Debates of May 29th, 2006

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Brant, the Environment.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have only been here for two years so I can only comment on the last two years. Never in my short time in the House have I heard so much of what I would like to call propaganda, but it is worse than that. The member opposite stood up and actually suggested that we should not be in the business of putting forward sentences.

I remind the member that when he was in government, and thank goodness he no longer is, Bill C-48, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 dealt with the terms of various criminal activity. For example, the Liberal government suggested that we have a 10-year sentence for illegally importing artifacts. The next bill suggested five years for human smuggling. First, both of those bills dealt with sentencing and that is where the old government put its priorities in terms of protecting humans.

Last week I met with the insurance industry for Canada. It suggested that the crime rate with respect to stealing cars was what was causing the folks in Ontario to pay so much for insurance. I guess that is propaganda. Could the hon. member comment on whether he is calling the insurance industry's statistics propaganda.

For the families in my riding, could the hon. member comment on the four members of a gang who raced down another member and hacked him to death in front of innocent citizens. The convicted got 19 months, and it was not just house arrest. Let us call it was it is. He was sent home to watch DVDs, drink beer and eat popcorn. We have all heard about that.

Finally, would he comment on the sex attack in Guelph, Ontario, where an employer attacked his 15-year-old staff member and the judge said that he would not send the man to jail because it was Christmas, it would be embarrassing. How about that? Could we get a comment from the member on that propaganda?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I look at my insurance bill, it is down this year. Therefore, I cannot comment on the statistics of the insurance industry that always seems to be able to bring up statistics to suit the increase in its premiums.

I would recommend to the hon. member that in all instances where he cites specific cases, that he sit in the court room, that he weigh the evidence, that he listen to the Crown and the defence, that he go through the defence process and then find out whether this is an appropriate sentence to fit the crime.

We have in the country a justice system and it is not just about us. It is about appropriate sentencing in appropriate instances to suit the offence. We have the best justice system in the world. We have among the lowest recidivism rates of anywhere. We have crime rates declining in all categories in virtually all communities.

Therefore, the bill is a propaganda bill. It starts out as a propaganda bill, it is a propaganda bill and it will end as one.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members over there would have us believe that crime is up and we know that it is not true. Crime is down. One of the effects of their propaganda is that it is terrifying our elderly residents, creating fear, scaring residents and is creating a basis for something that is not true.

We go door to door and see our constituents. Could the member let us know about the fear that is being falsely created? The Conservatives carry on with the propaganda machine they have set up. How does it affect the residents in the member's riding? It affects the ones in mine, and it is unnecessary.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the break week I had the privilege of going through my community which has been identified by the United Way as having among the poorest postal codes in the country. Many people in one or two places in my riding do not have incomes because of many factors, one primarily being immigration, but other factors as well. There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. People can buy a $2 million house in my riding and be living literally cheque to cheque.

The member is right. There has been an escalation of fear while the facts have gone the other way. As we go door to door there is a concern but at the same time we have excellent policing and very active judges in Toronto. We have a factual, statistical, provable reality that shows crime is declining. Frankly, this bill and the one to follow it will do absolutely nothing on the issue of recidivism. It will do nothing for the fear that Canadians have, rightly or wrongly. It will not contribute in any way to the actual lessening of crime in our community.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with the chief of police in Hamilton and he was very pleased to tell me that major crime in Hamilton was down. In fact, the chief's major concern was about the tinkering with the gun registry and the damage that could potentially have on the community.

Does the member not agree that there must be a better way of addressing the situation than to just go out and set mandatory sentences that will put us in a position where we are second guessing our judges at every turn? The court system in Canada is well respected around the world. Our magistrates and justices are well respected. It seems very strange that the government does not respect our justice system.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks an intriguing question. I also have days where I wonder why there is such disrespect for a justice system that is so obviously working. As I said earlier, the judges are of the highest quality. The police are well-equipped and well-staffed. They are, by and large, free of corruption, which is not true in other countries. We have some of the lowest crime rates of any place in the world. Our recidivism rates are among the lowest and frequently declining. We have all kinds of facilities and yet the government comes along with these minimum mandatory laws.

I sat on the justice committee for six years. I would like to say that minimum mandatories and conditional sentences work. If that were the magic bullet would we not have jumped all over it in the past six years? The problem is that they do not work. There is no evidence to support that minimum mandatories actually reduce crime. Just like this bill, there is no evidence to support that it will reduce crime.

We have this distortion of priorities, which is to put everyone who commits a crime in jail at a huge amount of money on an annual basis and we will all feel a lot better. What happened to that $1 million, $10 million or hundreds of millions which the government has not come clean on? What happens to all that money? It sure does not go into policing or into legal aid. It sure does not go into improvements in the justice system or into any diversionary programs. It does not do anything that would actually deal with the problem of crime in our communities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I put my question I must share the sentiments of my colleague who spoke a few minutes ago. I am flabbergasted. I have never heard a defence of the indefensible as I have heard from the hon. member just now, which is probably why Canadians voted the corrupt Liberals out of office. The Liberals had totally run out of ideas and they lacked a sense of what the country needed, especially in the area of justice reform.

I encourage the member to visit with the residents of my community of Abbotsford and explain to them why we have rampant grow ops, why we have meth labs throughout our community and why the incidence of gun crime has been increasing at a rapid rate.

What is so common with the Liberals is that they selectively take statistics, twist those statistics, especially for lesser offences, and build a flimsy case, but they do not reflect the reality of what is happening in Canada.

Given that the member denies that Canada has a crime problem, will he confirm that his party is satisfied with the status quo?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the reasons the hon. member is flabbergasted is that he has been drinking his own Kool-Aid and his Kool-Aid has a lot of propaganda. The member now believes that there is this huge crime wave. The problem is that his facts do not support his propaganda.

I would be more than willing to agree with him if in fact somehow or another we were in a world or in a reality where we had runaway crime, et cetera, but unfortunately, for the purposes of his propaganda, we do not.

