Debates of Oct. 29th, 2009

Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful speech and for all the hard work that he does, both on the public safety committee and on the justice committee.

I know that prior to entering his career as a parliamentarian, he had a long career as a member of the Ontario Province Police force. I wonder if he might be able to rely on some of that experience to tell this House how this bill would help in the government's overall agenda to provide safe streets and safe communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, that brings to mind something that occurred about a year ago. I received a communication from some of my former brothers in uniform which related to a specific offence where an officer had been brutally murdered by a criminal. This murder was the subject of great community upheaval. By its very nature, the Ontario Provincial Police force polices smaller more rural communities, in most circumstances. In ordering the accused incarcerated, there was a recommendation by the court and a request by the Crown through the victims, and as a result of the community involvement because this particular officer had been well respected in the community, that the offender in question not be placed in a prison close to the community, as is the custom for Correctional Service Canada. That was complied with.

However, what has occurred, without the knowledge of the victims, and at the last moment, was a decision by Correctional Service Canada as a result of a court decision to move the prisoner back into the community. This has created a great upheaval. For my learned friend's edification, this particular case did not just impact the victims. The whole community was victimized.

I believe Bill C-43 would allow that input by the victims into decisions that Correctional Service Canada and others may make, including the courts. It would assist with their voice being heard as to why and where prisoners should be housed.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member who sits on both the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

These past few week, several bills have been put forward in this House in an effort to strengthen justice and provide tools for that purpose. Besides wanting to build prisons and throwing people in jail, the government is also talking about providing the necessary tools.

The member who just spoke, to whom I am putting my question, was a police officer in Ontario before becoming a member of Parliament. I would like him to tell me whether the gun registry is an essential tool that police use from time to time in Ontario. Did he use the gun registry when he was a police officer? Given that the association supported the government's decision to maintain the gun registry, did he use the registry when he was a police officer?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind all hon. members that we are debating Bill C-43.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

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

Mr. Speaker, I retired in the year 2000. I believe that was slightly before the registry was brought in. However, I personally believe that there are better ways to protect the people of Canada from the misuse of firearms.

Some of those ways involve proper education and ensuring that people who are licensed or permitted to possess firearms are properly trained in their use and in the knowledge of the tremendous power they possess. I believe that we should ensure that only the right kind of people are permitted to have firearms. I do believe in the problem, but I do not believe that a long gun registry is the right way to go.

I think that the over $1 billion that has been used so far for that particular enterprise has been woefully wasted. However, I can say this to my hon. friend. We as a government have increased the number of police officers in Canada, increased the number of police officers in the RCMP, and increased the capacity for Depot to train additional police officers.

We have provided the provinces with extra money to hire more police officers in both the municipal and provincial jurisdictions. I worked alongside and was very proud to stand beside my brothers from the Sûreté du Québec, who do a wonderful job in policing that fair province.

This government has done much, but in my view the long gun registry does nothing to protect the average citizen from the misuse of firearms.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, with a question on Bill C-43.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I would like to put to the member across the way who spoke on Bill C-43. We are hearing the same repeated comment over and over again that the government cares about the rights of victims.

Could he please comment on the fact that, first and foremost, we should have a criminal law policy that prevents crime? The best thing we could probably do for victims of crime is to avoid victims of crime. A lot of that could be done through more community policing and the many programs that we have raised in the House previously.

There is a second aspect. We are told by criminologists and experts who study this, and they have provided in-depth reports and analysed this CSC road map, that by yanking back all of the programs such as the prison farms, spirit circles and so forth, we are allowing for greater recidivism. The very purpose of having the educational programs in the prisons is to not have repeat crimes and yet more victims of crime.

Could the member speak to this bill and whether or not the government intends to, as a follow-up to the passage of this bill, move forward with its road map?

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has put quite a few millions of dollars toward crime prevention and in particular the use of drugs or, in other words, dissuading our youth from using drugs.

She mentioned community policing. As far as I know, all police forces in at least Ontario and I believe Canada provide policing services. I can tell her for her edification that, in my last role as programs manager in the detachment I worked at, I brought in or assisted in bringing in programs with the board of education, such programs as D.A.R.E. and others. The government is not only actively doing that, but so are many police forces across Canada.

The justice committee was recently in Halifax. We talked to the chief of the Halifax police. Again, about 50% of the funding for many of their programs is federal funding. They work with at-risk youth in their communities, so a lot of good is going on.

