Eleni Bakopanos

[Canada's Armenian Community, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, May 28 is a significant date for the Armenian community in Canada.

On that date, in 1918, the Republic of Armenia was created following the tragic events in which more than one million of their fellow citizens were killed.

Although the new republic was annexed by the Soviet Union soon after, May 28, 1918 remains an important date for all Armenians.

Today the Republic of Armenia is once again an independent country, having declared its independence on September 23, 1991 from the former Soviet Union. Even though the Armenian economy has been strained by recent changes and is currently undergoing a difficult process of economic restructuring, the future now looks brighter for the new republic.

On this day I wish to pay a special tribute to my constituents of Armenian origin who are model Canadians and proud of their rich culture and linguistic Armenian heritage.

I invite all my colleagues to celebrate this anniversary together with all Canadians of Armenian origin.

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was no callous disregard for the House or for the member's debate. I would like that withdrawn.

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive sentencing reform legislation introduced in the first session of the last parliament as Bill C-41 has been in force since September 3, 1996.

While this legislation included many reforms, including the first ever parliamentary statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing, several provisions addressing the needs of victims, the possibility of diversion for adult offenders and the new provisions for fines and fine enforcement, one of the centrepieces of the legislation was the conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The conditional sentence concept was first suggested in a white paper on sentencing in February 1984 by then minister of justice, the late Mark MacGuigan. It is a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years which may be served in the community if the court is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing now set out in the Criminal Code of Canada.

The offender must abide by whatever conditions are ordered by the court. If the offender is found to have breached a condition, the balance of the sentence can be ordered to be served in custody.

When it comes to determining sentencing, there will always be decisions that will generate controversy and will seem questionable at first glance. This is precisely why our appeal courts are so useful. Without in any way minimizing the concerns we all have about certain conditional sentences, I believe that the hon. members must look at things in a balanced way.

More than 18,000 orders for conditional sentencing have been brought down since September 1996, and the great majority of these were the result of well-informed and wise decisions. Certain questionable decisions have been brought to the attention of this House by various members. As usual, the opposition is passing off the exception as the rule.

Consequently, we shall be continuing to work in close collaboration with the provinces, as the minister has already said in this House, in order to monitor the application of the clauses relating to sentencing closely and to assess whether further changes are required.

We are working with the provincial and territorial authorities responsible for prosecutions and correctional services in monitoring the use of conditional sentencing. From September 3, 1996 to December 31, 1997, there were 18,247 conditional sentences in this country, most of these for non-violent offences relating to property, operating a vehicle and the administration of justice.

In Ontario, for example, fraud is the offence which attracts the highest proportion of conditional sentences in terms of all sanctions. We must also bear in mind that prior to the availability of conditional sentences a significant percentage of offences involving violence resulted in probation as the most serious sanction.

I would like to say a word about the case law that is developing. Over 200 conditional sentences have been appealed since September 1996. The courts are now working on an analytical and reasoned approach that could be used by judges in determining when to hand down a conditional sentence.

They could invoke the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in paragraphs 718(1) and 718(2). The specific purposes of sentencing, such as setting an example, deterrence, and rehabilitation, are being analysed and the courts are trying to determine how the sentences handed down can achieve these objectives.

Courts are placing emphasis on denunciations, deterrents and proportionality in sentencing offenders convicted of serious sexual offences. Let me refer with approval to some of the statements which appellate courts have made in the context of considering whether a conditional sentence should be granted for an offender convicted of a sexual offence.

Madam Justice Ryan for the majority of the British Columbia court of appeal in Ursel said “Violent, degrading sexual attacks against women demand denunciation and deterrence. In a case such as this those sentencing objectives could not be adequately addressed through a conditional sentence”.

The Quebec court of appeal in P.C. said “nor would the imposition of a less restrictive sanction” than imprisonment “satisfy the objectives of a general deterrence and denunciation of assaults against children by those who are supposed to be protecting them”.

The Ontario court of appeal in MacNaughton said “In our view it should only be in rare cases that a conditional sentence be imposed in cases of breach of trust involving the sexual touching of children by adults”.