I will comment on a couple of points with which I actually can agree. On grow ops, I agree with him. The issue of grow ops is an area in which the present government and the previous government tried to do something. I do hope the Conservative government will do something a little bit more aggressive.

In my community where there are grow ops, the police have been quite aggressive and there have been some arrests and convictions. I support that.

If the member wants to see how a bill with respect to these kinds of issues actually should be crafted, he should have looked at Bill C-70 which died on the order paper.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a personal and professional honour for me to speak today at second reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with conditional sentence of imprisonment.

As many of my colleagues in the House will know, I have made it a priority throughout much of my time as the member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River to address the misuse of conditional sentencing.

It was way back in the fall of 1994 when I had been an MP for less than a year that the former Liberal government introduced Bill C-41, legislation that introduced section 742.1 into the Criminal Code of Canada. The concept of conditional sentencing that this section enacted is not without merit. It can offer benefits to our society and preserve the integrity of our justice system if it is used for less serious crimes. I will elaborate more on that in a moment.

When Bill C-41 was being debated, I joined the chorus of Canadians, including legal experts, in warning the former Liberal government that section 742.1 would dangerously dilute the credibility and effectiveness of our justice system if those convicted of serious and violent offences were eligible for conditional sentencing provisions. As we are all well aware, the former government did not listen and shortly after section 742.1 became law on September 3, 1996, courts across Canada began granting conditional sentences to convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters and drug dealers.

Many of these miscarriages of justice were challenged through appeal, the most notable concerning the conditional sentence granted to Darren Ursel, who was convicted of attacking a woman and sodomizing her with a racquetball racquet.

On August 12, 1997, in a watershed moment in the history of conditional sentencing, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that “if Parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in clear language”.

Until this point, the Liberal justice minister had been justifying the use of conditional sentencing for violent and sexual offences by suggesting that such sentences could be appealed. However that same minister was now being told in clear language in an appeal ruling that murderers and rapists could continue to be eligible for house arrest because the Parliament of Canada itself refused to say otherwise.

When it became clear that the Liberal government would not act to close this serious loophole in Canadian law, I took it upon myself to introduce a private member's motion to do so in March 1998. I stepped up my efforts to restrict the use of conditional sentencing for serious and violent crimes by introducing clear and detailed legislation on March 26, 1999. Throughout the next three Parliaments, I reintroduced this private member's bill. When I reintroduced it in this Parliament just last month I expressed how hopeful I was that Canada now had a Conservative Prime Minister and justice minister who would listen to what Canadians were telling us. They told us that it was time to crack down on society's most violent criminals.

I have always had a great deal of respect for my colleague, the hon. justice minister who hails from Provencher, Manitoba, and yet even I am surprised at how quickly and decisively he has acted to restore Canadians' confidence in their justice system. Finally, after nearly a decade of frustration, as violent criminals and sexual predators have been granted get out of jail free cards, the provisions outlined in my private member's bill are being advanced in this Conservative government legislation.

As I stated, this bill is designed primarily to restore confidence in the criminal justice system. It also aims at finally using conditional sentence orders in a manner that this Parliament originally intended to use them.

A conditional sentence is a sentence of imprisonment of two years less a day, which the offender may serve in the community provided that the offence for which the offender is convicted is not punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty and provided that the court is satisfied that serving the sentence under house arrest will not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing which are set out in the Criminal Code.

The government promised to undertake a number of reforms to protect our communities from serious crime. On May 4 the government delivered on two of its commitments. Bill C-9, which is of interest to us today, aims at ending conditional sentence orders for serious offences, including serious violent offences, punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

Some concerns have been voiced by jurisdictions with large aboriginal populations. While proposing this bill, we remain cognizant of these concerns. The concerns expressed by these jurisdictions are that the impact of this bill will exacerbate the overrepresentation of aboriginal offenders in correctional institutions in Canada and could put at risk some justice programs focused on native traditions of restorative justice rather than prison time. This is a problem that must be addressed, though not at the expense of lenient conditional sentences for serious offences, including serious violent offences.

Aboriginal justice issues are complex given their cross-jurisdictional nature. The overrepresentation of aboriginal offenders must be dealt with through partnership between federal, provincial and territorial partners, and aboriginal communities themselves.

The Department of Justice is supporting, through the aboriginal justice strategy, restorative justice approaches that include: diversion, sentencing alternatives, family and civil mediation, and other services that strengthen the links between community justice workers and the courts. Moreover, the government continues to fund programs to deal with lack of opportunity and substance abuse in our aboriginal communities.

However, restorative justice programs can be controversial if not implemented with appropriate safeguards. These programs are not intended to replace other criminal justice system responses to criminal behaviour. They do however represent an effective and progressive manner in dealing with minor offences.

A significant aim of Bill C-9, which is before us today, is the promotion of more peaceful aboriginal communities. In Canada, it is true, aboriginal people are overrepresented as offenders. Also true however is that aboriginal people themselves are overrepresented as victims.

According to a 1999 general social survey entitled “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada” prepared by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Profile Series, 35% of aboriginal people reported being a victim of crime. This figure is approximately 10% higher than for non-aboriginal people. Moreover, aboriginal people are three times more likely to be victims of violent crimes than non-aboriginal people.

This is also true in cases of family violence and sexual offences. For instance, the general social survey reports that aboriginal people were three times more likely to be victims of social violence than those who were non-aboriginal. Furthermore, aboriginal victims of spousal abuse are more likely to suffer from some serious form of violence than non-aboriginal people.

In terms of sexual offences, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports that in 2002 the rate of sexual offences in Nunavut was 12 times higher than all of Canada. In the Northwest Territories it was six times higher than all of Canada. In Yukon Territory the rate of sexual offences was four times higher than all of Canada.

This bill does not sacrifice the protection of victims and the protection of our communities in favour of lenient sentences granted to serious violent offenders. Having a community live in fear is not an acceptable solution. I submit that it is with victim safety in mind that we support conditional sentences in a manner that closely aligns with the purpose and the principles of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code.

