TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, May 12, 1994
Motion moved and agreed to 4233
Motion moved and agreed to. 4233
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 4241
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4265
Motion moved and carried. 4267
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4267
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4272
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4272
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4274
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4274
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4275
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4275
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4276
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4276
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4276
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4277
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4278
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4278
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4278
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4279
Consideration resumed of motion 4279
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 4283
Motion for concurrence in 21st report 4291
Consideration resumed of motion 4291
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4293
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4294
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4296
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4297
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.18 p.m.) 4298
The House resumed at 5.31 p.m. 4299
Consideration resumed of motion 4299
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 4300
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 4300
Consideration resumed of motion 4300
(Amendment agreed to.) 4302
4233
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 12, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages this morning the
fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning
Bill S-2, an act to implement a convention between Canada and
the Republic of Hungary, an agreement between Canada and the
Republic of Nigeria, an agreement between Canada and the
Republic of Zimbabwe, a convention between Canada and the
Argentine Republic and a protocol between Canada and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double
taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to
income taxes and to make related amendments to other acts. The
committee agreed to report the bill without amendment.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That the House authorize the Subcommittee on the St. Lawrence Seaway of
the Standing Committee on Transport to travel to Quebec City from May 23 to
25, 1994, to St. Catharines and Thunder Bay from May 31 to June 3, 1994, and
to Washington, D.C. from June 6 to 7, 1994 for the purpose of holding informal
hearings on the viability of the St. Lawrence seaway and that the necessary staff
do accompany the subcommittee.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That one researcher from the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized
to attend the Canadian Transportation Research Forum in Victoria, B.C., from
May 15 to May 18, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) concerning forestry practices in
Canada in clear-cutting, the House authorize the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources to travel from May 23 to 26, 1994 to British Columbia and Alberta, and
in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick on May 30 and 31, 1994, and that the
necessary personnel do accompany the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I have the
privilege this morning to present this petition on behalf of
citizens of my riding, places like Mallorytown and Athens and
Addison and Smiths Falls and Lyn, asking for the government to
amend the laws of the country to prohibit the importation,
distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards, and to advise
the producers of these cards that their product, if destined for
Canada, will be stopped at the border, seized and destroyed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions
be allowed to stand.
4234
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4234
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby) moves:
That this House urge the government to respond to the evident lack of
confidence that has arisen from Canadians over the Young Offenders Act, and
recommend modification to the definition of ``young persons'' in section 2(1) of
the act to mean a person to be ten years of age or more, but under 16 years of age.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of national
importance. Our country is hurting. The basic foundation of
what we have known as peace, order and good government has
been called into question by Canadians. Specifically in relation
to the juvenile justice system there is anger in the land.
The community is divided and there is much fear and
mistrust. Our youth, the promise for our future, are seen by
many not as our hopeful legacy for tomorrow but as strangers to
be feared.
Youth speak differently, they do not want to dress anything
like the rest of us, they do not seem to value or give due regard to
what we hold dear. It has been that way since the second world
war, since the emergence of a youth subculture.
Now there is a fundamental difference. Young people are
getting an unfair bad rap for our lack of courage as a community
to expect and demand standards of behaviour and mete out
balanced consequences when the social order is threatened by
the violent young. And when some young people excessively
display their youthfulness there is immediate fear and
resentment from the bystander, a sense of helplessness.
There is a backdrop of community perception that there is no
accounting for any behavioural excess. The right to live in peace
has evaporated and the fear of violence from the few becomes
transferred on to all good kids. Instead of fondly regarding our
young, the image of delinquent is what too frequently comes to
mind. The good many are categorized by the bad few.
Indeed there is an innate sense that the fundamental social
order of the community has broken down when the average
Canadian thinks of youth crime, for we have a justice system
that has devolved to one of being merely a legal system that
seems unresponsive and unaccountable to the community.
The Liberals gave us the Young Offenders Act. The
Conservatives tinkered with it. We have now lived with its
consequences for 10 years and I have heard loud and clear that
voters in my riding and all across Canada do not like the YOA.
They will no longer tolerate the YOA in its present form.
I do not need to remind my colleagues in this House that the
buck stops here. We have brought forward our motion today on
behalf of the millions of Canadians who said clearly to
candidates in the last election that specifically the Young
Offenders Act is not what the country wants.
(1015 )
This national concern involves a sense of public security and
the ability of the government to fulfil its most fundamental duty
to protect and defend the citizenry.
My motion before the House today says:
That this House urge the government to respond to the evident lack of
confidence that has arisen from Canadians over the Young Offenders Act, and
recommend modification to the definition of ``young person'' in section 2(1) of
the act to mean a person to be ten years of age or more, but under sixteen years of
age.
