Nelson Riis

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my hon. friend from the Reform Party was suggesting that while overall crime has certainly decreased in Canada—thank goodness for that—violent crime involving young people appears not to have decreased. As a matter of fact it appears to have been somewhat on the increase. I think that is the point my friend was making about young people and violent crime which make the headlines.

There is unquestionably a problem with current immigration policies. He reminded us how generous Canada is. Indeed we are possibly the most generous country in the world in terms of welcoming folks into our country, in particular refugees.

I am concerned about two issues. One is about the number of people who come to Canada allegedly on a temporary visa and are guaranteed by a sponsor, or someone sponsors them, and then decide to go underground or abandon that process. We are left holding the tab and the sponsor is left not knowing where his colleague or relative is. Also there are people who sponsor people to come into the country and then essentially abandon that sponsorship.

When persons sponsor an individual, or guarantee that an individual is coming for a wedding, for a visit or whatever, has the hon. member given any thought to their posting a bond so that in the event the visitor chooses not to be a visitor the bond would be forfeited to help cover some of the costs that accrue to Canadian citizens? If a—

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I realize this looks a little funny since I am standing right beside the person making the presentation, but it is the only way I can make an intervention. I know my friend did not mean to be misrepresentative when he said that the Reform Party is the only party in the House of Commons that is concerned about safety in the streets. I wonder if I could ask my friend to clarify that for me.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's presentation and found it to be, as usual, thoughtful. It provided a number of useful suggestions.

One of the areas which I believe is currently being pursued by members from all parties in this House is the whole issue of consecutive sentencing for people who have committed a number of multiple crimes like murder, rape and violent assault. Is my friend one of the people supporting this initiative? Does he believe this is a step in the right direction in terms of sending a signal that there are people which society needs to be protected from, that in no way ought we ever to consider people who have committed a number of terrible crimes be released into the general public again?

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate a question from the hon. member for Saint John. In her emotional question she reflects the view on this issue of every member of parliament representing every Canadian. We have to take whatever steps are necessary to obliterate any use of child pornography.

Arising from our earlier discussions, if new legislation is required to send a very clear signal to our judiciary, so be it. We will pass that expeditiously. I am sure all parties would move on that. If it requires the use of the notwithstanding clause of our Constitution, we will suggest that we use that.

Essentially this behaviour is unacceptable by any clear thinking individual in society. We as a parliament will take whatever step is necessary to obliterate this blight as quickly as possible.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the inquiry by my friend from Vancouver Island North because he has identified one of the very serious issues confronting our society as a whole but particularly concentrated in some aboriginal communities, the whole issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and the victims of it.

It is fair to say that any individual suffering from the results of fetal alcohol syndrome will have a difficulty functioning well in society. People who have difficulty functioning in society often tend to be marginalized, tend to get into situations where there is very little hope in terms of having a successful future, and therefore often turn in desperation to acts of violent crime. Particularly they get caught up in substance abuse issues in their own communities or homes and violent crimes.

The member has done the debate a great deal of service by flagging an issue that is not only of concern to us all but probably ought to be much more of a concern: the ramifications of substance abuse generally in our communities. I thank my friend from Vancouver Island North. That is a positive aspect of this debate. We are all putting items on the table for consideration in the hopes that somebody somewhere is listening.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

They do not make enough money. I do not think we could pay police officers enough for the work they do on our behalf.

They were here the other day pointing out the frustration they experience in attempting to uphold the laws. We are probably not short of laws but it is the way the laws are being interpreted, the way they are being administered, and the way the judicial branch is dealing with the laws.

I will go back to the Shaw decision in British Columbia. We would be remiss today if we did not mention one of the more unfortunate issues relating to our corrections system, that is the large number of aboriginal inmates in our jails. A large number of first nations men and women are incarcerated in Canada by and large because they often cannot afford a good lawyer to argue their case. As a result of living in conditions that can only be akin to poverty and being unable to get the legal advice and support they require, they end up serving time in jail, which as someone said earlier is really a crime college.

If a young offender who is in some difficulty wants to become a full time criminal, there is no better place to learn the art of crime than in jail. If a young offender breaks the law in some form we have to be very cautious and see jail as a last resort. Steps need to be taken in an attempt to break the cycle of crime as opposed to sending the young person off to crime college, as I call it.

If we are to make our streets and neighbourhoods safe, we cannot rely on the police to do it. We cannot rely on the judicial system itself to do it. We all have to be part of the solution. In other words, communities have to buy into the fact that they too have to be part of the security.

I am thinking of the various protection plans which exist in neighbourhoods, the neighbourhood watch approach. People look out for one another. If they see a suspicious character they call the police. If someone is breaking down someone's back door, he is probably not an uncle trying to get in.

This brings me back to the whole issue of adequate funding for our police forces. I do not think there is a single jurisdiction in Canada or a single taxpayer in Canada that would not wilfully add a few cents to the tax load if it was going into better policing for neighbourhoods and safeguarding streets and communities across the country. I think we all admit that government funding when it comes to security, particularly in terms of funding our police forces, has not been sufficient. As a result Canada's security has suffered to a certain extent.

We have to send a signal, which I think this debate today will help to do, to the judicial aspect of our system in Canada. Many people have suggested that we have a good legal system but there is not much justice in it. Often we see justice being set aside for all kinds of spurious reasons. I hope the judges, particularly the ones that have made some terribly goofy decisions in the last little while, will take note of our discussions today.