Rehabilitation and reintegration into the community are important objectives that this government supports. Though appropriate in many situations, however, societal reality dictates that conditional sentences are equally inappropriate for the offences dealt with by this bill. That said, we must remember that conditional sentences are not being taken off the books entirely with this legislation. They will still be available in a wide array of cases involving less serious crime.

In addition, conditional sentences and prison terms are not the only criminal sentences available in our criminal justice system. While it is true that a number of offenders now eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment will be going to jail after this bill comes into force, some of the offenders now getting conditional sentences will be receiving suspended sentences with probation.

For all these reasons, we believe that the restriction of conditional sentences for serious offences is a necessary change in the working of our criminal justice system and in the protection of all communities, including aboriginal communities.

My government has committed itself to instituting reforms that adhere closely to the principles of justice which we hold dear.

In closing, I would like to repeat for the benefit of all members in this House, and for those viewing the debate today, the B.C. Court of Appeal's open challenge to this Parliament, and to previous Parliaments, I might add:

If Parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under s.742.1, it could have done so in clear language.

Canadians have always wanted their Parliament to exclude violent and sexual offenders from consideration under section 742.1. It has been nine long years since that ruling. I would like to thank the present justice minister for leading this Parliament into doing its job when it comes to clarifying legislation surrounding conditional sentencing.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the member speak specifically about the aboriginal justice strategy because I have been in his riding when we were doing the Nisga'a debate. I do not think the aboriginal justice strategy was at the top of his agenda at that time, so I am very glad to hear him talk about it today. I am sure that this was a prepared text that he has read, but I would like to hear whether the aboriginal justice strategy is an important part of the justice department.

It is a small department. It has limited resources and this is a very important issue. I would like to be assured, and I am sure the first nations people in this country would like to be assured, that this department will be continuing because we know that the plans and priorities will not come out until September for the department.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on how sincerely the government wants to pursue all of the restorative justice principles that have been encompassed in the aboriginal justice strategy. I would love to hear not just about it, because I know about the strategy, but I would like to hear about the commitment to the strategy and its continuation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the sentiment that is being expressed. As I said in my remarks, I do not think anybody can dispute the fact that in our prison system currently, aboriginals are overrepresented as a percentage of the population, if we relate that to the percentage that they hold in the general population of our nation.

Obviously, this is a huge issue for any government to grapple with. I just want to assure her that I, all my colleagues, and this government are firmly committed to addressing this in every way possible.

Specifically, she referred to the aboriginal criminal justice strategy which includes, among other things, as I said in my remarks, diversion, sentencing alternatives, and family and civil mediation where appropriate.

I want to assure her that I cannot commit myself or my government today to any funding for any of the programs because they are all under review. It remains a serious concern of our government, as it was to the previous government, to do all we can to ensure that the representation as a percentage of our prison population does not increase any more, and indeed even comes down from the present high numbers of our aboriginal people who are incarcerated.

Having said that, I am sure she listened to my remarks when I stated that no matter which community one happens to be from, from coast to coast to coast in Canada, I have always believed that those people, regardless of their backgrounds, who commit serious crime must be held accountable for their actions.

That is one of the things that I have heard constantly over the last 13 years that I have been a member of Parliament, and Mr. Speaker, I know you have heard it during your long and distinguished tenure as a member of Parliament. People out in the real world, outside of this chamber, want to know that if people commit serious crimes, they will be held accountable and do serious time.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hearing the government whip speak about the high levels of aboriginal incarcerations across Canada, it has a ring of insincerity that we have not heard in the House from the government side through much of this debate. I am pleased to hear that.

In fact, I am very pleased that it shows a glimmer of understanding that also has been missing from the government side both throughout the election campaign and more recently in the House. That understanding of the aboriginal situation is a very important piece, but I must say that it rings a bit hollow when we see that it does not carry to the rest of Canadians who run afoul of our justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have already alluded to, we take very seriously our commitment to not only the aboriginal people of Canada but to all Canadians. We need to have a justice system in our country that all people can have confidence in, can believe in, and know that whether they become victims themselves or their family member is a victim of crime, they will see justice done in our court system and people will be held accountable.

When the member said that he was glad to see some glimmer of understanding, I would refer him to the fact that the important aboriginal issue of the final settlement of the residential schools was recently signed by the government on behalf of all Canadians to bring that unfortunate part of our history to a close, a successful close in the sense of making some final settlement with the people themselves. Therefore, I would refer him to that and I appreciate his comments.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, as a member of the bar from Alberta, that during the time that the conditional sentences legislation came into force, I was absolutely shocked. In fact, I practised criminal law in northern Alberta for years.

I will give a couple of examples of individuals who received conditional sentences: a woman who stabbed her husband to death, a three time convicted crack dealer, and a gentleman, I use the term loosely, who sexually assaulted two of his daughters. I was quite frankly shocked, appalled, and ashamed to be involved in those cases.

However, I would like to ask the member, what does he see as the future of this particular section and more appropriately, who would have access to this kind of conditional sentence? What types of crimes would be applicable for a conditional sentence, and not these types of bizarre situations where someone can afford a lawyer?

Quite frankly, I say to the previous questioner, the only people who can actually get conditional sentences are usually those people who can afford good lawyers. Unfortunately for us and it is shameful for us that it does not include aboriginal populations for the most part.

However, I would like to ask the member specifically, what does he see as the proper situation for this kind of application of the law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my hon. colleague from northern Alberta. His riding is very similar to the riding that I have represented for almost 13 years now. I strongly suspect that his constituents are as concerned as mine are about this issue. Indeed, I would argue that most Canadians are concerned about it.

In my decade long battle against the Liberal legislation and the misuse and abuse of conditional sentencing, I have said that there are times, and I referred to this in my remarks, when conditional sentencing is appropriate. In some cases with youth crime where some young person might for whatever reason undertake some shoplifting, some minor vandalism, property damage and that type of thing, obviously it is not in the best interests of our courts or society to throw those young people in jail among the general prison population of hardened criminals. They would probably come out worse off than when they went in.