It is simply put but I am all too aware of the issues that are not
simple. Changing one statute is not going to solve all the
problems of youth crime and social conflict but we must make a
start and the Young Offenders Act is itself a reasonable place to
begin justice reform.
Through change we can set a climate of balance and
reasonableness that appropriately understands human nature
and the propensities for greed, selfishness and personal denial of
accountability.
The Young Offenders Act reflects an unrealistic view of
ourselves as a society and it also has rejected the wise parent
model of the preceding juvenile delinquents act. There was a
mistaken belief that grand schemes of top down, social
do-goodism would reform human nature. When the community
experienced in real terms the pragmatic results of what had been
done to it by this House, the reaction of revulsion began to build.
While the Young Offenders Act formalized old informal
practices, guaranteed access to legal counsel and made a more
litigious process, the essence of the act sent the wrong message
to the community. To verify and bolster those notions to the
doubting Liberals who are loathe to admit that they were sorely
wrong, Reformers are trying other measures to check
perceptions of what the community appears to want.
We now have the technology to have universal suffrage on
individual issues of the day. MT&T Technologies televoting
service makes universal suffrage a reality. It enables all citizens
to vote in an election or respond to a question of the day by using
the telephone.
4235
Voters call a special telephone number to access the
teledemocracy system and enter their own personal
identification number, or PIN number. After hearing the survey
questions, voters press a key to vote yes or no and, then press the
pound key to confirm their vote.
It provides a cost effective way to poll a large group of people
on an issue. It is an ideal process to gather information, confirm
proposals and it provides an additional check on attitudes
beyond opinion sampling and traditional methods. The accuracy
of what polling companies produce is always a problem of
sample size, structure and other things. The MT&T
Technologies televoting service provides the largest possible
sample size even beyond what traditional paper balloting and a
general election might provide.
My colleague, the member for North Vancouver, has signed a
contract to experiment with this technology on the questions of
the Young Offenders Act. When Reformers set aside one of their
few allotted days to bring a motion of debate to this House, we
are following the bottom up community accountability model
that is at the heart of the Reform Party.
We are prepared to test in scientific terms with the real broad
base data what the community mood is and verify what we have
already come up with through traditional methods. If anyone
wants to learn more about this process, call anytime to area code
(604) 666-8378. I will repeat that number again in a moment.
In addition to the specific televote that will take place in
North Vancouver in June, there will also be a more general style
of phone in opinion poll at the same time available to the whole
country. If the media has the social responsibility to report it,
people across the country will hear the number and be able to
participate.
One need not only take the Reform Party's word that the
community is fed up with the Young Offenders Act. We will be
checking again through the method of teledemocracy. The
Young Offenders Act is the title of it and I say let it live up to its
name and be amended so that it truly deals with young offenders,
not youthful adults.
There are many ideas for changing the statute. I heard scores
of them from criminologists, program analysis bureaucrats of
provincial ministries, from police, street workers and above all,
young people themselves. I am speaking from years of
experience working within the juvenile justice system and I ask
who runs the justice system anyway, the criminals, the lawyers,
the courts, correctional authorities, probation and parole
officers? That seems to be how it has operated.
There have been some partial attempts here and there to keep
the community involved but the broad community must have
ownership in the operations of the justice system. It should not
operate solely in a delegated sense, what government does for us
in what we cannot do for ourselves.
(1020)
While the social order begins at the family unit and should be
supported and enhanced by our institutions, schools and
community organizations, at some point the buck stops.
For juvenile crime community accountability arises in the
formal court proceedings. When the bottom line is too diffuse
there is unnecessary hurt and injury to the innocent. The
community must have the tools to publicly denounce behaviour
that is unacceptable.
Canadians want action. We can move beyond just a desire for
peace, order and good government to a land that is just, that
cares for its victims and casualties. We must protect the weak
and innocent as we deal courageously with offenders. There are
many ways to teach productive conflict resolution. We must
break the cycle of kids who are hurting who go on to hurt others.
I have heard a bulging briefcase full of reasons why we should
not do this or that with the Young Offenders Act. I bring to this
House some personal experiences. I will recount how the Young
Offenders Act did not serve them when they somehow became
involved as victims.
I recall Darrel who at 11 years old was lighting fires at school
and in the neighbourhood. The school had some difficulties
handling him. The social worker from social services had
nothing to offer the parents other than a parenting course and a
medical referral through their doctor for a six month wait to see
a child psychiatrist.
He was too young for the Young Offenders Act. Group homes
could not not accommodate a pyromaniac. The impulsive lad
wanted help, he wanted controls and those who knew him were
in fear of what he might do next. As a probation officer all I
could do was assess and refer.