The member said that criminologists study it. Members such as myself have lived it. Members such as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety lived it for over 30 years as a chief of police in one of the communities in Ontario. We do listen to victims of crime. We do listen to and care about the needs of those who are in our correctional services.

I am the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Quinte West, which has one of Canada's largest medium prisons. We just recently constructed a separate place there for first nations people to go about their rehabilitation in a cultural way with the healing circles, while teaching them some of the traditional methods by which they can earn a living when they leave that institution. We also teach them many other things, such as sandblasting. When I have talked to the instructors there, most of the people in that institution who get their sandblasting papers never return to prison because they have a job, in many cases before they even leave prison.

There are many good stories there. We should not just use blanket statements. Do not forget that some of us in the House have lived it and studied it.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to address Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, so that it can be reviewed in committee. We support its principle, but we have some reservations about this legislation.

I should point out that, throughout my presentation I will use the logo CSC, instead of the Correctional Service of Canada. First, one objective of this bill is to target, perhaps indirectly, the mandate of the Correctional Service of Canada by making the protection of society the paramount consideration. Currently, CSC's mandate is to protect society by assessing the risk posed by inmates, and to encourage inmates to participate in programs, precisely to help protect society.

However, when the Conservatives talk about protecting society, they mean keeping as many people as possible in jail, for as long as possible. Indeed, under the CSC's mandate, “the protection of society” means keeping people in jail.

However, the protection of society really means to keep the most dangerous offenders in jail, to encourage them to participate in programs, and to rehabilitate themselves because, inevitably, the day will come when they will be set free. That is going to be the case for a large majority of them, whether it is at the end of their full sentence, or after serving two thirds of it. Rehabilitation helps protect society, but the government does not seem to understand that.

In the bill's summary, it is mentioned, as I pointed out earlier, that the protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Correctional Service of Canada in the corrections process. However, that is clearly spelled out in section 4(a) of the existing act. This consideration already exists.

So then what is the government's goal? Is this just a smokescreen? Just for show? Let us see about that. Is it a change of philosophy? I cannot tell, because this provision already exists in the act.

However, section 4(a) of the current act is found under the heading “Principles that Guide the Service”. The government is taking this section and transferring it under the heading “Purpose and Principles” in the proposed legislation. I think there is a reason behind this change.

Currently, the purpose of the corrections system reads as follows:

The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.

As it is currently stated, the purpose of the correctional system seems to me to be well balanced. I therefore invite all the members who will be serving on the committee when this bill is studied to consider the impact of this change, given the emphasis placed on protection. We need to ask ourselves why this section is being moved. If the change is of no consequence, why make such a big deal about it? But if the change is significant, then we need to know what the government is trying to do by moving this section to the part of the bill on the purpose of the system.

I believe—and I may be wrong—that under the pretext of protecting society, something everyone in this House supports, this government wants to contribute to making some inmates more serious criminals and, inevitably, to weakening public safety. The longer people remain needlessly incarcerated, they more hardened they become.

Penitentiaries are not holiday camps; they are universities of crime. We must not forget that, like it or not, the vast majority of offenders get out of prison eventually.

To my way of thinking, the way to make communities safer is to see that these people are rehabilitated and take part in programs. Offenders not only have to be rehabilitated, they also have to be less dangerous. We have to be honest enough to tell ourselves that there are some offenders who perhaps cannot be rehabilitated, but unfortunately, their sentence will end eventually.

The purpose of the correctional system, in encouraging them to participate in these programs, is to help them pose the least possible danger to society.

Let us look at other provisions in this bill. The bill would give victims the right to make a statement at parole hearings. It would also allow the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board to disclose information to victims. I feel that this is crucial.

When I was a parole officer, victims told me about finding themselves face to face with their attacker at the corner store. This is unacceptable. In my opinion, victims must be notified when an inmate is released from jail or penitentiary. They must be informed of the person's address. This is essential if there is a chance the offender is living in the same area as the victim. It is also essential that victims be allowed to make a statement at parole hearings.

By putting more emphasis on the victims, the bill also tries to make the offender take responsibility for what he did. I think it is important for victims to be able to participate because that too can help them heal from the attack on them. We have already discussed all that in the Bloc Québécois. There is nothing new here, it is all warmed over. We even developed a plan to fight crime and tabled it two years ago. There is a lot in this bill, therefore, that is old hat, whether street gangs, bikers, or the role of victims in the correctional system or the justice system in general.

We think that the involvement of the victims in the release procedure is likely to further the healing process and bolster their confidence in the justice system. This is essential because people sometimes tell us loud and clear that they have lost confidence in the justice system. Involving the victims is therefore a key point.