When the legislation was originally being debated, I said and all of us agree that there are certain cases where conditional sentencing could be used in those types of minor crimes. The reality is that when it is being used for serious crimes, it contributes to the deterioration of the justice system itself.

My goodness, when lawyers themselves can see the flaw in how it is being implemented by the courts to allow some people who commit horrendous serious crimes to not do one day in jail, how is that justice? How is that fair to the victims and their families when that criminal can go home, put his or her feet up, watch colour television and serve out the time with a bracelet on? It is ridiculous.

It is one big reason why the people of Canada saw fit on January 23 to elect a Conservative government. The reality is that most Canadians believe there should be something in our justice system known as punishment. I know that is a foreign concept for the Liberals. Just before I got up to speak, we heard from a former parliamentary secretary who talked about how there is no evidence that restricting the use of conditional sentencing would actually reduce crime.

We could get into a statistical argument constantly, our statistics versus the Liberals' false statistics. However, there is a principle of punishment that people are actually held accountable and have to be punished if they step outside of the law and commit serious crimes. That is the difference between our government and the past Liberal government. It is something I fought against for 10 years, because they do not believe in the principle of punishment, that people should actually be held accountable.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent the inner city of Winnipeg. Winnipeg Centre is the riding name and it represents the core area of the inner city. Like many of our major urban centres, it suffers from some of the stagnation that has occurred in many of our large urban centres. We have allowed our city centres to deteriorate to the point where some people even use the analogy that we have created a doughnut shaped city and left the inner city with a great deal of social and economic problems.

When I canvass the good people in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, the overwhelming number one, top of mind issue for them is crime and safety. It outstrips health care by four to one. It outstrips tax cuts by five or even six to one. Waiting times in hospitals are not the number one issue of the people I represent. To a person, man, woman and child, they cite safety, crime, violence in the streets issues.

I am happy to have this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-9 today so that I can share some of my views on this subject. It would be irresponsible of me not to take part in this debate on the number one issue of the people I represent.

Let us be clear. Many of the MPs who have taken part in the debate have expanded what the real subject matter is. As we are all wont to do sometimes, they have deviated somewhat from the actual content of Bill C-9 which deals with conditional sentencing. I have heard members talk about minimum sentences, about any number of criminal justice issues in the context of this debate, but what we are really talking about is quite narrow. It is about reducing the options for the criminal justice system to use conditional sentencing in a series of non-violent crimes.

The government has not made its case very well today. I listened to the Minister of Justice. I listened to the government House leader and a number of other speakers for the Conservative Party. They argued that there is rampant abuse of these provisions of the Criminal Code and that too many judges are giving conditional sentences and no jail time to violent offenders.

Yes, we know there have been isolated incidents, but no one has been able to tell us how many. No one has been able to tell us the extent of the problem, if it is a truly rampant problem that warrants this legislative intervention, or if it is isolated incidents that we all wish would not happen. I have not heard anyone make the argument that we should do away with the idea of conditional sentencing altogether. No one has said that, but they have said that for crimes of violence, crimes with a weapon, et cetera, no one should be spared doing some jail time and that the conditional sentencing option should not be used in those circumstances. That is the status quo.

Judges are not supposed to bypass the sentencing system and then use conditional sentencing in a case where there are victims of violent crime or major crimes. If it has happened from time to time, I agree that it should be addressed. The people in my riding would agree as well. But we should keep in mind the empirical evidence does not bear out that tougher sentences for crime equals less crime. I wish it were true because frankly, we could solve our crime and social problems a lot more readily if it were as simple as giving people longer sentences, throwing away the key as it were. We have to look at the facts. We are duty bound. We have an obligation to come from an informed stance here.

The fact is that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world. Roughly 760 per 100,000 Americans are locked up in prison. Canada is the second highest. We incarcerate more than any other country in the free world of developed nations, except one, the United States, at about 160 per 100,000 people. It is less than one-third of the rate of incarceration in the United States. Most of western Europe incarcerates people at a rate of less than 100 per 100,000, which is far lower than Canada's incarceration rate.

One would think that the United States, in locking up so many people, would have the safest streets in the country, but the inverse is true. I do not want to be simplistic; there are many contributing factors, but the empirical evidence, the facts and statistics, tell us that the United States has more dangerous streets, more crime and more violence, whether it is property crime, physical assaults or armed robberies. The figures are way off the charts in terms of being greater than our figures and certainly greater than those of western Europe.

If I could go back to my riding and say that we can make our streets safer by simply tearing up this conditional sentencing option and putting more people in jail for a longer period of time, I would do it. I would vote for it today. But I cannot in all good conscience say that because it simply is not true.

We started this very important debate based on misinformation, based on the impression people get from a few sensational headlines where, granted, the conditional sentencing option should not have been used. That concerns me because we do not make good law when it comes from a stance of misinformation.

There is one good idea I would like to put forward as an option and which I hope members of Parliament would consider. It appeared in the last Parliament in the form of a private member's bill by a member from the Bloc Québécois whose name I can mention as he is no longer a member, Richard Marceau. His idea was that one way to reduce the incidence of crime is to cut off the profitability of crime. This made common sense.

In fact, I am proud to say that the province of Manitoba adopted such a law recently. The proceeds of crime can be seized if the individual cannot prove that the property, let us say, a luxury car, was purchased with legitimate earnings. In other words, if the police and the courts have reason to believe that a luxury home of a drug dealer was purchased by ill-gotten gains, that property can be seized and sold and the proceeds realized from that property can go toward putting more police on the streets. That is a good idea. That is a radical innovation which I think we would have benefited from if we had given it more consideration in the last Parliament.

This practice has already been realized and the last figure I saw was $650,000 in its first year of activity. There were plenty of examples where the police knew full well that certain people had no visible means of income and yet they had luxury homes, luxury cars in the driveway, boats and motorcycles, all believed to be ill-gotten gains. Under this new law the police can seize that property. It is an excellent idea and I would like to expand on that further given the opportunity in some other debate in the House. Perhaps I will reintroduce that private member's bill.