Despite the best efforts of loving parents, when subsequently
showing off to friends Darrel started a fire in the elementary
school in the evening. When the fire was noticed by the
neighbours they saw kids running. When all was said and done,
$1 million later half the school and burned down and 600
students were displaced for a year.
As he was not a child in need of care and protection social
welfare had no mandate. Mental health had no mandate other
than providing community family therapy as the lad was not
mentally disturbed. Darrel needed the cycle of his anger and
self-centredness broken by a formal court denunciation. He
could have also benefited from a court ordered correctional style
wilderness camp program. That did come later when he was 12.
The YOA did not serve him or the community.
I remember Brent. He had always been wilful, taking things
that did not belong to him. He worked his way through the YOA
diversions, restitution orders, community work service hours,
very short term custody and the extensive probation order
conditions. He was given break after break. His juvenile file I
4236
called one of those 10-pounders. At 17 he murdered an
acquaintance with a stab to the chest.
Brent was a time bomb waiting to go off as he dared the
authorities to knock the chip off his shoulder. He took a life
instead. That is not the end of it. He was placed on remand in
custody in the youth detention centre. His girlfriend was
allowed to visit with his mother and many friends. Visiting in a
youth custody centre especially for someone only on a remand
before any guilty finding was fairly lax. He and his girlfriend
quarrelled and he hanged himself in the shower. When they cut
him down he was brain damaged. Forever now he will be
supported by the province as an invalid who cannot look after
himself, hardly able to say a word, barely recognizing anyone.
The YOA did not serve him nor the dead victim nor the extended
family members.
He planned his hell raising until he turned 18 like the bad
example of his brother before him, but this time it did not work
out. A different law would have made a difference. These are
just two examples from my personal experience that would have
turned out very differently had the YOA been constituted the
way I am recommending today.
We have some specific proposals. If Reform were government
today we would have already acted. The motion today of course
is the most fundamental. I can just imagine the reaction from the
Prime Minister to what we will be saying today from this corner
of the House-a shrug, a recounting that some want a little of
this and some want a little of that; but we are not going to panic,
just trust us, stress the positive, do not worry, be happy, this is
really what the Canadians want to hear.
However, let Canada remember this day who was the justice
minister when the Young Offenders Act was passed. It was the
Prime Minister. What a legacy he has left us. If people want to
blame someone for the juvenile justice system the blame can
rightfully be laid at the cabinet door of this government.
The east-west cold war is over. The major threat to our
communities now is from within, our own inaction to preserve,
protect and defend.
(1025 )
Sadly our laws and mores have been driven by the cultural
conceits that took hold during the heyday of counterculture,
including a denial of personal responsibility and the fantasy that
coercive power of big government can produce an uplift to the
spirit, cure poverty and bigotry, legislate economic growth and
stamp out any number of individual and social inadequacies.
In the 1980s the Young Offenders Act initially took up and
formalized the best of what we in British Columbia had already
been doing for years with diversion strategies, alternative
measures, forest camps, borstals, volunteer probation programs,
open custody units and local level innovation.
Then the spirit of innovation was bargained away at the last
minute against the best advice just to get a deal with the divided
provinces. If we did nothing else to this act than change the age
of application it would go a long way to an efficacious result and
assuage public concern.
The Young Offenders Act should apply to 10 to 15-year olds
inclusive, not the current 12 to 17 years inclusive.
Next, provision 3.1 of the declaration of principle section
should include the needs and rights of victims equally with the
concerns of the offender. Section 9.7 should include provisions
to have victims formally notified of court proceedings as well as
the parents of a young offender. Section 16, transfers to adult
court, should be possible for any youth under the act not just
those 14 years and over.
The crown prosecutor should have the prerogative to proceed
directly in adult court without transfer hearings against youths
14 and over where the crown believes circumstances warrant.
There is no need for a long trial to decide where the real trial will
be heard in such circumstances.
Section 17 should simply be repealed. The public has a right
to know about young offender transfer hearings. Although youth
court is usually open to the public one cannot publish or report
any part of the proceedings that would identify the offender.
Under section 22 related to mental health treatment the judge
should not need the permission of the offender he is sentencing
to impose an order to attend a program.
Section 24, when a judge sentences to custody, should be just
that, custody. The correctional authorities administer what kind
of custody, assigning offenders within the range of open and
closed facilities as the changing needs arise as in the adult
sector. Let the jailers do the jailing and the courts do the
sentencing.
Section 38 should be repealed and nothing should be
substituted. When the law is broken an offender's right of
privacy about their offence should not exist. Crime needs to be
exposed, not hidden.
Section 44.1 should permit as well appropriate dissemination
of youth records and materials also to school board authorities.
Section 46 against prohibition of disclosure of identifying a
youth should also be repealed. There should be no restrictions.
Justice must be seen to be done as well as done.