I think that these citations should reassure the House. I subscribe to the thinking that these courts of appeal have adopted in the cases cited and in many others.

In my opinion, the courts have done well to focus on the fact that these offences do not generally lend themselves to conditional sentences, excepting in extenuating circumstances having to do with such things as the advanced age of the offender, and the severity of his mental or physical condition.

I would like to remind hon. opposition members that a conditional sentence is no less a sentence of imprisonment. The court orders the offender to spend a certain period of time in prison. The offender who meets the terms of section 742.1 may, under certain conditions, serve his sentence in the community. He may, however, be sentenced to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison if he violates any one of these conditions.

In closing, may I say that while I understand and share the concern citizens sometimes feel when reading accounts of certain sentencing decisions, and those exaggerated by the opposition members, I think the conditional sentence has added an important sentencing option to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Without complete information about a case, the particulars of a case and all the possible mitigating circumstances and other factors, it is very difficult for us to sit in judgment of the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Trial courts have, for the most part, exercised their discretion with prudence. Appellate courts continue to provide guidance and perspective and no doubt the Supreme Court of Canada will have the opportunity to give its views on conditional sentences at some point in the future.

When the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last month she tabled a letter to the chair suggesting it would be useful for the standing committee to undertake a review of the operation of conditional sentences at some point after the two year anniversary of the proclamation of Bill C-41.

This would be an opportunity for victims, criminal justice professionals, the public and even the opposition, because we do value their opinions when they are valuable, to express their views on the conditional sentencing option.

One issue on which the minister indicated she would particularly appreciate the committee's advice related to whether or not there should be further limits on the availability of conditional sentences than those presently set out in the Criminal Code.

I know the minister looks forward to working with the members of the justice committee, the member for Prince George—Peace River and all members in a shared desire to improve the criminal justice system for all Canadians.

In light of this referral and the minister's desire to benefit from the committee's thinking on this important issue, it would be premature for this House to pre-empt the committee's work by voting in favour of the hon. member's motion.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

We did not refuse.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question, I would like to reassure the hon. member by saying that our position has not changed. Our approach remains balanced, with crime prevention on one side—and I have already told the House of our initiative of $32 million—and the treatment of those needing rehabilitation on the other.

As we said when we announced them, the proposals are aimed at less than 1% of young offenders, the most violent and repeat offenders.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question but I do not purport to talk for the Reform Party. I will talk about what this government wants to do. The Reform Party members can speak for themselves. They are on the record and have proven themselves true to form again.

As far as this government is concerned, the National Crime Prevention Council that was set up by the federal government made recommendations to this government concerning crime prevention.

Poverty is an important issue in terms of preventing crimes, starting at age zero. This would include taking care of nutrition, helping parents and single parent families to deal with the problems which start early and helping dysfunctional families from the very beginning. We are investing, as is on the record and as was our commitment in the election campaign, $32 million in terms of community based crime prevention initiatives. As I said in my speech, we will be doing the launch of these initiatives in a few days.

I want to assure the member that the recommendations of the National Crime Prevention Council are the basis of a lot of crime prevention initiatives. We consider community based initiatives as being the most appropriate way to begin. That is the route we are taking.

Yes we have to take care of other social problems such as poverty and child malnutrition. We can talk about fetal alcohol syndrome and all the other syndromes. Those are the types of initiatives we are looking at in terms of funding and making sure we prevent crime at zero age.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

That is why we have to begin at age zero, as I said in my speech. We have to begin to take care of the problem that exists in terms of poverty and other problems which exist in this country in order to ensure that we prevent crime, not throw people in jail as the Reform Party would like us to believe.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, statistics across this country do show that crime rates are going down. There is a certain percentage, but I am not sure it is 28% as the member would like us to believe, of violent criminals that is going up.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that she intended to work closely with the provinces to help promote and expand the kinds of sentences that help youth fully appreciate the impact of their actions, accept responsibility in a meaningful way and come to terms with a need for change in their lives. These approaches provide youth with support to overcome criminal behaviour when traditional sources of support are unavailable. Equally important, they engage victims and the community in the administration of justice and thus provide greater confidence by responding to legitimate concerns that justice be seen to be delivered at the local level.

