be very surprised. Imagine, an unrelenting, unrepentant child molester sentenced to six months and someone who dares to cross a bubble zone at an abortion clinic to kneel to pray receives the same sentence. It is unbelievable how our justice system serves up so much injustice. It is so out of whack.

I mention that because it shocked me. Even though there is no reaction I am sure it is shocking members of the Liberal government to hear that. If they do not believe what I am saying I suggest they dig up those two issues and read them for themselves.

Impaired driving is a very serious crime. It kills in the neighbourhood of 1,400 people every single year. It injures over 60,000 every year. As a matter of fact, impaired driving is the number one cause of criminal death in this country, more than three times higher than homicide. In the last five years it has cost our health care system. The property and causality claims are billions of dollars. In over 10 years nothing substantial has been done to arrest this very serious problem.

Over the last month and a half we have seen witnesses come before the justice committee to present their opinions on how we should address this very serious crime of impaired driving and how we can cut the senseless deaths. Now the justice committee is charged with reviewing all the testimony, taking into consideration all the recommendations and to bring back before the House by May 15 a bill that will take some very serious and positive steps to cutting the incidence of impaired driving, cutting deaths, injuries and cutting the cost to our health care.

I have to tell members at this time that I have some very serious doubts as to whether these Liberals, who talk the talk about wanting to cut the carnage on our highways, cut the incidence of death and injuries and the billions of dollars of cost, are serious. I have seen no indication that these Liberal members who sit on the justice committee and others who well over a year ago unanimously sent to the justice committee a supply day motion by the Reform Party that called for action are serious in any way about addressing the very serious crime of impaired driving.

Millions of Canadians have cried out for the federal government to take some leadership on this crime and do something that would reflect a zero tolerance attitude toward impaired driving. The victims of impaired driving deserve no less.

I am sad to say I am not confident at this time, having been involved in the justice committee hearings and the subsequent meetings going on right now, the government is serious despite what it has said.

There are a number of steps we can take. I guess the most appropriate one would be to look at the level of blood alcohol content in the driver of a vehicle once the reading on the breathalyzer is determined. There is much testimony to support the lowering of this level to .05 from .08, which I support. We also have a very serious problem with the court system that has not been addressed by this or previous governments.

In cases where people are charged with impaired driving we have heard testimony from prosecutors and policing officials that the judiciary automatically tends to accept the evidence of the person who is charged rather than the evidence of the crown prosecutor and the police force that has laid the charge. Something is wrong with that picture.

Something is wrong when a prosecutor can walk into a court, present certificate evidence from very high tech instruments to detect the level of BAC, where the margin of error is so small that it is almost insignificant, and the judge will tend to believe evidence contrary to those proven certificates of evidence.

I really hope, for the sake of the victims of impaired drivers, for the families left behind and for the sake of our health care system, that this government for once since 1993, since I have been in parliament, will do something positive to take some steps in the justice system that will be of benefit to Canadians. Here is an opportunity for it to do that. I hope it does not let Canadians down once again.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Prince George.

I would like to ask the member about the problem of break and enter which is becoming quite prevalent in Canada. In light of the fact that the revised Young Offenders Act was presented, I would like to have his opinion on why he thinks this was left out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not attempt to speak for the members of the Liberal government. Lord knows some of the steps they take or do not take are quite puzzling.

Yes, in British Columbia in particular the incidence of home invasions is at a very serious epidemic stage right now. It is incumbent on this Liberal government and members who represent British Columbians to respond to the call from residents of British Columbia to bring in some very tough and specific guidelines on how we treat offenders who do this very serious crime of home invasion.

Let us remember that the victims in almost every case are frail and elderly people who cannot defend themselves from home invasions by these thugs who would take advantage of them. Nothing less than serious jail time is appropriate in that case.

I live in a city that a few years ago won the distinction of being the highest B and E city in western Canada, Prince George, B.C. It was something we were not very proud of.

These were done mainly by young offenders and so many of them were repeat offenders because they were receiving nothing but a slap on the wrist when they appeared before the judge the first time and a slap on the wrist the second time.

I like what a judge from New York said about two weeks ago: “When a young offender comes before my bench on his first offence, I want it to be the worst experience of his life. Why? Because I don't want to see him back here again”. I congratulate that judge.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech very carefully about impaired driving and the problems it is creating on an ongoing basis.