Section 45.1 should be repealed and not replaced with any
other measure. A youth court should be a criminal record and the
rules dealing with those records should be one and the same as
adult records.
4237
A new measure should be added to section 50.1 and it should
be that if a parent fails to reasonably exercise parental duty the
court should be able to order the parent to pay a victim
compensation for property loss for vandalism.
Section 56 should be repealed as the common law practice and
current court rules in regular courts are more than sufficient to
deal with statements made by offenders for evidence. If it is
good enough for the regular court system it should be good
enough for young offenders.
Finally, the operation of show-cause hearings and the interim
release on bail for offenders must be tightened up to stop the
revolving door. There is nothing more disheartening to citizens
than to see charged offenders on the street the next day after the
arrest.
There must be a surety that offending will be reported and
denounced by a formal process. Both the offender and the
offended must be responded to. The offender must realize and
feel the impact of their criminal behaviour on victims and
receive consequences commensurate to the crime.
Victims must be helped and restored as far as that is possible
by both a caring community and a justice system that will defend
them.
In closing, I summarize by saying I have outlined today
specific proposals that are needed to bring confidence back to
the juvenile justice system. Canadians want sweeping change
now not another study, commission or round of extensive
consultations. The minister has in his hand over 1,000 recent
submissions from Canadians. We have done more than enough
of that sort of thing.
If the community wants to be involved to directly share its
views, call the telephone number I am about to give and learn
how to use MT&T Technologies televoting service. Send this
government a message. Call area code (604) 666-8378 and
interact with the line to learn more about how the televoting
service will be used in June. The evidence is in on what the
public wants. It remains to be seen if the government has the will
to respond.
(1030)
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the comments of the hon. member and I share his view
that Canadians are most dissatisfied with the Young Offenders
Act.
However I am somewhat concerned that on the eve of a
re-examination of the Young Offenders Act, or a first
examination of the Young Offenders Act on its 10th anniversary,
it would appear the member has his mind closed before we have
even begun to examine and test the 10 years' experience we have
under the Young Offenders Act.
The Young Offenders Act is not a creature that was spawned
out of nowhere. This is the successor act to the Juvenile
Delinquents Act of 1911. Many of the things that the hon.
member is complaining about were dealt with in the Juvenile
Delinquents Act. When Parliament in the mid-eighties decided
to bring the treatment of young offenders into the eighties,
instead of into the early 1900s, certain decisions were made.
I understand the hon. member's comments, and he was very
specific in the sections of the act, but I want to be more general.
The general philosophy is that there is a difference between a
young offender, particularly a first time young offender, and an
adult who has committed an offence against the Criminal Code.
I am not talking here about repeat offenders.
This is my question for the hon. member. I wonder if he has a
problem with the philosophy that a young person, perhaps 12 or
13 years old, who for whatever reason, whatever economic
circumstances may be, walks into a local convenience store and
steals a chocolate bar or some other small item, perhaps a pen
for school, and is apprehended. Does he think that young person
should be treated in exactly the same way as an adult criminal? I
do not think so.
As a society we believe that young people make mistakes.
They are not adults. They do things wrong. I am not talking
about murder. I am not talking about violent offences. I am not
talking about people who thumb their noses at the court system
because they have been in it 15 times. I am talking about the
person who makes a mistake and should in my view be given a
chance to rehabilitate himself without having the stigma of a
record and without having the stigma of classmates, et cetera,
knowing what happened.
I speak from personal experience. I will not go into a long
speech. I had a friend that this exact thing happened to under the
juvenile delinquents act. His name was never published.
Nothing ever came out. He did not appear in adult court. He was
treated under the juvenile delinquents act. It was a humiliating
experience for him. He is a fine, upstanding citizen today, has
never been in trouble with the law since the age of 14. I hate to
think what would have happened if we had been spreading his
name all over the place.
Is there not room in the Young Offenders Act for first
offenders and treating young people differently on their first
offence than adults?
Mr. Forseth: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond.
Certainly this is not the first examination of juvenile justice.
The Young Offenders Act has been amended since first passage.
I also remind him that I was a part of trying to administer the old
juvenile delinquents act in the field and was a part of
federal-provincial conferences that went on for years, round
and round.
I am saying perhaps our mind is closed, but others have
resisted the response from the community. The basic example
that he provided was of a first-time young person who makes a
mistake and steals a chocolate bar. In my experience in the
practice in British Columbia, that person would not be charged
4238
but they would be dealt with through alternative measures of the
Young Offenders Act.
Similarly an adult, a first-time offender, who steals a
chocolate bar in the adult system would not be charged either but
would also be referred by the crown for adult diversion.
There is more than enough discretion at all levels of the
justice system for it to operate and accommodate the extreme
examples cited.
