Mr. Speaker, I would first like to read the motion that we are debating today. It states “That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety” and it cites three examples essentially in the areas of the Young Offenders Act, sentencing, and victims of crime.
In reading that motion I ask myself and more particularly I ask the opposition if it is arguing that everything in the justice system is in such a deplorable state as the motion says. Should everything this government has done in the criminal justice system be condemned? Is the opposition also condemning certain aspects or particular aspects of the correctional system? Is it condemning the system of policing, all our judges and the entire Criminal Code?
I believe the federal government is doing much more than the Reform Party gives it credit for and I would like to give some concrete examples. Rather than generalities and the sweeping denunciations by the Reform Party, let us give some facts and figures. Let us look at what is actually going on in criminal justice reform.
Let us start with the first fact that Canada along with the provinces spends in excess of $10 billion a year in the criminal justice system, not as the member who just spoke said, in the criminal justice industry, if I heard him correctly. It shows the difference between the opposition members and this government. As I said, it includes federal and provincial expenditures and it covers policing, prisons, penitentiaries and the courts.
The governments in Canada are not exactly starving the justice system. As an example, the federal government itself spends approximately $1 billion a year to support the efforts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it spends a similar amount on penitentiaries.
Perhaps the opposition is saying that the federal government is not spending this money strategically, that is, not targeting the big challenges to public safety. Let us take spending on penitentiaries as just one example because I know the official opposition is concerned about the state of our prisons.
Several weeks ago the solicitor general and the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada announced that 1,000 new correctional officers will be hired in order to strengthen the safety and security of our penitentiary system. Does the opposition disagree with the hiring of 1,000 new staff to make our correctional system better? It is not cheap but it is one example of setting priorities and then funding them.
The motion by the opposition seems to imply that the government is ignoring the allegedly deplorable state of the justice system. In this regard I believe it would be worthwhile to examine the criminal justice agenda of the government both now and in the recent past.
In the previous session of parliament the government introduced over a dozen major bills amending the Criminal Code and related statutes. For example the agenda encompassed new measures targeting high risk offenders, bills dealing with prostitution and child sex tourism, safeguards to protect the privacy of complainants and witnesses in sexual offence proceedings, and anti-gang legislation. There were reforms to the Young Offenders Act and more changes to that act are going to be launched very shortly by the Minister of Justice. In total over 250 changes were made to the Criminal Code in just the last session.
I would like to address the main proposals in the strategy for renewing the justice system for minors in order to address juvenile delinquency.
First of all, replacing the Young Offenders Act by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which gives priority to the protection of society, fosters such values as the sense of responsibility, and calls for heavy sanctions for wrongful acts.
Second, the aim of the initiative is to expand the category of offences for which a young offender may be brought before a regular court, which will include, in addition to murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and violent sexual assault, the reiteration of the facts of the crime and will lower from 16 to 14 the age at which young offenders may be transferred to an ordinary court.
Furthermore, the legislation authorizes the publication of the names of all minors found guilty in regular court and eventually the publication of the names of minors between the ages of 14 and 17 found guilty by a juvenile court of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, violent sexual assault and other stated crimes.
One of the proposals is for the potential establishment of criminal sanctions for the most dangerous and violent young offenders and the application of intensive resocialization and treatment programs and of a longer testing period.
Finally, we want to encourage the establishment of a broad range of sanctions and effective control mechanisms, other than legal ones, for small time delinquents, which encourage respect, promote responsibility toward victims and the community, help minors measure the consequences of their action and enable them to grasp the cause and effect relationship between their crime and its consequences.
As the government, we are aware that prevention is society's best protection against juvenile delinquents. This is why our strategy promotes prevention by linking reform of juvenile justice to other government initiatives involving childhood and adolescence.
I would like to give you a few examples. In the 1998 budget, the government allocated $32 million annually to fight delinquency. A new initiative to this end will soon be implemented. It is aimed at developing short term solutions and concerns mainly minors.