Although the current Corrections and Conditional Release Act clearly recognizes the interests of the victims of criminal acts and the role they can play in the correctional and conditional release process, victims and advocates of victims’ rights have told us that the system does not make much sense and they are dissatisfied with the way it works. In a way, these improvements will do a lot to enhance victim access to this kind of process.

The bill also expands the range of information that the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board can provide. It includes a whole list of measures, for example: to disclose the transfer of offenders; to inform in advance that the offender is in the region; to inform when the offender is in a minimum security institution; and to inform the victim about the offender’s participation in correctional programs and what has been done in regard to disciplinary offences. There are a number of issues to be examined therefore.

This is interesting, but I think we will have to study it in committee to determine which relevant information should be disclosed to victims from the point of view of both their healing and their safety.

I wonder about this, but I do not know the answer. I think we will have to expand on it in committee. Does knowing that an offender is participating in an addiction program or a program for sexual offenders contribute anything to the life of the victim? I do not really know.

We will have to meet these people to discuss the bill and see how relevant this information is. Personally, though, I do not think it is really very relevant. I think it is much more relevant to know that there will be a hearing and the victim can come and testify or simply that the offender was released on such and such a date and is in the area. But we will have to study these issues.

Holding the offender accountable is another interesting point. The offender and the Correctional Service share responsibility for the rehabilitation of the offender and his reintegration into society as a law-abiding citizen. This has been the case for a long time. There is nothing new here and we do not need to re-invent the wheel. An offender’s correctional plan is developed by a multidisciplinary team, the parole officer and the offender himself to help ensure that the offender participates in the programs. When I look at this, I wonder what is new about it because that is what we already have.

Now, it is important to note a point regarding holding offenders accountable. It is fine to talk about programs and accountability, but there have to be programs. Only 2% of the Correctional Service’s budget goes to programs; the rest is used for the security, maintenance and management of penitentiaries. We might wonder what is going on. Inmates wait for months and months before they can participate in a program, when they have agreed to participate in it. There is enormous work to be done in terms of access to programs. It is fine to talk about programs, but there have to be some. This is an important point that I wanted to make.

As well, in terms of accountability, which is a very good idea, there is talk of introducing incentives. I think that is important. We have to encourage inmates to participate in programs with incentives, not with the threat of penalties. That is a point that might be important and a good idea. That is why the Bloc Québécois has proposed that statutory release at two-thirds be granted on merit and not automatically, as is currently the case. Whether or not an offender has participated in programs, he is going to be released at two-thirds of sentence, unless there is a very high risk of dangerousness and the parole officer can do what is called a detention review. If two-thirds were on merit, that could also be a good idea. Certainly, as the Bloc has proposed, release after one-sixth of sentence would also have to be eliminated.

Another point that I think is also a good idea is modernization of the disciplinary system. I will raise several points. We talk about more punishment for disrespectful, intimidating and assaultive behaviour by inmates toward staff and other persons. That is already done. Inmates who engage in this kind of behaviour are penalized. Now, what does penalizing them more mean? Are we going to hang them, too? What are we going to do? I do not understand. There will be records kept that report infractions. That will have an impact on their correctional plan and their parole. Some will be placed in administrative segregation because they are extremely aggressive. What is being added? I really do not understand. I wonder what more is going to be done.

As well, what does “disrespectful” mean? If an 18-year-old flops down on his parole officer’s chair and says he couldn’t care less about his programs, is that disrespectful? Someone else shouts insults at another guard. What is an insult? How is insult defined? Based on what are we going to punish someone? Based on rudeness, or something else? These things have to be clarified because this could lead to considerable abuse.

In addition, there are to be disciplinary sanctions imposed on inmates who throw bodily substances. In my opinion, from what I have seen in my practice, spitting on someone, ejaculating on someone, cutting one’s self and bleeding on someone, an inmate, an officer or someone else, that is already happening.

CSC does not tolerate that kind of behaviour. Those people are already being punished.

Another point I find most intriguing: restricting visits for inmates in segregation. Most inmates in preventive segregation are there for their own protection. Sometimes, they even request it themselves. Are we going to prevent these people from seeing their family members and other visitors?

We have to take a closer look at this. We have to understand one thing. The prison system is already punishment in and of itself. People commit a crime and end up in prison. They are already being punished. We do not need to punish them further. That is already part of the correctional system. I do not understand what the government is trying to add.