(1035 )
My point is that we need some balance and proportionality. It
is not a matter of social philosophy coming from a particular
political point of view. It is the experience of communities right
across this nation that has arisen from the practical application
of the act in the community. If it was the appropriate balance,
one would expect that the community would be responding in an
appropriate way with some measure of confidence. However,
the lack of confidence related in our motion is what we have and
that is the empirical evidence of results in the field.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I listened closely both to the speech of the member who
moved the Reform Party motion and to the comments of the
other member, and I am not convinced, as has just been stated,
that all Canadians are dissatisfied with the current Young
Offenders Act. I think that as far as the public is concerned, this
is a highly emotional issue. It is a subject ideally suited to long
philosophical debates and above all, I do not feel that the
average joe should have the final say on this matter merely by
picking up a telephone and registering his views.
Young people are treated differently by the print media and we
are seeing this more and more, precisely because we are dealing
with a young person. Stories involving youths make the front
page in all of the tabloids. Recently, one particular case in the
region received front-page coverage for an entire week, and it is
still being talked about today. I think that the newspapers make a
big issue of it when a typical case arises and that their coverage
directly influences how people feel.
I am somewhat disappointed with the comments of the
member who moved the motion, in that he never quoted
statistics to support his proposed amendments. He never once
mentioned if indeed the crime rate among young persons
between the ages of 10 and 12 had increased dramatically, to the
point where drastic action was required to deal with the
situation.
Well, I have some statistics which I would like to share with
him and I would be interested in getting his comments.
The most telling figures are those concerning the homicide
rate among young people. I think this is the issue which the
motion before us wants to address. In 1981-I do not have very
recent figures but I was told yesterday in response to my
inquiries that the data is being compiled and that I would get it
eventually- thirteen murders were committed by young people
in Quebec, and thirty-four elsewhere in Canada. In 1982, nine
such cases were reported in Quebec and twenty-three elsewhere
in Canada, and for 1983, there were three cases in Quebec and
twenty elsewhere in Canada. The most recent figures I have are
for 1986 when six murders were committed by young people in
Quebec, and twenty-two by young people elsewhere in Canada.
Furthermore, the general crime rate among young people has
declined by 8 per cent in the province of Quebec, and by 34 per
cent in the metropolitan Montreal area. There were 34 per cent
fewer crimes in 1993 than in 1992. Does the member have
statistics to the contrary? If so, I would ask that he disclose them
so as to justify the motion put before us this morning.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I certainly question the statement,
``where Canadians are coming from''. I believe the motion
today represents a nation's outcry of dissatisfaction with the
Young Offenders Act.
As far as the statistics that he quotes are concerned, I would
have to examine them. We are not saying that we have a massive
crime wave from young offenders. We are saying that the
community is basically at a disadvantage with the operations of
the juvenile justice system.
Beyond just quoting statistics, the law must be educative. It
also must send the right message to the community. When you
ask young people where I come from what is their view of the
Young Offenders Act, they think it is a soft touch, that it is
inappropriate. The act must represent what is socially
appropriate in our nation.
We say the title of the Young Offenders Act truly must deal
with young offenders.
(1040 )
In this age of social sophistication, certainly someone who is
old enough to get a driver's licence and aim that weapon of a car
down the street should be held accountable for their driving
offences, their drunk driving or whatever it may be in a regular
adult court system.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on this
motion this morning because it is a very important topic.
4239
As the member who presented the motion has said, it is of
concern to a great many Canadians. However this concern is not
necessarily for the reasons that he said. There is a great deal of
concern in Canada for our youth, for our next generation; where
they are going and what they will have when they become adults
and lead the actual direction of the country.
We in the Liberal Party will be bringing forward legislation in
June to deal with some of the concerns that the hon. member has
brought forward. Whether these changes will meet with his
approval or not, no one can say until he actually sees them. We
will, however, be bringing forward a first phase in June that will
deal with changes to the Young Offenders Act and to some
degree will harshen penalties for young offenders.
The second phase is a study beginning in the fall of the Young
Offenders Act. This complete review of the Young Offenders
Act will determine what changes should be made to the act in
light of the changes that were being recommended in June, and
other changes which need to be made to accommodate the
concerns of the people of Canada.
We will be hearing witnesses and the committee, I presume,
will be travelling. It will be a complete and detailed study. The
concern of course is that we must look at this act not from the
point of view of a concern of the people of Canada-
An hon. member: No?
Mr. MacLellan: -but also from the concern of the young
people themselves. We must look at the young people as being
part of the people of Canada.
There is tremendous concern in the public but it is a concern
for the safety of Canadians. It is concern with the youth and it is
concern about where we are going as a country. We need to look
at this question completely.