I should back up and start with the history of the conditional sentencing amendment that we are debating in Bill C-9. This is a relatively new concept. Maybe one of the reasons we are still struggling with it as members of Parliament and within the criminal justice system is that it has been an aspect of our justice system for a little over nine years.

At the time it was introduced, there was a clear objective on the part of the government of the day to reduce our prison population. Let us not make any bones about it. That was a stated goal. First, the results of locking people up are not anything to write home about and second, it is a very costly option. Keeping people in prison is no bargain.

Conditional sentencing was used fairly slowly for the first couple of years. In fact, in the total nine years of experience, only about 15,000 people have been sentenced by this conditional sentencing process. That means that many fewer people were being incarcerated and it means that if we pass Bill C-9, we can expect about that many people will be going into our prisons in the next couple of years.

I come from the province of Manitoba and the question comes to mind of who is going to pay for these prisons, because individuals receiving sentences of two years less a day go into the provincial prison system and those receiving sentences of two years plus a day go into federal institutions. In most cases, because of the nature of the crimes that these conditional sentences would apply to, the sentence would be in the former category, the provincial prison system.

As for Manitoba's share and just doing some mathematics here, with roughly 8% of the population, Manitoba could be looking at 1,200 to 1,500 prisoners that it would have to lock up and house. I know that our jails are bursting at the seams already. I do not know where we are going to get the help for this. This sort of takes us down the road of the United States, which is incarcerating so many people that it has actually privatized its jail system.

The United States has actually gone to outside contractors to build the prisons, staff them and even provide programs and services to the inmates. This has become quite a burgeoning industry in the United States, but I do not think many Canadians would have an appetite for going in that direction. However, I can also say that the province of Manitoba is not going to be too excited about building three or even four new institutions to house all these extra prisoners.

A bill brought forward by the former government toward the end of the last Parliament dealt with conditional sentencing. There was a recognition that some fine tuning or adjustments would be beneficial. That bill attempted to address some of the concerns and it reflected to some degree a consensus that had been building among all four parties. Had it moved into second reading and not died on the order paper as a result of the election call, I think we would have seen some unanimity in going in that direction.

What we are faced with today under Bill C-9, put forward by the new Conservative government, takes us much further in that 42 sections of the Criminal Code have maximum terms of 10 years and more where conditional sentences could no longer be used. Our party is having difficulty with the fact that a number of these sections are for crimes that are not at all of a violent nature. We have not heard any speakers in the House today say that we should do away with conditional sentencing altogether, nor have we heard anybody advocate that we should give conditional sentences for a crime of a violent nature.

Many of these crimes we are dealing with are not violent crimes. Many of them are property crimes. Many of them are crimes of nuisance, which I am no stranger to, living in the inner city core of a major city as I do. I know how irritating many of these property crimes can be.

The first one on the list of crimes that are not of a violent nature, that are crimes of a property nature, is theft over $5,000. I ask members to consider an individual breaking into a house and stealing pieces of electronic equipment that would quite easily be rated at over $5,000. It could be a first offence. Under this rule, this individual could be looking at not being dealt with by way of conditional sentencing.

We have heard extreme examples on the one end, where I agree conditional sentencing has been misused, but I ask members to consider a far more frequent scenario, which would be one like I have just outlined here. My colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh spoke earlier. He identified things like cattle theft, forgery of credit cards, unauthorized use of a computer, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, and being unlawfully in a dwelling-house. I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of these crimes and how victims would clearly feel violated by these things, but I am also saying that in crimes of this nature we would be permanently removing the discretion of the judge to apply a conditional sentence even when prison would be a foolish option.

In addition, there are the following: theft from mail; bringing into Canada property obtained by crime; false pretense of property over $5,000; obtaining credit by false pretense; forgery; many white collar crime issues; and wilful mischief. I think there are about 20 offences, all of them property crimes. For some of them, frankly, one would question why we would even have a maximum penalty of 10 years, because nobody ever gets that kind of penalty for these kinds of crimes, but now they would all be listed in this new category where conditional sentencing would not apply because in extreme cases that type of crime could get 10 years. That is the cut-off point.

When we first saw this bill, people in our caucus who are knowledgeable about these issues, such as our justice critic, for instance, the member for Windsor--Tecumseh, made a prediction. He said that crown attorneys are going to have a look at this bill and they will immediately start making deals with the defence counsel. Of those 15,500 cases, somewhere around 5,300 or 5,400 are going to be excluded. These statistics are from the Department of Justice, so we are not just speculating on this. This is how it would probably break down. About one-third of these 15,500 offences that we have each year are going to be excluded now.

One of the things that is going to happen is that crown attorneys are going to start making plea bargain deals with defence counsel in our courts so that some criminals will get through in other ways. While we are closing one door, we may be opening two others for all we know, in the perverse consequences of our actions.

We have to anticipate the predictable consequences. We heard the parliamentary secretary mention in his address that one of them would be allowing for suspended sentences. I think we would rather see a conditional sentence than a sentence suspended altogether. That is not a good alternative in dealing with this type of crime.

Let us take this from a pure business case point of view. We do have to be practical, especially coming from a province like mine, where it costs about $125 per day to keep somebody in our provincial prison systems. It varies from province to province, but that is the mean average. If we do the math, per day per convict who is now going into the system, we are in the range of $200 million to $250 million more per year by eliminating these options of conditional sentencing. I am not saying that Canadians would not be willing to pay for that. We do not really know how they would react to it, but I think they should be aware that there is going to be a considerable cost factor if we adopt this particular policy stance.

We listened as well when the Minister of Public Safety made some comments publicly about how the money is not specifically earmarked but has been set aside in the budget. We do not really know where. We have looked at that budget and I did not see where $250 million is earmarked for this in particular, except for the vague reference that we are going to build more prisons. It must be the only budget in Canadian history that actually cited more jails as one of the objectives, one of the stated goals.