As to disciplinary measures, I would like to raise one point. I would like to talk about people with mental illness. Right now, as part of the committee's study, members are asking a lot of questions about people with mental health issues and those diagnosed with autism or severe disabilities. I have seen people like this in my practice. Should the correctional system be handling them? That is not the answer.

When it comes to discipline, a person with one of these illnesses will not react like a person who does not have mental illness. How are we going to define unruly behaviour when it comes to these people? We cannot focus solely on discipline when dealing with inmates who have serious behavioural disorders, serious or mild intellectual disorders or mental illness. We have to take a closer look at this. It is fine to talk about discipline, but we have to recognize that not everyone is equal when it comes to behaviour. I think we have to take these differences into account.

This government claims that it is working to protect society. It says this is one of its priorities. We hear that a lot.

I would like to highlight some things I find a bit strange. When we talk about protecting society, we are not just talking about building prisons, investing more money in police forces and arresting people, but we are also talking about prevention and rehabilitation. I find it amazing that the Minister of Public Safety refused to finance a program aimed at reducing recidivism among individuals convicted of sexual offences. In fact, those who run that program, called Circles of Support and Accountability, were given no explanation for the rejection of their request. Moreover, it met all criteria and even the National Crime Prevention Centre was in favour of granting them money. The program has been in existence for 15 years and has proved its worth in Britain and in the United States. That is one example of something I find strange.

I have another example. In my riding, there are a few halfway houses. One of them is special because it takes in people with mental illnesses who have committed sexual offences, such as pedophiles. I have repeatedly asked this government to make sure that Correctional Service Canada does not transfer pedophiles close to schools. The Commission scolaire de Montréal even adopted a resolution to support that request. Not only is there a school close to that halfway house, but there is also a daycare centre with more than 50 children nearby. It is a case of putting the fox among the chickens.

When we talk about safety and protection, we are not talking only about prisons. Plugging the holes is not enough. We must take concrete action. We do not need new legislation. The commissioner needs to be called, given a directive and told that that is enough and that no pedophiles should be put in halfway houses close to schools. That is not a complicated thing to do.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues here today will have noted that my colleague from Ahuntsic gave an excellent speech. With her professionalism, research and excellent speech, my colleague from Ahuntsic could provide further insights to the House, Parliament and the government about the bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I humbly request the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Ahuntsic to continue her excellent speech.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there must have been some fog down at the end of the hall. I am trying to see what was just going on there.

We have been here day after day, month after month, now year after year and we see the same howling crew on the backbenches of the Conservatives stand up every day and shout that we are not helping them to get tough on crime. They equate a judicious review as support for pedophiles. They use dumbed down tactics. They shout, intimidate people and use attack mailings. They misrepresent what we do and, in fact, they use our tax dollars to misrepresent the work we do in the House of Commons, which is to ensure that legislation that is brought forward is in the public interest and that it is good policy.

However, this is not some dumbed down gang fight. This is about ensuring we have a vision for our country.

My hon. colleague has seen how the Conservatives act. Could she explain to the House what she sees in terms of the lack of vision for a grand strategy for crime, for safety and for building a proper and safe nation?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I believe there is a glaring and complete lack of vision in all the bills brought before us. One philosophy permeates all these bills and the more I see of them the more I realize that it is based on coercion, imprisonment, arrest, and punishment. Unfortunately, that is not the way to fight crime. We have to understand that crime stems from poverty, not being able to find a job, discrimination, dropping out of school. Rehabilitation and prevention are needed. As long as we do not reach some sort of balance, we will never achieve long-term security.

The best example is that of the United States. It has the highest rate of incarceration of any country. It is our next door neighbour. The prisons are overflowing and street gangs are everywhere. They have serious problems with street gangs, child kidnapping and production of child pornography. The United States, along with Russia, puts out the greatest amount of child pornography.

This government has no vision; it only believes in punishment.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague from Ahuntsic, who explained to the House the many qualifications we would like to see added to this bill. As she explained, we will support the bill so that it can be studied in depth in committee in order to add the qualifications she talked about.

Many members spoke to the bill today, including my colleague from Manicouagan, and I know you were not particularly happy with his contribution, Mr. Speaker. He explained that the government claims to be tough on crime and wants to put people in jail and fight crime while, at the same time, reducing firearms control. The two go hand in hand.

My question for my colleague is as follows. As she made abundantly clear, we are gradually heading towards an American-style justice system that emphasizes repression instead of rehabilitation. Does the member not agree that this American-style justice system is simply based on a right-wing, cowboy ideology?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My answer is yes, but I would also like to bring to his attention the whole question of the firearms registry.