The hon. member who presented the motion states that we
should reduce the maximum age of the young offender from 18
to 16 and the minimum age from 12 to 10. This is a dramatic
change and one that will come up in our study of the Young
Offenders Act in the fall.
Let me take the first part, the reduction of the maximum age
from 18 to 16. We are saying that there has to be punishment for
young offenders but we are not saying that young offenders are
going to be put away for the rest of their natural lives. Even if we
have transfers and these young people serve the full 25 years,
someone who is 17 will be out before even middle age.
We have to acknowledge that these young offenders will be
back on the street. What kind of people are we going to put back
on the street? We send some young offenders, 16 to 18, to a
maximum security penitentiary. Some might have to. Some
might be considered as incorrigible.
(1045)
As a rule of thumb, if we take away the Young Offenders Act
for that two year period we will be sending young people 16 and
17 years old to penitentiary, not necessarily for murder and not
necessarily for violent crimes. That is not going to be in the act.
There is no way of saying we have to restrict these young people
going to maximum security because they committed a murder or
a violent crime. We are taking them off the Young Offenders
Act. They will have to forage for themselves if they are in the
system in the same way as somebody 35 or 40 years old. They
will be in a penitentiary and open to sexual and physical abuse.
If that is what the hon. member and the Reform Party wants,
then they should come forward and say it. However, that is not
going to give us the type of person we want in our society upon
release after they have paid their debt to society. What we want
to do is try to put somebody back in society who is not going to
reoffend, not somebody who is so mad and bitter at society and
what it has done that they will want to reoffend to get back at
society.
Sure, there has to be protection. Certainly we have to protect
the victims. There is no question that legislation first and
foremost has to be concerned with that, but we also have to have
rehabilitation. There are people who say that rehabilitation is
just soft peddling the treatment we are going to give to the
offender but that is not the case.
Rehabilitation is going to be a vital part of our society
whether we like it or not. If we do not have rehabilitation for
children at risk in one form or another we are going to have
chaos in our society. Our young people are going to be the source
of criticism for all of the adults in Canada.
Why should this be? Why should we in Canada be at war and
at loggerheads with our own youth? Why should we say we are
making young people the objects of concern and fear in our
country? Young people are committing crimes and we say they
have to be punished. They have to be punished with the victim
and the Canadian public primarily in mind, but remember also
the fact that the youth will be back in our society.
That is just one aspect and it is not the one which is going to
have the utmost importance in the long term. We have to punish
the offenders now. More important and for a more sweeping
benefit to society, we have to do everything we possibly can to
stop crime from happening in the future.
That is why the main thrust of this government in justice and
public safety has to be crime prevention. That is not just crime
prevention of those who have already committed crimes; it is to
prevent crime from happening.
As we learned in the justice committee in the last Parliament,
the older a young person is, the less likely rehabilitation is to
have an effect. It is vitally important that rehabilitation start at
the very moment children are determined to be at risk. A
psychiatrist who appeared before the justice committee told us
4240
that the most important age for preventing children at risk and
dealing with this concern is from the day the child is born to his
or her third birthday. That is a very young age.
We have to look at this. We have to look at custody. We have to
look at foster homes. So many young people are moved from one
foster home to another. There is no bonding with any one family.
That is a concern we will have to deal with.
(1050)
We are concerned that there are single parents who have to
work but do not have anybody to look after their children after
school because they cannot afford daycare. That is something
we will have to consider. We may not like it and we may not
think we should be bothered with it but we have to consider it
and deal with it.
There is divorce in this country and there are single parents.
We have to recognize that these things are in our society and we
have to work together. This is one community. We have to bring
the provinces onside about rehabilitating young offenders,
about diversification programs and community work instead of
putting them in detention.
We also have to do something in the schools. The federal
government cannot tell the provinces what must be done in the
schools; it is a provincial jurisdiction. Sure we have the Canada
food guide and we tell young people what they should and
should not be eating, but we have to respect the Constitution.
However we have to work with the provinces on spotting these
children at risk while they are in the schools to try to deal with
them. We have to support our teachers and one another
provincially and federally in this very important area. If we do
not, we will surely lose many of our young people.
Young people do commit crimes and it is a tragedy for the
victims. The victims are going to lose their children who in
many cases have been murdered by young offenders. The
parents will never get over this ultimate tragedy. Surely there is
no greater tragedy for a parent. I do not think anyone in this
House would minimize that. Every time I think about this it
sends chills through me. That is something we are going to have
to deal with regarding young offenders and a punishment will be
needed.
However we also have to try to spot these young people who
may commit murder or other crimes in the future, and
rehabilitate them before they actually commit a crime. That is a
vital aspect of the society in which we live.