One of the proactive things I did as an independent member of parliament was to put forward a private member's bill dealing with the use of interlock devices for repeat offenders of impaired driving. Unfortunately I have not been lucky enough to have my name drawn so that we could debate that bill.

Can my hon. colleague talk a bit about the interlock device and whether he sees some merit in having that as part of a complete package that does adequately address the very serious concern of impaired driving in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the testimony and evidence we heard before the justice committee by people from Guardian Interlock gave us a good insight into what such a valuable tool this device would be, particularly in the case of people who were repeat offenders or who were stopped with a high level of alcohol.

Let it be clear that the Guardian Interlock system should not be used in place of any serious penalties that should be given to people who drive while impaired. It should be used in addition. It is not to take the place of a penalty. It is an additional part of it.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure for me to rise to address these very serious concerns the Reform Party has brought forward today.

Unfortunately like so many Canadians, probably millions across the land, I am suffering a little from a cold and it is not very pleasurable to try to make a speech. If my voice fails me at some point during the speech members will understand why. Over the weekend I lost my voice completely. Some people would say that would be a good thing, in particular some members across the way who do not like to hear what I have to say from time to time in this place. It is bad news for a politician not to have a voice because it is the one essential tool of the trade, so to speak.

Today in the short time I have I will be addressing the issue of conditional sentencing. I should explain for viewers at home and those in the gallery what conditional sentencing is.

Conditional sentencing should not be confused with parole and conditional release. Conditional sentencing allows judges a tool whereby rather than sending a convicted or confessed criminal to jail or prison, they can divert that individual to conditional sentencing, to serving their time in the community or at home in many cases under certain conditions. Thus the term conditional sentencing. There are certain conditions imposed on that individual.

Conditional sentencing was established under legislation of Bill C-41 in the first session of the 35th parliament. That is the parliament immediately preceding the one that is under way at present. This bill made sweeping changes to Canada's sentencing laws, but in each case neglected to reflect the interests of Canadians. The majority of the debate when Bill C-41 was before the House was focused on classifying murder.

According to the Liberals, killing only one person is not so bad as long as you do not kill more than one, or murder out of hate. If either of those cases were prevalent in a particular conviction, either a multiple murder or a so-called hate crime, then the individual might have to serve their entire lenient sentence.

But I am digressing from my main point today which is conditional sentencing which was also contained in Bill C-41.

As far back as March 1995 the Reform Party has been pleading with this government to change the law to exclude violent crimes, but so far our cries have fallen on deaf ears. It has been four years since we first raised this very serious issue. It is some two and a half years now since this law has been put into force. On September 3, 1996 conditional sentencing actually came into place and began to be utilized by judges across the land.

In 1995 the Reform member for Crowfoot moved several amendments to Bill C-41 in committee which would have disqualified violent offences from conditional sentencing. It would have ensured that the sentences were to deter the offender and others from committing offences and that the sentences were to provide compensation to the victims and/or their families.

The Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence echoed the concerns expressed by the member for Crowfoot, yet the Liberals did not support any of those measures. I find it ironic in light of that fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice rose in her place about an hour ago in questions and comments following her speech and said that she or her government would be willing to look at amendments to the newly announced changes to the young offenders legislation. Some of us on this side of the House and indeed all Canadians might be just a bit sceptical of how sincere she was. We might even have some reason to be cynical about it.

Conditional sentencing was meant to cut costs. Although it can be argued that some financial costs have been cut, the human costs of the victims of crime are mounting. The trauma one feels from an unjust sentence is immeasurable. I am sure one feels victimized all over again. The societal costs of conditional sentencing are mounting. Rapists, killers, child and spousal abusers and drug dealers are set free without deterrents or consequence. It is my firm belief that without proper punishment there is no deterrent.

Bill C-41 allows convicted criminals to serve their sentences at home in the community rather than in jail. It is my belief and the belief of many MPs including the justice minister that it was not parliament's intent that conditional sentencing be used in the cases of violent or sexual offences. In January 1998 the justice minister publicly stated that. She said, “There have been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of parliament to have them and those should be appealed”. The minister added that conditional sentencing was never intended to apply to violent or sexual offenders.

I am going to relate to the viewing public a few of the cases where I believe conditional sentencing was applied inappropriately.

In Montreal three men were given 18 month conditional sentences after raping a 16 year old pregnant woman and holding her upside down from a balcony. The judge thought that this was part of their culture.

In Winnipeg a youth previously convicted of theft and seven armed robberies and on temporary leave from a Manitoba youth centre received a one year conditional sentence and three year probation for the drive-by shooting death of a 13 year old.