We have a situation in which I think the government slapped this bill together to meet some of its election campaign promises that it is going to get tough on crime. As I said, coming from an area where it is a number one issue, getting tough on crime is okay with me. I support that idea, but I want it to be for things that will actually produce the right results, the consequences that we are after, and that means safer streets.

I suppose there will be fewer people on the streets when they get their two years less a day rather than conditional sentences, but only for two years, because one of the things we do know is that the rate of recidivism in the provincial jail system is even worse than for those who are housed in the federal system. Two years less a day is almost like con college. There is very little rehabilitation. There are very few programs.

I see that I am almost out of time, but I note my concern that with all the best intentions the Conservative government may have brought us a bill that will compound the problems rather than solve them. Getting tough on crime may feel good. Revenge feels good, but when sentencing there have to be other objectives as well. One is rehabilitation, because hopefully some day these people are going to come back into the community, and we want them to be better people, not to be carrying on with their old practices.

On behalf of the people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre, who are very anxiously looking for ways to make their streets safer, I have to raise these cautions and these concerns that Bill C-9 in and of itself may not lead to safer streets. It may cost us a lot of money. It may saddle provincial governments with another couple of thousand people per year that they have to house, clothe and feed. I am not convinced that it is advantageous.

I will close the way I began. The number one concern of the people of Winnipeg Centre, their top of mind issue, is crime and safety and making their streets safe. If I thought for one minute that this legislation would in fact lead to safer streets, I would vote for it in a heartbeat, without question. I am not convinced of that. Serious time for serious crime is something I endorse and we all believe in, but I do not think the idea of taking away the option of conditional sentencing from judges in 42 new categories is going to help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, although I must admit I am a bit puzzled by his summation at the end of his remarks. If I heard him correctly, he said that on behalf of his constituents he fully supports serious time for serious crime and that if he could only believe that this legislation would potentially, or even theoretically, I think he said, lead to safer streets, he could find it within himself to support it.

I must admit that I am a bit puzzled by this, because unfortunately we have something in this country called “repeat offenders” and many people in society believe they do not receive an appropriate sentence, an appropriate punishment. He used the term revenge. I do not think it is revenge or vengeance, far from it. I think there is an expectation by law-abiding citizens. The vast majority of Canadians are hard-working, law-abiding citizens. They just want to raise their families in relative peace and tranquility and be good, law-abiding citizens, and they expect that when others deviate from this they are held accountable.

That is what we are trying to do here. As I said in my remarks earlier today, the courts themselves have said that Parliament can exclude certain crimes from conditional sentencing.

Therefore, in all sincerity, I would ask my colleague why he would not see the advantage in supporting this legislation and sending it to committee. He voiced some of his concerns about property crimes, but even then I would state that all too often when people break and enter it leads to assault of the homeowner if the homeowner happens to be at home. We have seen that countless times. Things that might start out on the surface as a somewhat minor crime could end up being quite a horrific crime involving assault and, in some cases, deadly assault.

Why not send this bill off to committee where a lot of the concerns the member has expressed could be dealt with? If the bill can be improved, let us improve it. Let us work together to try to improve the bill, but let us not throw out the bill just because of one or two concerns with it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the House leader for the Conservatives has to say has merit. My first inclination is to get this bill to committee and have a good shot at it. I do not know what the official position of my party is going to be, but I can say that my inclination is to go that way, because I think we are responding to a legitimate and valid concern out there.

People have a right to be safe in their own homes. They have a right to walk down streets that are safe and free of mischief and interference. Canadians call upon us to do what is right. Looking after their best interests is our first obligation. It is our first obligation as members of Parliament to look after the safety and the well-being of the people we represent in that way, whether it is through our military or through our criminal justice system.

So I do not disagree. I am only pointing out that we may be creating consequences that we did not intend in the first place and we may not achieve the desired results. We have to go forward with caution. The goal was, nine years ago, to reduce the number of people in prison and find other ways to deal with the anti-social behaviour that they are engaged in.

What we do know is that the longer a person spends in prison, the greater the rate of repeat offences. It seems to be directly proportional. Longer prison sentences may have perverse consequences. I ask us to consider that. Maybe the committee is the right place to do that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his considered and cogent response to Bill C-9. At least he does not deny that the problem exists, unlike the party opposite.

I believe he shares a similar experience to mine. People on the street, people in our communities are very clear. They understand there is a problem with crime on our streets and it needs to be addressed.

I was encouraged to hear also a suggestion addressing the issue of profitability in crime. It is something that my community has tried to address through local safety and health regulations and bylaws. However, it is only one very small piece of the puzzle. Taking the profitability out of crime is not going to address issues such as gang crime, sexual assault, impaired driving, street racing and those sorts of offences.

However, my question for the member has to do with the fact that it seems he is inclined to support the bill except for a number of concerns that he has. Given the fact that the matter will be referred to committee, and he has indicated he will likely be working to massage the bill to make it more acceptable to himself and his party, could I at least get a commitment from him? Will he, in principle, support Bill C-9 as it relates to violent crimes and to addressing the issue of violent crimes within our communities?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to make it very clear. The NDP caucus and myself absolutely would never want to see conditional sentencing used in a violent crime. In fact, we will be going further than that as we go on to Bill C-10. In our election campaign we said that there should be mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes of up to four years. I believe the government is about to introduce a bill that says it should be five years.

We are not that far apart if we both agree on the concept that when it is a violent crime and there is the use of a firearm, et cetera, mandatory minimum sentences would be something with which we would have no problem. In the case of conditional sentencing, even in their original construct they were never intended to be applied to a violent crime. It was supposed to be property crimes or crimes of that nature.