We are developing, in partnership with the provinces and territories, a national action plan for children to address a fair number of the underlying causes of delinquency, namely child poverty, childhood development problems, lack of structure provided by parents, unemployment and scarce family resources.
In 1997 we spent $850 million to create a more generous child tax benefit that will have a direct impact on the health and well-being of children. The 1998 budget provided for this benefit to be increased by another $850 million by the year 2000.
In 1997 we increased funding for the community action program for children. This program supports the implementation of hundreds of local projects promoting the development of children at risk.
The 1997 budget increased funding for the Canada prenatal nutrition program designed to help pregnant women in precarious situations, such as teens and women who abuse alcohol or other substances, so that they can give birth to healthy babies.
In 1994 the government launched a strategy against family violence, which provided for major changes to the criminal justice system in order to prevent family violence and for an extensive long term effort to co-ordinate policies and programs at all levels of government.
Also, the government announced its Youth Employment Strategy, endowed with $2 billion, offering school to work transition services and programs for young Canadians.
In the 1998 budget the government more than doubled its assistance to help young people at risk make the transition from school to work and this money will be used to fund company training, career counselling, coaching and literacy programs.
In response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the government is also developing initiatives that will strengthen the government strategy of promoting native justice with respect to minors, in close co-operation with native peoples.
In 1995 the Liberal government introduced the head start program. This is an early intervention program designed to provide a good start in life for aboriginal, Metis and Inuit children living in cities and major centres in the North by providing social assistance to their families and involving parents in initiatives to promote culture, health, education and nutrition. The budget also set aside additional funds to expand this programme to include children living on reserves.
I mention these facts and these examples, in essence this track record, not to encourage our government to rest on its laurels but rather to show that the government began with a major criminal law improvement agenda and it accomplished very much of it step by step.
This administration has not abandoned its criminal justice agenda. On the contrary, it has continued a sensible, well targeted agenda of selective law reform and program development.
I have already alluded to the major reform process of the Young Offenders Act. The Minister of Justice has also stated her commitment to the interests of victims of crime and has made announcements in this area. She has also indicated that crime prevention is a priority and over the past few years the National Crime Prevention Council laid the groundwork for a broad based crime prevention strategy and the government has indicated that it will spend $160 million over the next five years on crime prevention initiatives. Moreover, this crime prevention strategy will give priority to the needs of children and youth and they will be community targeted programs.
We all know the early years of a child's life hold the key to forming attitudes and to producing law-abiding citizens. Crime prevention strategies as promised by the government will link up to youth justice reform and will draw individual communities into the process of making our neighbourhoods much safer.
I said there were two reasons for referring to the legislative and program reforms from the last session. The second point is that the changes made to the Criminal Code over the last four years are starting to pay off. I use an example that I think shows the criminal justice system is not failing or falling, as the Reform Party would lead us to believe, into a deplorable state, but rather much improving.
I refer to Bill C-55, the high risk offender bill that came into force on August 1, 1997 as chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1997. The bill targeted three areas. It built on the success of the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code, it created a new sentencing category for sex offenders called long term offender, and it created a new form of restraining order or peace bond designed as a means of deterring certain individuals from committing violent personal injury offences.
The dangerous offender law was changed to make an indeterminate sentence of detention mandatory in every case in which a dangerous offender finding was made. The initial parole review of dangerous offenders was also changed so that the review would occur four years later than previously in the law.
Than life sentences for murder and certain other offences, the dangerous offender measure is the only sentencing provision in the code that calls for indeterminate incarceration. Bill C-55 made this mandatory. It was already evident that the dangerous offender procedure worked. A study at the time indicated not only that prosecutors were using it to go after violent sex offenders but that use of the procedure overall was on the increase. Since Bill C-55 there has been an even greater increase in the use of dangerous offender applications.
Moreover, the early identification of potential dangerous offenders has been made easier by the creation of a national flagging system and by complementary efforts on the part of the provinces.
The flagging system which was launched two years ago involved a special Royal Canadian Mounted Police database that allows police and prosecutors to put a special flag on the file of a convicted offender so that any prosecutor in Canada can check the RCMP CPIC database to identify the most serious cases.