The most important area is one we keep covering up and that
is child abuse. It is now being determined that as high as 80 per
cent of adults who commit child sexual abuse were themselves
sexually abused. The studies show no differentiation indicating
that a child who is sexually abused one time as opposed to 20
times that the child is going to be more of an abuser or less of an
abuser.
The fact remains if a child is sexually abused we can say
without any hesitation that child stands a greater than 50 per
cent chance of abusing a child. That is a frightening statistic.
However, if we do not start dealing with crime prevention, it is
going to escalate. Child sexual abuse will be with us in at least
the proportions it is now.
We have to address this concern. We have to because it is
ruining children's lives. We have to look at the question of child
prostitution. There are pimps who use children of any age now,
12 years or younger, but certainly under the age of 18 and they
profit financially from their prostitution.
What is that doing to those young people? What kind of
punishment are we giving these pimps? Some would say it is
absolutely devastating the lives of those young people. It is
psychologically hurting and damaging them beyond repair.
Their adult lives will not have anywhere near the meaning they
would have had if this had not happened to them.
(1055 )
These are questions society has to deal with. How are we
going to deal with them? Sure, we are going to deal with crimes
by punishing the offenders, but we as Canadians have to
examine this whole question of children at risk in our society.
This has to be done by bringing forward a national council on
crime prevention, as the Minister of Justice is proposing. It will
have representatives from various federal and provincial
departments and other organizations. It will look at this whole
question and at legislation to see if it deals with every aspect that
could lessen and prevent crime in our society.
As communities we have to get people working together: the
police, Children's Aid, Elizabeth Fry, John Howard, drug
dependency, and Alcoholics Anonymous. As individuals in our
community we have to look at this question from the point of
view of children in our neighbourhoods and stop crime before it
happens. We have to help young people, not as parents, uncles,
aunts or other relatives, but as members of the community. We
have to realize that unless we do that we are going to have
escalating offences by youth.
We have to look at it from that point of view, but the fact is we
are not. In some of our cities there are young people of colour
who have come to Canada from other countries with minimal
education. They may be 16 or 17 years old. They are not going to
sit in a classroom with children 10 years younger than they are.
They do not have jobs. There is still a lot of prejudice out there.
There is also the fact that we are not employing our young
people the way we should. There are things against these young
people.
4241
What are they going to do? They want those things young
people feel they can aspire to, so a lot of them turn to drugs and
crime. We have to examine that. We cannot ignore that in our
inner cities. It has been ignored in the United States and look
what has happened. There are certain parts of cities in the United
States the police will not even go into. Is that what we want? No.
We have to salvage these lives not only for the benefit of the
individuals themselves, but for all Canadians so that they will be
contributing to our country's future. This country is going to be
in the hands of these young people in a few years.
I want members of the House to talk to young people. I do not
want them to forgive their crimes. I do not want them to say the
crimes they are committing are right or that they are
misunderstood. That does not help them. It does not help to put
them in detention and have them play pool and watch television.
They have to realize this is a harsh world. They know this, but it
is from a different perspective.
Young people are really scared. They do not see a future for
themselves. They do not see the jobs. A lot of them have
problems in school and at home. A lot of them feel society is
mixed up. We are not concerned with one another and that
bothers young people. Young people do not become cynical and
uncaring until they become adults. Young people are concerned
that we are not looking out for one another and that we are not
listening to their concerns. We must listen.
We have to start with identifying children at risk. We have to
look at our society and ask how as Canadians we can help these
young people. If we do that we will reduce crime. If we can stop
sexual child abuse we will help future generations. We will be
working with Canadians of the future. We have to bring forward
changes to the Young Offenders Act because society is ahead of
us; we have not kept pace with the situation out there right now.
(1100)
It gives me no pleasure to say that we have to create harsher
penalties for young offenders; but we have to because of the
situation that exists right now. We have allowed the situation to
get out of hand. We as parliamentarians cannot allow it to
become worse. We cannot allow the situation to escalate.
We have to deal with crime. We have to deal with the causes of
crime. We have to say to our young people: ``We want to work
with you for the benefit of Canada. You obey the laws and we
will do our best to understand what you are going through and
what your problems are''.
Eighteen is the age used throughout the world. It is the age
recognized by the United Nations. Rolling the age back from 18
to 16 will not help youth in our society. The government will
address changes to the Young Offenders Act beginning in June.
We also have to address the causes of crime and understanding
our youth.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, frankly I have
sat through this presentation just shaking my head. I have heard
a lot more of the same: what we have heard from bleeding heart
Liberals over the past 10 years. I am really concerned about that.
It was reflected in the hon. member's statement about
16-year-olds ending up in the prison system and being abused
by 30 and 40 year old prisoners. Instead of dealing with the
problem directly by fixing up the prison system, he used that as
an argument against our changes in age in the Young Offenders
Act. Again and again I have seen problems being dealt with in
any way but a direct, head on approach. I think we need more
direct dealing with problems head on.