In Nanaimo a 28 year old man received a one year conditional sentence for shooting his girlfriend with a crossbow.

In Edmonton a 57 year old man who swung a machete at a 21 year old male cutting his face and cutting a third of his ear off got 240 hours of community service and a curfew.

I raised this particularly appalling case during question period just last week. In Ottawa, Paul Gervais confessed to sexually assaulting nine boys, yet he got two years conditional sentence and a curfew. That is absolutely appalling. I think the general public has every reason to be outraged at these types of sentences.

Also in Ottawa, Robert Turcotte strangled his mother to death. He received a two year conditional sentence, 100 hours of community service and a midnight curfew.

Pay close attention to this one. In Vancouver, a person out on conditional sentence for two counts of theft and dangerous driving has been accused of killing an 83 year old woman during a home invasion.

While the justice minister prefers to allow the appeal courts to address the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing, the courts have indicated the opposite. The issue of conditional sentencing continues to become more and more of an ambiguous matter within the courts.

Despite the minister's belief about the intention of conditional sentencing, in August 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that violent offenders are entitled to serve time in the community under conditional sentences. The B.C. appeal court ruling stated: “If parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in clear language”.

It is my contention that Canadian courts are already bogged down. We should not be using the courts to appeal these types of sentences. Indeed the general public is waking up to this more and more and is becoming justifiably outraged at some of these sentences.

Since the minister has not responded to this public outcry or to her own criticisms of the law, I have submitted two private member's motions, Motion No. 383 and Motion No. 577, to rectify the situation. Motion No. 577 is currently on the Order Paper and reads:

That in the opinion of this House, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to prepare and bring in a bill to prevent the use of conditional sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of a dangerous crime including: murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking, sexual assault, and all other classifications of assault including child and spousal abuse.

If the government would act on a motion similar to that and bring forward amendments to this section of the Criminal Code, it would certainly stand itself well with the general public. It would address a serious inadequacy in our present law.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I find more offensive, the sanctimony of Reform Party members or their contradictions. If I were to use something more precise like the word hypocrisy, I would be declared unparliamentary so I will not use that word.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I realize that the hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia would not use it, but he will not use it through the back door if he cannot bring it in the front door either.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the contradictions.

The member for Prince George—Peace River has found conditional sentencing wanting. He is basically saying that judges and all the officials of the courts cannot be trusted with this tool of flexibility. According to the Reform Party member, since the courts cannot be trusted, the judges cannot be trusted, the prosecutors cannot be trusted, the defence lawyers cannot be trusted, this matter has to be returned to the legislators in Ottawa.

According to the Reform Party member, it is up to the legislators who will have the responsibility of getting it right. But, and this is where I get to the contradiction, who is more denigrated by the Reform Party? Who is more mistrusted by the Reform Party than legislators?

We cannot win with the Reform Party. The Reform Party does not trust the judges. It does not trust the prosecutors. It does not trust the defence lawyers. It does not trust the law makers. It does not trust the politicians.

It might be worthy to ask this particular Reform Party member whom do the Reform members trust? Whom will they turn to? In all their presentations they denigrate everyone in every part of the chain. They denigrate everyone. It does not matter what one does in this country, they will denigrate, they will show their absolute disdain for officers of any political institution.

Canadians understand this talk from the Reform Party. It really is grating on members of the governing party. We have a responsibility not only to the justice system, but to the whole country. Yet all we hear from the Reform Party is let us see if we can denigrate one more Canadian citizen.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not fail us again did he? He can always be counted upon to get up and launch into some outrageous diatribe instead of addressing the questions that we have today.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Why does the hon. member not address the question?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, now he is intent on heckling when I try to address his ridiculous comments.

Yes, we do not trust certain legislators. We do not trust this Liberal government. That is obvious.

In this particular case we do not trust the judges to use conditional sentencing properly because they have proven themselves time and time again unworthy of that trust. That is part of the reason our justice system is falling into such serious disrepute with the general public.

If the hon. member would care to get out of this hallowed hall and go to where he is supposed to be, out west trying to rebuild the shattered shreds of his party's support in western Canada, he certainly would find out what the general public is thinking about the justice system.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Who do you trust?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps hollering at the top of his lungs “Who do you trust?” We trust the wisdom of the general public, because they know that the justice system is failing.