There are many models already in use across Canada. Some involve restitution, that is, youth paying back to the victim and the community for damage done. Other models involve victim-offender reconciliation programs, family group conferencing, community service orders or personal services to a victim. All of these emphasize and reinforce basic fundamental Canadian values such as respect for others, their property and their community.

The government wants to increase its efforts to prevent youth crime. Canadians want to provide their young people with any assistance they may need and help them stay away from crime.

To do so requires looking beyond the legislation and the criminal justice system at ways available to our society to deal with problems such as child poverty and child abuse, which are often an underlying cause of youth crime, and to help young people not to make the kind of choices that may lead them to engage in criminal behaviour.

The Government of Canada has agreed with provincial and territorial governments to pursue a joint child development strategy as part of the national action program for children.

Canadians realize that legislative changes are only one piece of the puzzle. Legislation alone will not stop young people from committing criminal acts and innocent people from being victimized. An efficient approach to deterring youth crime must reach beyond the criminal justice system and include crime prevention and a series of other programs and services to help children and young people.

This is the basic message conveyed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in its report on the Young Offenders Act. The provinces and territories have been key partners in seeking new direction for the justice system as it applies to youth. More important, Canadians have made a major contribution by expressing their fears and concerns, and by demonstrating their support for reasonable and balanced solutions.

These values—not those of the opposition—are the ones Canadians want our justice system to reflect. We must do a better job of ensuring that this is the case. There are effective community-based alternatives, but they are not used to their full potential. We rely too much on incarceration, as the opposition often advocates, but this solution, while simple, does not help young offenders, victims, or communities.

The Reform Party would want us to believe that the criminal justice system is in a deplorable state. This is not what the statistics show, but of course Reform members do not know how to read or write. The victimization rate has gone down between 1998 and 1992. The picture we get when we care to inform ourselves seriously is a far cry from those levels advanced by those who want us to think that we have to lock ourselves up for fear that we might be attacked if we dare walk out on our streets.

The Reform Party has been claiming that the system is broken ever since it came into this House in 1993 but it does not have any hard facts to prove it. Yes there are crimes. Yes there are victims and one is too many. That we agree on. But it is not a fair statement to say that the whole system has to be abandoned.

Why is it then that the opposition continues to claim that the system is broken when Canada's justice system is at least as effective as any of the other western societies? What is it that is broken in Canada? What is it that we are not doing in Canada that is much more efficient elsewhere?

I would suggest, if the members care to listen, it is because of the very failure of the opposition to demonstrate that crime is rampant in Canadian society that it has to resort to empty rhetoric and petty politics to instil the fear of crime and to try to put this government on the defensive.

The best way to fight crime is to ensure that crime is not committed. As the Minister of Justice indicated on May 12 when she outlined her strategy for the renewal of youth justice, crime prevention is at the heart of a criminal justice system that works effectively.

A second phase of the crime prevention initiative will soon be launched. These initiatives and others, which include the strengthening of aboriginal communities, place a strong emphasis on dealing with the root causes of youth justice and helping communities to support and provide guidance to their children and youth which is a key ingredient in making our young people less vulnerable to a life of crime.

As for victims, I would caution the reliance the Reform Party has been placing on a victims bill of rights. Such a bill could only address matters within the federal government's jurisdiction. I believe that the federal role in that area is rather limited. As the hon. member of the Bloc reminded Reformers, I would like to remind them that there is provincial jurisdiction in this area, in the administration. They often forget that.

I want to remind the House that the justice and human rights committee is looking into the issue of what can be done to help the plight of victims. In fact there will be a national forum for victims rights here in Ottawa in early June. They also forget that. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice will be interested. We encourage hon. members to hold more town hall meetings to get the real opinion of Canadians as they often do when they hold their town hall meetings if they are willing to listen.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Shall I continue, Mr. Speaker, or shall we let the opposition—