I was listening to my colleague from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security saying that the long gun registry should be abolished. Well, well. But, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that, in Canada, criminal groups use mostly long guns obtained illegally. In some regions, gang members do not use handguns, but long guns, such as in Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, where street gangs have been identified. Let me give another example. In Quebec, handguns are used more often, but not in some regions, where long guns are used. The situation is the same in Ontario. It is true that criminal groups use handguns, but they also use long guns. They use handguns in cities, but in less populated areas, they use long guns. Long guns are not used only by ordinary people, but also by criminal groups.

So, it is not true that, by abolishing the firearms registry for long guns, the problem of violence in cities will be solved. It is not true.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by the member for Ahuntsic.

To me, the most important part of her speech was when she alluded to the disconnect between what the Conservatives say and what they do. We now know that they did not keep the promise they made to put 2,500 more police officers on the main roads of Canada. We also saw their cuts to crime prevention programs that existed for the sole purpose of reducing the number of victims.

Would the member say that those cuts clearly show that the Conservative Party's agenda results in more crime and not less? In fact, that kind of program makes a big difference in the results we get in our communities.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

In fact, there are two parts to his question. First, we have the prevention aspect, where we see the government cutting, or at least not increasing funding. For example, for the NPB, whose job includes dealing with crimes by young people, there is only $8 million for Quebec. I have met people at the NPB and what they have told me is that they can make no requests between now and 2011-2012. That means that in terms of prevention, this government is lagging behind.

In addition, and this is rather bizarre, there is the fact that this government is taking the easy road. It is much easier to reassure the public by telling them that you are making laws against white collar criminals, you are creating minimum sentences for this and minimum sentences for that. You tell the public that you are making laws to protect them, and then you do not allocate the resources to protect them. It is pointless to make laws if there is no money and there are no resources to support the laws. What we will be doing, at present, with this government, is we will be filling our prisons, but we will not be putting one cent into the prisons. I want to see how much they will invest in penitentiaries or the correctional service to cover the costs of the number of people who will be incarcerated for so long. I want to see that.

So when you make laws, you have to allocate money. But what they are doing is making laws, making people believe they are going to protect them with bogus laws. After that, what will they do? Not one cent is being invested in the real business.

As my colleague put it so well, prevention is important. What is being done in that regard? Drops in the bucket. When we have shootings in Vancouver or Toronto, the government says it is going to put so many million dollars into it. Has the government gone back to Vancouver to see whether the shootings have stopped? No. Has it gone back to Toronto to see whether things have calmed down? In Regent Park, has it gone to see the children who go to school and get bullied? Has it seen the violence, the people living in fear? Has it seen that? No.

Certainly it is much easier to make bogus laws and say you are adding minimum sentences, you are going to lock people up, but not one cent makes it into the real things. That is unacceptable. We are mortgaging the youth of Canada and Quebec. We will be paying for this for years, I can tell you that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Willowdale, Government Assets; the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Employment Insurance.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the issue of crime and the Conservative approach to crime that is embodied in Bill C-43. I feel a little bit like Groundhog Day because when the Conservatives came to power they were hoping to use crime issues and the legitimate concerns that Canadians have from coast to coast to coast around the criminal justice system and the fact that it is not functioning to try to get a majority government.

The House will recall at the time that the justice minister was throwing out bills like candy. Bills were being written up on the back of napkins. The justice minister at the time lost his job because, tragically, rather than doing their due diligence and homework, rather than working with opposition parties and putting in place a systematic approach that would actually drive down crime rates, something that would have support from all four corners of the House, the Conservatives chose to throw out a series of sometimes well drafted, but often not well drafted at all, criminal justice legislation, much of which they simply were not able to get through.

In light of a potential election coming in the spring, we are now seeing the same phenomenon. We are seeing bills coming out sometimes after doing the due diligence that only the NDP seems to do so very effectively after reading through the bills. We have the member of Parliament for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway very diligently going through the bills clause by clause. Sometimes we are able to support the bills. Sometimes they are drafted well enough so that they serve the intent they purport to deliver, but often they do not.

In the case of Bill C-43, we have a similar problem. It does purport a principle that we support, which is to be focused on victims. The NDP supports legislation that is brought forward that is focused on victims, However, we will not support legislation that is brought forward in the House that is focused on producing more victims, and that is often the perverse impact of badly crafted legislation that the Conservatives bring forward.