I very calmly tried to bring forward during this debate today the very important issue of conditional sentencing and the abuse by the courts in the cases of applying it to violent offenders.

One statement the hon. member made which I will agree with, is he said that my comments were grating, that comments of Reformers were grating on him. We are the official opposition. I would hope that our comments are grating on the Liberal government. We are trying our very best on behalf of the Canadian public to hold this bloody government accountable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Just before we get to the hon. secretary of state, we remind all hon. members to keep the tone of the debate respectful to the institution of parliament.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

When this government was re-elected nearly two years ago, we pledged as elected officials “to work tirelessly to ensure Canada remains a place where Canadians feel secure in their homes and on the streets of their communities”. We will protect the right of all Canadians to live in healthy, safe communities. We have kept this commitment and continue every single day to keep it in co-operation with our partners, the provinces, the territories and the communities.

A number of people have forgotten that the federal government enacts laws. It is the provinces and the territories with their communities and the various programs that administer and indeed enforce those laws.

Perhaps during the day there will be a focus on some of the exchange that has occurred here. Are we saying that the laws are all wrong, or are we saying that there is a need to improve a number of aspects of the system?

The focus thus far has been on the federal government. The federal government is not alone. It has partners. My colleague mentioned the courts, the judges, the prosecutors, the officials of the court, the police officers. Is the Reform Party actually saying that the only problem is the laws the Government of Canada enacts?

I would like Reformers to get up from their chairs and confirm that. Are they saying other things? I am not sure they are clear. I think they are trying to frighten people, to suggest that all of the malaise for those who commit crimes rests with the federal government. If that is the case, what nonsense. It simplifies the shallow thinking that often goes into these kinds of debates. There is no thinking it through. It is a little more complex than laws.

The government fully understands the importance of providing Canadians with an environment in which they feel safe. We have taken steps to improve the system and will continue to work toward enhancing the quality of life of all Canadians. The following are but a few examples of the initiatives we have taken to that end.

Just yesterday the solicitor general introduced reforms to the Criminal Records Act that will make the criminal records of pardoned sex offenders available for background checks by agencies serving children and other vulnerable groups. This change is about children and we have to be particularly sensitive to it. We are committed to protecting them. I hear heckling on that point. I take it there is disagreement from the Reform Party.

Last week, the Minister of Justice tabled an in-depth review of the criminal justice system for youth, the most detailed one in 15 years, I might add.

The Minister of Justice introduced a balanced package, a comprehensive overhaul of the youth justice system that meets the needs of Canadians by clearly distinguishing between violent and non-violent crime and by ensuring meaningful consequences for both. As one part of this broad strategy for renewal of youth justice in Canada, the new criminal youth justice act will replace the Young Offenders Act.

Another initiative to help communities prevent crime in the first place is $32 million a year for the national strategy on community safety and crime prevention. To improve the situation of Canadians who unfortunately become victims of crime this government has taken action.

In the ten 10 minutes I have, I could not do justice to all of this government's initiatives.

Let me highlight a few. The Government of Canada is committed to combating organized crime.

Organized crime is not a new phenomenon, but it can take a number of forms. That is why this government has been vigilant in changing the tools needed by the forces of order in the fight against this scourge.

The present government has given those bodies responsible for enforcing the law easier access to electronic surveillance in order to catch the leaders of organized crime.

Canadians have seen the scope of the violence caused by organized crime, which strikes indiscriminately. The present government has established new offences making involvement in criminal organizations a crime.

One of the main ways of attacking this type of crime is to ensure that the crimes involved do not pay. While criminal organizations cannot be imprisoned, as we all know, they do have a character vital to their existence. This character is reflected in their collective wealth.

When we go after the wealth of an organization, we also go after the ties that bind its members to it. Let us seize the proceeds of crime and all organized crime is destabilized.

Experience has demonstrated that co-ordinated enforcement efforts are the best way to achieve this goal. It has expanded its integrated proceeds of crime units in the past two years from three units to thirteen units in every part of the country.

These units bring together under one roof the talents of all those involved in the law enforcement continuum, including the RCMP and provincial police, forensic accounting experts, customs officers and federal justice lawyers.

The efforts made by the government do not stop at our borders but include working closely with our foreign partners for the purpose of dealing with organized crime in a comprehensive fashion.

Let me now speak about victims of crime. Since 1999 this government has undertaken countless legislative initiatives that improve the justice system to benefit victims of crime directly and indirectly.