I want to make an appeal in my closing comments. While we are dealing with crime and how to deal with those who break the law or have been alleged to have broken the law, we need to spend some time looking at the causes of crime. Why do people break laws? Why do people decide to do something they know is illegal?

I suspect there are two fundamental causes. One is people do goofy things. I am thinking particularly of many young offenders who do something as a result of youthful exuberance or a moment of misjudgment. They are not criminals; they just do something stupid. I suspect an odd one of us in this room has probably been in that category at one time or another.

Second, let us admit that a fundamental cause of crime is extremely dysfunctional families that have become dysfunctional often because of some element of poverty.

I am not linking poverty and crime. I am saying that high levels of poverty, excessive levels of poverty, often lead to very dysfunctional families and result in dysfunctional behaviour in society and consequently to crime. Let us spend some time on the causes of crime, not only on crime itself.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the rest of the day and this very scintillating debate. I am pleased to be participating in this debate.

I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have brought forward this motion to deal with the criminal justice system, to deal with the way laws are interpreted by the judiciary and to look into issues like child pornography, young offenders, home invasions, impaired driving, conditional sentencing, consecutive sentencing, correctional facilities, illegal immigration and a number of others.

I do not think we, and particularly members on the government side, should feel defensive. We will not suggest they are responsible for every aspect of our criminal justice system and its interpretation. We also will not suggest any party has the corner on truth when it comes to dealing with these issues.

However, it is important to share our points of view in hopes that some changes will occur. I do not expect a single member of parliament, if they were honest in terms of representing the views of their constituents, would say there not improvements to be made to the system.

The government has recently introduced changes to the Young Offenders Act which, on a personal basis, I believe is a step in the right direction as changes are obviously required. I think there are improvements that can be made to the bill. My friend from Quebec who just spoke pointed out some of his concerns. The Liberal member reflected the fact that we are being flexible so that communities in different parts of the country can be reflected in the way the Young Offenders Act is interpreted and used.

Perhaps it is a strength to acknowledge that parts of the country such as the province of Quebec have had incredible successes dealing with the young offender issue provincial jurisdictions much more than some other jurisdictions. We can therefore learn from them.

On the other hand, we have to be concerned that we will have a number of systems dealing with young offenders across the country that reflect these realities in parts of the country. Do we really want to have a justice system that is different in one part of Canada for some Canadians than in another part? There is a national standard when it comes to interpreting the Criminal Code. These are issues we have to discuss and consider.

My friend spent some time talking about the Shaw decision surrounding the issue of child pornography. I think I reflect all our views when I say we share a deep concern the moment it is legal to have child pornography in one's possession for personal use. One would have to ask what other use there would be. Building material? I doubt that. It is obviously for personal use.

In British Columbia a judge has said that it is okay to have child pornography in one's possession as long as one is using it for one's personal use. That is a terrible situation. I think MPs from all parties would say that is not right and that we will take steps to ensure that is changed. Every time there is an individual with child pornography of some sort in their home it means that some young people have been abused and taken advantage of in a most degrading circumstance.

This is obviously an issue of concern because we are hearing it today. The parliamentary secretary ought not to take these criticisms personally. We are simply putting them on the table and saying these are issues that must be dealt with in whatever form it might take. If it is a change to the Constitution by using the notwithstanding clause, so be it. If it requires new legislation, so be it.

There is also the issue of impaired driving. I think we are all concerned when we listen to our local divisions of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others and read their literature about the carnage on our highways that is attached to those people who, for whatever set of reasons, choose to drink and drive. Perhaps we need to get a little tougher on them.

I think it was the state of New York that announced a change in policy where if someone is found to be driving his or her vehicle and drinking, the vehicle is impounded and sold. The driver does not get it back under any circumstances. That will slow people down and make people think twice. It is hard to say whether that is a solution but we have to look at all aspects.

On a personal basis, there is the issue of illegal immigration. This is a huge topic and deserves a full day of debate in the House of Commons. There are a lot of people who work hard to enter Canada in legal ways by going through all the proper channels in time consuming processes and so on. We also see people who short-circuit the system and then go underground. There are thousands of people who abuse our immigration laws in that way and therefore wreck it for those who are legitimate applicants. This is something we have to take more seriously.

In the last few days I think we all had visits by police forces across the country, the RCMP and others. They visited almost every member of parliament, pointing out their incredible frustration with working hard to nail some drug dealer only to see the drug dealer getting off in court on some bloody technicality and being out there hours later selling drugs on the street to young people. There are all kinds of abuses. I do not know how police officers can stand it.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my hon. friend has made an error in his comment. He was suggesting that funding for health care was 50:50. Is he suggesting that the government is not holding up its end?

[Petitions, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents from the great city of Kamloops.

They point out a number of concerns they have with the fact that the Government of Canada signs international trade agreements which lock the hands of future governments in terms of making decisions on behalf of a variety of issues.

I will not elaborate but the petition goes on at some length in terms of what these concerns are. Essentially they are asking parliament to look into the matter.

[Petitions, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are concerned about the long term viability of our pension system and are worried that the existing pension system does not ensure an adequate pension for all Canadians and they are asking for a complete review.