On victims' rights, my bill on victims' restitution was tabled in the House a year ago. The government could choose to move that bill forward but it has not chosen to do that, victims' restitution being a principle that the NDP has brought forward. Despite the fact that it has been before the House for a year, the Conservatives have chosen not to bring it forward.

What we see is a bill that has a couple of components that we could support. We certainly supporting establishing the right of victims to make a statement at parole hearings. We support the right of victims to access information about offenders. We support those principles, which is why we brought forward bills on victims' restitution. We believe the justice system must serve victims, there is no doubt about that.

However, if we see the direction the government has taken around offenders and some of the key programs that reduce the crime rate after release, some of the aspects of the bill could serve to produce more victims in the long term. That is why, after doing our due diligence, we must say to members of the Conservative government, can they not get it right? Can they not take due diligence, rather than constantly using this as a political tool when they know that Canadians are concerned and want to have a revamped justice system that serves their needs and the needs of victims and that reduces the crime rate? Why can they not get it right on key bills like this?

We need to look at the overall context of what the Conservatives have done. As many previous speakers have pointed out, including my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, the Conservatives, after taking power, reduced funding for crime prevention. This is absolutely absurd. We know that every dollar invested in crime prevention saves $6 in policing costs, in court costs and in prison costs later on. It also means there is no victim, which means we have actually stopped having a victim in the first place.

What have the Conservatives done? They have gutted crime prevention programs. Many of the crime prevention organizations across the country that are very good, effective, respected organizations have found their funding either delayed or cut.

This is absolutely unacceptable. It begs this question. Is the Conservative agenda the same as the Republican agenda in the United States? The Republicans tried to increase crime rates because they thought they could profit politically from it. When we see Conservatives cutting crime prevention programs, we have to wonder what their agenda is.

What else? The Conservatives made a promise to hire 2,500 police officers. Where are those police officers? That funding, by and large, simply did not come or was handed over without any strings attached. We essentially do not see that key commitment the Conservatives made back in 2006 yet.

Our public safety critic met with the Canadian Association of Police Boards and raised this issue. In fact, representatives of the association came to Ottawa three times to talk about this issue. Did the Conservatives do anything? No. This is another key commitment broken on criminal justice issues. It is absolutely appalling. When we have Canadians who are concerned about these issues, they choose to not keep what they put forward as one of their fundamental promises. It begs also this question. Are they really sincere about taking action to reduce the crime rate? That is the principle.

When we see this series of legislation brought forward, often very poorly crafted, we have to wonder whether the Conservatives are, in any way, committed to taking that kind of smart actions in criminal justice matters that would actually reduce the crime rate.

One way to do that would be to increase the number of police officers and keep their commitment, on which the NDP members have been pressing them. They did not do that. Another would be to expand funding on crime prevention programs. The Conservatives did not do that. In fact, they cut crime prevention.

What else did the Conservatives do? A pay increase was announced by Conservatives for RCMP officers. We know RCMP officers play a key role across the country. In my community of Burnaby, the Burnaby RCMP, the second largest attachments in the country, does key work, working with the local administration of the city of Burnaby and the Burnaby Citizens' Association to put in place innovative crime prevention programs to reduce the crime rate.

The Conservatives told the RCMP officers, who have been undercut in their salaries for years and find it harder and harder to make ends meet, particularly in areas of a high cost of living like the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, on December 12, by email, that the pay increases they had announced in June would be slashed for 2009 and 2010. Shame on them.

They are hard-working RCMP officers dealing with a high cost of living, with all the sacrifices they have to make for their families to serve the community, and the Conservatives again broke their commitment to the RCMP. Shame on them for having, in such a clear way, disrespected the RCMP officers of this country.

What else did the Conservatives do? A little over three years ago a public safety officer compensation fund, which was a bill pushed forward by the NDP, was adopted by the House, with the support of Conservatives who were then in opposition. It was just before the election that brought the Conservatives to power. Years later there is still no public safety officer compensation fund, despite the fact they voted to establish it.

This means if there is no insurance put in place by the local policing organization or the municipality, which impacts on our hard-working firefighters who also work in very dangerous situations, when police officers and firefighters die in the line of duty, their families receive no compensation. They get nothing. We hear every day tragic stories of what has happened to the surviving families of those police officers and firefighters. In many cases they lose their homes or they take a second job. The Conservatives have broken that commitment, as well. This is just another case of the difference between the rhetoric that they bring forward in the House and the reality of their government.