These include the enactment of provisions to enhance the protection of children victimized by sexual abuse, provisions to facilitate the provision of testimony by young victims, elimination of the defence of intoxication in crimes of violence such as assault and sexual assault, and provisions to restrict the production of personal records of sexual offence victims to the accused.

We all know that is not enough. In its recent report, the Commons justice committee confirmed that victims of crime are not asking for tough laws, tough penalties, for vengeance or for rights to be taken away from the accused. They want a voice, respect, information and help to participate in an often demanding criminal justice system. We will give them just that. In the next few weeks the Minister of Justice will table a series of Criminal Code amendments.

The amendments the minister will introduce in the coming weeks will ensure a source of information for victims.

These will ensure that victims receive more information about their role in the criminal justice system, services available and about the case in which they are involved.

I will conclude with these comments.

What have the results been thus far? The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports that in 1997 the rate of police reported crime decreased for the sixth year in a row, falling 5%. The rate of violent crimes declined for the fifth consecutive year, down 1.1% in 1997.

Rates decreased for almost all violent offences, including sexual assault, robbery and homicide. The strength of the justice system is its ability to constantly evolve and to improve. We are looking at measures in which we must do that.

I simply want to encourage all colleagues to address the issues in a comprehensive way. It is not sufficient to say the laws are inadequate. Some are, no doubt. Some need to be changed, but clearly there are other components of the system we need to study and where changes are required.

To simply say the federal government is responsible for all this is an irresponsible statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of the hon. member. He has quite correctly pointed out that this is not about simplistic approaches. He listed some of the beneficial changes that have occurred under this government's administration.

There should not be the usual sanctimonious tone that we are becoming so accustomed to in suggesting this Liberal government is the only government that has ever enacted anything positive to the Criminal Code or anything that had a beneficial impact on Canadians.

With respect to one element of his speech concerning organized crime, organized crime is becoming a growing problem on the streets and in the communities throughout the country, particularly in coastal areas in places like Nova Scotia where I come from which has a very vulnerable coast line with contraband material and drugs coming into the country.

The hon. member is being a bit economical with the truth when he suggested this government has somehow done a great deal to combat organized crime considering the $74 million that was taken out of last year's organized crime budget.

I would like to hear a little more detail as to what is actually being done by this Liberal government to combat increasing organized crime in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no sanctimony on my part nor have I heard sanctimony on the part of my colleagues. We acknowledge that other governments have made contributions. Clearly what we have today is as a result of this government, previous governments and provincial and territorial governments. We have no difficulty in saying that.

My colleagues and I believe that if people put their minds to it, whether they be from my party or another, we can improve a law, a process and a number of other initiatives that might be undertaken. I guess my plea was to do exactly that, not to simply batter the government for the sake of doing it.

I appreciate that my colleague from the other side has indicated that there have been serious and responsible initiatives undertaken by this government that have been implemented. I applaud that because we do not often hear that. We hear selective picking here and there to try to pretend that particular incident can be generalized to the whole of Canada. We know that is nonsense, that is not accurate and it is not the way to conduct oneself.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member said earlier, I was not heckling. I was just trying to make a point. The member speaks in such glowing terms of the legislation put forward by the solicitor general dealing with pedophiles and pardons, which I agree has to come forward because we need it. I might remind the House that the hon. member for Calgary Centre has private member's Bill C-284 in front of a committee right now which is virtually identical to what the solicitor general is proposing.

I was wondering if he would care to give the hon. member for Calgary Centre a bit of credit for this. Could he also explain why his government does not deal with the private member's bill and bring it in rather than bringing in its own legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is my point. Does it really matter, if a good piece of legislation comes forth, who brought it forth? Is it not intended to benefit Canadians? Should that not be the first goal or is my colleague simply asking for an acknowledgement of his colleague? We will bring forth good, strong legislation. It will respond to the needs of Canadians.

My goal is not to say I did it, you did it. My goal is to bring forth and support legislation that will be useful, significant, sensitive and helpful to Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the same place as the hon. secretary of state, the province of Manitoba, I know he will agree that one of the biggest shortcomings that we see in the criminal justice system is its treatment of aboriginal people.

I read an alarming statistic that in 1969-70 the percentage of aboriginal people in the women's penitentiary in Kingston was 100%. To this day it is hugely disproportional to the rest of the population.

Having gone through and watched the aboriginal justice inquiry in Manitoba and given the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal people, would the member care to elaborate on how the justice system can better serve the aboriginal population, especially in the province of Manitoba?