Mr. Speaker, I commence by saying how much I enjoyed the logic of my colleague in his remarks just prior to this. There is logic to be utilized when we are talking about a system of justice in Canada which really is a pillar of our democracy, the justice system itself and the way we deter those people going against the social values of our communities.
There is logic to be utilized in the way that our justice system relies on a due process of law so that evidence based reality will prevail, the way that we have juries, our peer groups, to make decisions and the way we have an independent judiciary functioning every day across the country in court rooms helping to ensure just results occur based on evidence.
That is a very difficult job. Over the last year it has disturbed me greatly the number of occasions where more and more in the press and in public discussion there has been something I will term judge bashing.
I think this is a serious situation. It does not help our society. The judiciary is an arm of our system of government that is doing what many of us in the House attempt to do by way of public service to our communities.
The reason I have raised this is that if someone disagrees with my views as a politician, be it in my community or during an election campaign, it is fair game for them to target me and to voice an opposite and sometime very harsh opinion of my views.
However, at the end of the day I have the ability to stand up and defend myself by voicing my side of the same arguments. That is something that is not available to justices and judges across this land. Occasionally we will have, coming to their defence, some of the organizations such as the bar or the attorneys general. Historically it has been the attorneys general who take on this role.
That position inside the judiciary to my mind is not a position that is there for popularity. There is a service also to be done if a judge points out a piece of legislation that in their view is ambiguous or needs redefinition.
Some of us may agree that the view one is getting through a newspaper article, which obviously does not have all the facts, may be a situation that seems dead wrong. In that case, thankfully in this country we have a system of appeal. It is possible, in a very civilized and due process manner, to get a further interpretation or, if necessary, our judicial system provides us in this Chamber with the opportunity to change the laws.
Unfortunately I have not had a chance all day to hear what has been going on, but I want to stress that in Canada it is a shared jurisdiction in areas that affect justice. Here in the Chamber we can change the Criminal Code. We can put in a new act concerning youth . We can do many things with respect to the detail of the law.
However, when it touches the ground it has to be provincial or territorial jurisdictions that take the administration of those laws into the courtrooms.
We heard the Minister of Justice addressing the situation of divergent groups and divergent positions across this country. I believe that in reality the Canadian public in all the communities across the land want the best for the safety of their children and their families.
I therefore think we can all agree with the goals. I do not think there is any party in the House that can take ownership of feelings for victims as is often done by parties opposite and the official opposition. All of us are concerned about our constituents and their lives.
When one is addressing solutions in a justice situation, it is very important to not only look at the back end, the enforcement end, which often does not solve situations. What really has to be there in full force and with a lot of resources is the crime prevention end, the determinants of situations.
I know there are colleagues among in all parties who are singing from the same songbook on crime prevention. If we dig a little deeper we see situations where talk is cheap.
I just heard my hon. colleague across talking about the needs of the aboriginal communities. I know these communities have great needs. There are systemic problems in a system that would place so many aboriginal youths in jail.
The Reform Party taxpayers budget was going to remove $800 million from the resources going to aboriginal populations. It is easy to say we support, we support, but when push comes to shove, the support realistically has to be implemented with budgets that are real and for a goal that has as its desired outcome a change of behaviour or support for existing conditions.
I think specifically about fetal alcohol syndrome. More resources need to be directed to the mother of the youth rather than directed to the youth. Some of the contraindications of partaking in alcohol affects taxpayers and communities and particularly the affected child who pays throughout his or her life. This is preventable. It is not going to be fixed by enforcement. Never.
That is why we talk about the difference between a real solution and the simplistic sound bite “Well, I am really going to fix this because I am going to be tougher”.
In my city experiments are going on with sentencing circles, youth justice circles. It is a new way of diverting youth from the formalized court system especially with minor property offences. It takes the example from the aboriginal community. The aboriginal community started sentencing circles. They are effectively working in London, Ontario today and they are being expanded.
The circles involve the victim, community players, volunteers from the community and the offender. In our case we are using it for youth. There has to be an admission of a wrongdoing. There has to be some sort of restitution. The committee itself in less than a couple of hours has to come up with some sort of support to wrap around the individual to help change his or her behaviour or address the deficiencies in his or her life.
I have talked with many people who have sat on these sentencing circles, including youth who are participating in them. They see this as something that will work. They see the possibility of rehabilitation.
There are many such examples. We have a crime prevention initiative with $32 million ongoing. The resources that are available to communities and their groups are not only those enforcement resources. Yes, they are important and they serve a function and there is a time and a place for them. Generally speaking we want to modify unacceptable behaviour.
I have personal experience as a member of the Ontario Criminal Code review board for six years. I dealt in a quasi-judicial role with people who had very bad behaviour who through no fault of their own but because of a mental incapacity were involved in horrible acts against society. They needed to be there to address some of the underlying forces.
I know that with my colleagues we will start addressing root causes.