I could talk about the Conservatives broken promise around unionization that has come through the courts, as well.

We see a systematic pattern on criminal justice systems. Rather than standing up for those who advocate for public safety, rather than do the real work to enhance support for victims, rather than put into place crime prevention programs that means there are fewer victims, the Conservatives do exactly the opposite. Which brings us back to Bill C-43.

Canadians I do not think will be surprised to learn this and I know a number of other speakers have addressed this issue as well. Over the past few years, we have seen some of the key programs to ensure offenders do not reoffend have gradually over time, in a very real way, been slashed by the Conservative government. Less funding has been provided each and every year.

What are the programs the Conservatives have been slashing quietly over the past four years since they came to power? I know members would be interested in knowing that they include mental health diagnosis and treatment, work programs, literacy and education programs and drug and alcohol treatment. What the Conservative government has been doing is quietly slashing over time. Each year the have provided less funding, in real terms, for those key programs.

What does that mean? In the bill the Conservatives are proposing to remove what they call privileges, which essentially are the programs we are talking about. These programs are very important for the community to ensure that when offenders get out of prison, they have actually been rehabilitated. We do not want them to offend again. We do not want to see other victims. Yet the legislation serves to cut that important lifeline and increases the likelihood, as we have certainly seen in the United States with similar Republican legislation, of reoffending.

My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona spoke about the difference between reoffending rates when someone comes out of prison as to opposed to the community rehabilitation programs. That is not simply an inconsequential statistic. It means the difference between somebody coming back into the community and somebody offending again.

If we are here to reduce the number of victims, if we are here to reduce the crime rate, if we are here to ensure there are fewer victims next week than there were this week, we have to wonder about the Conservative agenda to cut these vital programs. There is no doubt that it certainly did not work in the United States. It would not work in Canada if we cut these important programs. Bill C-43 purports to do that.

Fundamentally, when we see that, we have to question the legitimacy of the government's move. Essentially, it has said that it wants to provide more support for victims to make statements in parole hearings, which we support, the right of victims to access information about offenders, which we support. Then it puts a bunch of poison pills around that, which makes it difficult for anybody who honestly looks at the criminal justice system and what is needed to provide the kinds of supports to ensure we do not have offenders reoffend.

Those programs, drug and alcohol treatment, literacy and education, mental health diagnosis and treatment and work programs are the kinds of programs that ensure that rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. We simply cannot take an offender and lock him or her up for life.

If we are talking about serious crimes, we would never want to see somebody as reprehensible as a Clifford Robert Olson on the streets ever again. However, when we talk about robberies or crimes that do not dictate a life sentence, at some point we will see offenders back on the streets.

We have to ensure an offender can go into a workplace because he or she has had established training through work programs. If the person is suffering from a mental health issue, we have to ensure that individual has been treated for that mental health issue. If person is an addict, drug and alcohol programs will help get the offender over the addiction so he or she can then reintegrate into the community.

If people do not know how to read, how can they possibly cope in society? Yet, tragically, even today many Canadian adults are not literate. This is a fundamental skill. We have to ensure every adult in Canada has access to it. Yet the Conservatives have cut the funding on those kinds of vital programs. It has been slowly, quietly and over time but, nonetheless, they have cut those programs.

The net impact of this is twofold. Either an offender is not rehabilitated, costing the Canadian taxpayer $80,000 to $90,000 for each and every one and extending the time of imprisonment until the courts say that on legal grounds the person cannot be incarcerated any more, or we spend less money than that to ensure programs are in place so when the offender is released safely into the community, the individual can move on with a life that is productive and does not create any more victims. That is a sensible, smart approach on criminal justice issues.

Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting from the Conservatives. With the Conservatives, we have seen cuts to crime prevention programs. We have seen that the Conservatives decided from the very beginning that they would set up a system to cut those types of programs. It is disgusting.

It goes on. They have also broken the promises they made to all Canadians about increasing the number of police officers across the country. They promised an additional 2,500 police officers. We know this because police organizations are telling us that very little funding has come through to create these new positions. In some cases that money did not arrive at all. Sometimes the money was given, but with no obligation to create new positions within the police forces.

We have also seen cuts to RCMP officers' salaries. We think it is inexcusable that in June 2008, the Conservatives promised to finally give an increase to all RCMP officers across the country only to turn around and break that promise. The police work very hard and often live in situations where they just do not have enough to make ends meet. In regions such as the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, the cost of housing is very high and police officers do not earn enough money to take care of their families. On December 12, 2008, the Conservatives broke their promises. It is disgusting.