I thank my colleague for listening to the ideas about seizing property purchased by ill-gotten gains. We could all benefit from that. Even criminals, who have had their property seized in the province of Manitoba, when asked where they got the money, may try to use the line that they inherited from their uncle or something like that. They have to prove that. They have to show us the inheritance, the will, and then they can keep their Harley-Davidson. If they cannot show us, we will assume they got it by selling crack and we will seize their Harley-Davidson. It is working in Manitoba.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on Bill C-9. It is my first intervention on a bill since the election. I want to acknowledge the support of my electors in Scarborough—Rouge River. I continue to be supported and have wind in my sails as a member because of the strong support of my electors, and I thank them for that.

The bill would make a change to the conditional sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. Bills dealing with crime and sentencing around here have a noble heritage, going back a century. One of the early interveners said, “Boy, we have a problem with crime and our voters know it”. We have had a problem with crime since the beginning of time. We would not have enacted the Criminal Code over 100 years ago if we had not.

However, sentencing continues to be a modern issue and we continue to adjust our sentencing regime in Canada, as do other countries, to meet the needs of the changing demographics and population.

The bill would make a change to remove the availability of conditional sentencing for a group of crimes that are described very generically in the bill. In the end, I have difficulty with that generic description and therefore I am inclined to be negative on the bill. However, I will acknowledge that my colleagues in the previous Liberal government introduced a bill which would have altered conditional sentencing to remove its availability from a certain group of crimes.

The bill before the House now appears to do it with a much broader list of crimes and it is for that reason that I am cautious about giving support to it.

At issue here is whether we have a huge crime problem, in particular, with reference to crimes that are on the list where conditional sentencing is available. I do not have enough wisdom to know whether we do or we do not. If the bill goes to committee, the committee will review the bill with some of these issues in mind. If it does not, we will not have to deal with it.

As we begin on this, I have the perception that the government has spent a bit of time generating what I call the politics of fear by telling everyone we have a huge crime problem and that we are all in jeopardy because of that. The facts are that in a relative and a real sense, we do not. Are there crimes? Yes. Are they serious crimes? Yes. However, all of the trend lines in crime are down, with the odd yearly spike up or spike down. I will refer to some statistics later on in my remarks, statistics from Statistics Canada. They are there for everyone to see. They are on the web and they have been obtained and analyzed seven ways to Sunday, but the information is there for all to see. Therefore, I do not think we have a huge crime problem.

Do we have problems from community to community? Yes, we do. Sometimes the solutions involve enforcement. Sometimes it involves some community action, crime prevention. Sometimes it is just the result of a bad crew or a bad gang. There are solutions out there for each of these and communities eventually get to them with the essential help of government to liaise with community groups.

In my particular constituency, and I have a Toronto constituency, we had a very serious problem such as criminal gangs, murders, drug dealing and a lot of the bad stuff. The streets had a problem. I, and MPs from the region, knew it, so did the city, so did the province and the federal government.

Following concerted police action about three years ago, the result was the arrests of some 25 or so gang members. The crime rate dropped for 19 weeks following this police action. There was not a serious criminal incident in Scarborough for 19 weeks, and Scarborough has a population of about 600,000, bigger than most places in Canada.

The police have learned how to use that toolbox of procedures to deal with this type of crime. In this case they were creative, along with the prosecutors, and imposed very strict bail conditions. These individuals, having been arrested and charged, would ordinarily be back out on the street pending their trials. In Canada one does not go to jail until one is convicted. One is free until convicted and sent to jail.

Bail conditions were developed, which had police officers doing bed checks. They would go to the residence of the person on bail and check to ensure that he was at home at 7:30 p.m. or 8:30 p.m., whatever the bail restriction was. If he was not, that constituted another offence, another arrest and a further detention.

The point I am making is that the solution to that problem was not to double the sentence for the crime. It was not to remove conditional sentencing. It was simply to creatively use the toolbox of procedures that were in the Criminal Code. The police have successfully done that.

Only two weeks ago the police conducted a similar operation in the west end of Toronto, the largest bust, if I can use the term, or arrest of gang members in the history of Toronto and Ontario. They will use these same techniques. We are learning to deal with these localized problems of crime.

I want to come back to this politics of fear issue. I mentioned it in the justice committee recently. I urge members to avoid the politics of fear and to look at the real data. If we do not look at the facts, we will fail to make good public policy.

I recently noted the fact that people said we had a lot of child poverty, which is a huge challenge, and that the House promised in 1990 to address it. They say nothing has been done and we have not made any progress. The statistics that came out two months ago, and poverty has a whole lot to do with crime, showed that we had made huge progress in dealing with poverty in Canada. Yet I have not heard much about it and I am not too sure why.

Statistics Canada tells us that between 1996 and 2004 the number of poor families dropped from 1.3 million to 865,000. That is a huge drop. Yes, there are still poor families and there is a challenge.

The other one was the proportion of families living below the poverty line. The first one was the number of children living in poor families. The second is the percentage of families who are living in poverty, defined generally across the country, dropping from 12.1% to 8.5%. That is a huge drop. Governments, not just the federal government but provincial and municipal, are collectively making progress. We have to keep that data in mind as we make public policy decisions about poverty, anti-poverty measures or what we will do to deal with children growing up in poverty.

It is the same thing in the area of crime statistics. I am not going to do a crime show. This is not politics of fear. What I am trying to highlight is real data about where we stand in Canada in terms of crime. I have selected a quote from Juristat, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. We pay for this as taxpayers. It is available on the Internet and the government relies heavily on this information.

After reaching its lowest point in more than three decades in 2003-04, the national homicide rate jumped 12% to 1.95 victims per 1,000 population. That was the data for 2004. That was a spike upward of the rate of homicide in Canada. It sounds like a significant spike and if we were one of the victims or the family of one of the victims, it is a huge spike. In that case it is binary, that my husband or my son was killed.

Overall, the trend is down and it has been going down since about 20 years ago. Since 1961, when national homicide statistics were first collected, there have been two distinct trends. Following a period of stability between 1961 and 1966, the homicide rate more than doubled over the next 10 years reaching a peak of 3.03 homicide victims per 100,000 in 1975. That was 30 years ago.