Some provinces, notably British Columbia and Ontario, have their own mechanisms in place to identify and investigate violent offenders with a view to a possible dangerous offender application. There is evidence that Bill C-55 and the national flagging system have made this task easier and, more important, a lot more effective.
Bill C-55 also created a new long term offender category. It resembles a dangerous offender category procedure in its operation but targets a slightly less serious category of sex offender. In fact, if the dangerous offender criteria are not met it is quite possible that he will be covered by the long term offender category in which case, having been declared a long term offender, he is still subject to up to 10 years of intensive supervision being added to his initial sentence.
There have only been two long term offender designations so far but the tool remains available to prosecutors and the courts and we can expect to see more of these designations as more experience is gained with the new procedure.
The other main component of Bill C-55 was a new peace bond as section 810.2 of the Criminal Code. Essentially it allows someone to seek a restraining order where there is evidence that an individual poses a significant risk of committing a serious personal injury offence. The court can impose a restraining order for up to 12 months with conditions attached to it such as a requirement that the individual report any change of address to the police or correctional authorities.
Canadian police forces were already reporting success with a similar peace bond in the Criminal Code which targets potential pedophiles. Section 810.2 is not only an additional crime prevention tool but is now being used extensively across the country, particularly in Ontario. Parliament has given police, prosecutors and the courts one more useful tool to prevent crime.
I think the section 810.2 peace bond is worth mentioning because provinces are starting to use these restraining orders in conjunction with community notification orders. There is a growing trend in Canadian provinces to identify offenders who after released from prison still constitute a potential risk to the community but who can also be controlled by appropriate notice to the community and supportive programs for the ex-offender. We are finding that provinces are using section 810.2 orders as a complementary measure to ensure that ex-offenders stay on the straight and narrow.
I raise Bill C-55 as only one example of a measure that is having impact and responds to the trends in the administration of justice in the provinces and the public concerns regarding crime. It is a measure that demonstrates this government's concern for public safety.
I will list many of our initiatives to show that the Reform motion is totally out of bounds when it states our system is in a deplorable state.
The government has introduced legislation recently for the creation of a DNA databank which will certainly go a long way toward helping the police in their efforts to solve crime. We have introduced $32 million a year in funding for community crime prevention programs. Over 5 years that amounts to $160 million. We have also, through the solicitor general's office, undertaken nationwide consultations on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in order to improve the overall effectiveness of Canada's correction system.
The government has introduced legislation for a comprehensive new extradition act in order to fight international crime more effectively. Let us not forget the strengthened gun control legislation we introduced as well as the amendments to the Criminal Code to prevent use of the drunkenness defence for general intent crimes of violence, including sexual assault.
We also introduced measures to deal more effectively with high risk offenders through Bill C-55. We passed legislation to improve public safety through changes in the parole and corrections system, including measures for easier detention of sex offenders in penitentiaries until the end of their sentences and measures to strengthen rehabilitation and treatment programs for sex offenders.
We amended the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act to make it easier for peace officers to obtain DNA samples from suspects. We passed equally tough anti-gang measures, including the creation of the new criminal offence of participation in a criminal organization. These tougher sentencing provisions and additional police powers to seize the proceeds of crime and organized crime and to conduct surveillance of gangs have been used very frequently lately, especially in my home province.
We amended the Criminal Code to toughen the laws on child prostitution and child sex tourisms. We amended the Criminal Code to tighten the faint hope clause, making it more difficult for offenders to obtain the right to apply for early parole and to prohibit persons who commit multiple murders from using section 745. We amended the Criminal Code to ensure that those who commit crimes of hate receive harsher sentences. I could go on and on with the list but I know time is running out.
I want to reassure Canadians that this government will certainly not sit on its laurels. We have a very heavy agenda for the next session of parliament and we will continue to ensure that the priority we have set, not only in our ministry of the solicitor general but also the ministry of justice, the safety of Canadians, is met with concrete action.