That is not the approach we want to see. We want to reduce the crime rate. We want to reduce the number of victims. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' approach is not reducing the crime rate. That is what they should be aiming for. Unfortunately, when they introduce bills one after the other, they are often poorly drafted and it takes the work of committees to try to fix everything that is wrong with these bills. That is why we have problems with this bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out there are components of Bill C-43 that we in the NDP support.

We support establishing the right of victims to make a statement at parole hearings. The NDP stands up for marginalized and vulnerable victims in our society. Offenders need to hear from victims. They need to know the impact of their crimes as restorative justice. Victims need to have their voices heard, otherwise they are victimized a second time.

We also support the right of victims to access to information about offenders. For example, the system must not leave victims in the dark, fighting for every scrap of information. Certainly knowing that an offender is being rehabilitated is important as a step on a victim's road to healing and recovery.

I know the member supports this, but has he any further comment or explanation regarding the role of victims in terms of the bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona knows we brought forward Bill C-372 on victims' restitution because of the principle of having a justice system that serves the victims in this country. That is something on which we have not yet seen any movement from the Conservatives. They have had the bill for a year. They have not acted on it. They have not moved forward on it. I find that regrettable.

There are components of the bill, as the member points out, that we do support: the right of victims to make those statements at parole hearings, for example. Their comments need to be incorporated. There is absolutely no doubt we certainly support that, and we support the right of victims to access information about offenders. That is a fundamental principle as well that we support.

In this corner of the House, we are very clear that our justice system has to serve victims. We are also very clear that there have to be fewer victims. That is why we have been advocating a smart approach to crime, actually advocating a substantial increase in crime prevention programs, asking the Conservatives to keep their promise on police officers, and advocating a smarter court system and prison system so we will have fewer victims. That actually should be the focus of the Conservative government too.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very cogent comments. Indeed, our party is the first to stand up in the House on behalf of victims, particularly on behalf of preventing further victims of crime.

As he very ably and thoroughly points out, the umbrella of preventing crime is a big one, and simply locking up every offender and throwing away the key is not necessarily the solution to preventing crime.

I would look, for example, to what I saw on CBC television last night, the very sad story of an RCMP officer on the highway between Edmonton and Fort McMurray who is suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome because the RCMP do not have enough resources so that they can relieve him, and he is seeing gruesome accident after gruesome accident.

There are many types of crime. There are the crimes on the highway. What about domestic abuse? We do not have enough housing so that women who do not have an extra source of income can leave a scene instead of becoming victims of crime.

Could the hon. member please speak to the bigger umbrella, the tools that we need in our arsenal to address a reduction of crime?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona is by far the best MP from Alberta in the House of Commons and has been very effective at putting forward a very articulate view. I know she defends her constituency and Alberta very effectively in the House of Commons, so I always appreciate getting comments from her.

She is absolutely right. There is a much bigger picture that we have been pushing the government to be focused on, and that is reducing the crime rate.

We have seen the Republican approach in the United States. They like to profit from crime. They love to push an agenda. They built a lot of private prisons and a lot of Republican cronies made a whole lot of money, but the crime rate kept going up, because what they were doing was eliminating the kinds of safeguards that our communities need. Those safeguards are ensuring that when offenders get out, they will not reoffend.

We have been making the case very ably in this corner of the House that the kinds of programs that actually reduce the number of victims and reduce the possibility that offenders will reoffend are the kinds of programs that are needed. We need supports, not just for literacy.

The hon. member is absolutely right, those are the kinds of supports and social safety nets that ensure that we bring our crime rate down. She is right, and I agree with her once again.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention and for his incredible representation, both of his constituents and of Canadians, in the House.

He brought up programs that deal with crime prevention. He brought up some really simple programs like literacy programs.

Earlier today I was telling someone about something that happened to me in my riding of Halifax. I was visiting a centre, Leave Out Violence, LOVE. I was visiting with youth who are in conflict with the law. A young man said, “My dad sold rock on the street. My uncle sold rock on the street. Everybody I know does that. How am I supposed to understand what it is to have a job?” He actually said, “We need more programs like this so that I do not have to sell crack to keep my family fed”. What he was talking about was the smallest little program, the tiniest little program about how to show up to work on time, and how to do up a resumé, which are very simple, basic things, but he had never learned them.

My question to the member is, would he agree with me that crime prevention programs do not have to be complicated?They can be quite simple. They can be quite grassroots and still have a profound effect on Canadians.