Since 1975, despite annual fluctuations, the rate has gradually declined from 3.03 to where it is now at 1.95 following the spike I just mentioned. That is a conspicuous drop of roughly one-third. In fact, it has dropped by more than one-third and I hope it will continue to drop.

I will point out for reference only that the homicide rate in similar data from the United States, our closest neighbour, is 5.70 per 100,000 compared to our 1.95. That is a huge difference. It appears to be a lot safer in Canada than it is south of the border. I am not sure why but if we look at what governments are doing or not doing on how we sentence people, I suggest it might not be appropriate to look south of the border when we look at how to sentence. Whatever we are doing here now seems to be working in terms of the long run trends.

Another notable statistic in the homicide envelope was also one having to do with youth. The total number of youth aged 12 to 17 accused of homicide fell from 57 in 2003 to 40 in 2004. That is a significant one year drop and it says that the rate of youth accused of that crime was at its second lowest point in more than 30 years. Over that trend line, we do not have a huge crime problem developing. The trend line is down.

The reasons for that probably are not related just to what government does or does not do, the various governments across the country and the federal government. There is a huge demographic component to this. People will recall the post-war baby phenomenon. As those post-war babies hit their most active years in the seventies and eighties the crime rate went up. I referred to it earlier in the general rates. It went up and then it started to go down. As those post-war babies reach their retirement years, which the Canadian pension plan says is really soon, they do not appear to be out robbing banks.

I represent a riding in Ontario. Juristat states that Ontario's crime rate was the lowest in the country for the second year in a row. The violent crime rate has dropped by 2% from the prior year to 2004. The youth crime rate dropped 4% in 2004. The rate of youths charged by police dropped 6% while the rate of youths cleared by means other than formal charge also declined. It states that over the past decade the national crime rate has fallen 12%.

The 1990s was a period of general decline in crime followed by relative stability from 2000-02. I could go on but the data is available for anyone who is interested. We spent good taxpayer to collect it. My purpose in raising these stats is to show that the problem is not so bad that we need to double all our sentences and change all our laws to deal with crime.

I was a member of this House when we finally produced, after a century, Canada's first bill on sentencing. That was in the mid-nineties and it was a huge exercise. It followed some bad years when how we sentenced, how we incarcerated and how we looked after public safety were justifiably questioned. There were a lot of escapes which were followed by killings, and a lot of parole problems. I am happy to say that a lot of the bad stuff that was around then is not around now. I will give appropriate credit to colleagues in this House, the Canadian public, Corrections Canada, governments from time to time and the people who run the penitentiaries and jails. They are doing a much better job of managing sentencing.

The reason I refer to the sentencing bill is that it makes it really clear what the criteria should be for sentencing a convicted person. The three most important parts are: first, the denunciation factor, not the revenge factor, the denunciation of the state and the public with respect to the offender. It is the mantra that “you do the crime, you do the time”. Denunciation is one factor when a judge passes sentence or when we in this House pick a sentencing range for a crime.

The second criteria is deterrence. The existence of the penalty should deter a potential offender. I am not speaking about the guy in front of the court now because he has not been deterred. I am speaking about deterring another person in the public. Deterrence is a factor.

The third criteria is the rehabilitation phase. In addition to denunciation and deterrence, sentencing should enable the offender to choose a path that will allow him or her to become law-abiding citizens and to get into a lifestyle that will not bring them back into conflict with the law.

At the same time as the sentencing bill was put in place, we adopted the conditional sentencing rules. Conditional sentencing allows a judge to place a convicted person into a regime where the standard sentencing provisions are not followed. They do not necessarily have to go to jail and the parole provisions are altered to accommodate them. In every case, it was the intention of that legislation to enable a judge to pick a conditional sentence appropriate to the offender with reference to those same sentencing criteria, denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation.

If a judge could obtain those objectives by using a conditional sentence, that was a good thing. It was good for the public, good for the offender and good for the institution that did not have to be used because our institutions cost us between $60,000 and $80,000 a year to house one offender. If we could get denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation by using conditional sentencing that was a good thing.

As things evolved, it appeared that some judges in some locations made use of the conditional sentencing provisions. I am sure they were coached properly by prosecution and defence lawyers perhaps in cases where the public felt that not enough attention had been paid to the denunciation factor.

As a result of that, it is easy for a public policymaker here in this place to decide that we should restrict somewhat how conditional sentencing should be used, particularly where violence is involved in the offence.

In the previous bill, which never made it all the way through this House, it had a range of sentences involving violence where conditional sentencing was to be restricted, and I can support that. I think most Canadians would see that as reasonable.

This bill, in my judgment, goes a little too far and maybe a lot too far. If it passes the House at second reading, the committee will have a chance to review that and there will be lots of experts with lots of opinions.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised some very good points, especially with regard to statistics. He also mentioned that he is a longstanding member of this august place.

I worked in the legal system as a law enforcement officer from 1970 to 2000. I can tell the member that the average man or woman in 1970, as compared to the average man or woman in our society in 1999, felt a heck of a lot safer in their communities. They were not afraid to walk the streets at night. I am not referring to the streets of Toronto or Scarborough. I am talking about the streets in the small towns and villages in Ontario, the villages where I policed.

I just wonder if the hon. member happens to have any statistics with regard to how people feel about their communities and why elderly people feel ill at ease walking their dogs in the evening now, whereas they did not feel that way just five or six years ago. Maybe the hon. member can tell me and this House how those statistics relate to the actual feeling of those citizens in my community.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does make a good point. Yes, 35 years ago in 1970 it was quite different. The data actually shows that the crime rate was slightly less than it is now. Between then and now, crime went up and now it is headed down again.

The member asked if I had more data and statistics. These are not my statistics. These are our statistics. They are there for everyone to access, look at and study.

He also raised another good point. He asked why people now are seemingly more afraid than they were 5, 10 or 20 years ago. I do not have all the answers to that but I do know we watch a lot more television than we used to.

[An hon. member]

Oh, come on.