I have a comment and a question for the member. I think he
argued in favour of the change we are proposing when he talked
about pimps. The hon. member asked what kind of punishment
we were giving to pimps. Does he not think that there are more
and more 16 and 17 year old pimps who are covered under the
Young Offenders Act and cannot be dealt with properly?
That question and the answer to that question support the
argument in favour of the changes we are proposing today. I
would just ask the hon. member if that is the case.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, prostitution and juvenile
prostitution in society are escalating. We could say there are
more pimps under and over the age of 18 years than there were
ever before. That is a fact in our society; that is happening.
To say that this is a reason for toughening the Young
Offenders Act does not make sense to me. There are laws to deal
with pimps and those who profit from youth prostitution. We
have to look at those laws. We have to examine them to see if
they are strong enough. There is no question. That is why I
raised it.
The fact of the matter is that we have to look at why we have
16-year old pimps. How does this happen in society? Will
punishing them stop it? It has never stopped it before. The only
way we can stop it is to try to get to the root of the problem in
society. We have to do that.
To say it is simplistic and we are glossing over the problem is
the furthest thing from the truth. Crime prevention and citizen
participation in crime prevention are everybody's business.
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Justice and I must say that I agree to a great extent with his
diagnosis and the values on which his position is based. Having
worked with him for several months on the issue of gun control
4242
when he was in opposition, I recognize today both his
open-mindedness and his concern.
There is one aspect of his approach however that leaves me
wondering about what will happen in the communities in the
future. While I agree on the whole with his position on youth in
general, we know young repeat offenders present specific
problems. I think special attention should be paid to that aspect,
particularly to adults using young people to commit crimes.
We have seen it happen in the context of cigarette smuggling.
It was obvious in that case, but it also exists elsewhere and there
are no provisions on this at present. We should look not only at
young offenders but also at the adults who exploit them. Perhaps
that aspect of the legislation is the one that needs the most to be
changed, to ensure that adults who use young people to commit
crimes be given punishments commensurate with their actions.
So, the problem is not only with the Young Offenders Act, but
also with the law as it applies to the adults who exploit them.
We are well aware, in the present belt-tightening climate, and
that is my main concern, that public services for the young
people in general will not be expanded. Let us face it, public
services are undergoing cuts. But at a time when public services
do not expand, a special effort must be made to strengthen the
mechanisms and tools of community spirit.
Take the current situation in a riding like mine where we have
youth centers and, in neighbourhoods where there is more
violence or prostitution, we also have streetworkers from
community organizations. Do you know what these
organizations live on? They live on temporary job creation
programs, commonly called DEPs or section 25s.
Right now in Montreal, do you know what the situation is
since April 1? We are told there will be no more regular DEPs,
and operating funds for section 25 programs will be cut. We are
talking about insignificant amounts in the scheme of things, a
few million in a $20 billion budget. Can the parliamentary
secretary at least undertake to send a clear message to the
Minister of Human Resources Development so that, in an urban
area like ours, such inexpensive programs be maintained to
support community spirit because these are being chipped away
as it is? The very means on which we are supposed to build a
better society are being taken away.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
the hon. member. I must say I agree with a lot of what he has
said.
It is a concern. In the province of Quebec a year or so ago they
advertised publicly for women who were being abused to come
to the shelters or to the available facilities to receive treatment
and help. Within a matter of a few weeks the facilities were so
overloaded they had to stop the advertising. That gives us an
idea of the problem there.
With respect to assistance, assistance has to be maintained.
The Minister of Human Resources Development understands
that. I have spoken with him on this matter. I made another
suggestion which the provinces could maybe deal with. We have
a pilot project in New Brunswick where a thousand or so older
members of society who are 55 to 65 years of age but not retired
are guaranteed so many weeks work in the community. There is
no reason the work in the community could not be with young
people, dealing with children at risk. We have people with
knowledge of computers and various sports organizations who
could perhaps work with some young people in society.
(1110)
There are ways to do it. If all members of the House come
forward with suggestions and we work together we can do it.
With the co-operation of the provinces we can make a
meaningful contribution.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party motion is rather specific in what it is proposing,
namely the reduction of the age limits from 12 to 10 years and
from 18 to 16 years. We know the tragic case of the young lad
who was killed in England by two people under the age of 12
years. If that case had happened in Canada absolutely nothing
could have been done.
My question for the parliamentary secretary is rather specific.
We know the Minister of Justice will be referring the entire
Young Offenders Act to the justice committee. Is he aware
whether there will be any restrictions placed on the
examination, or will it be a completely wide open ability for the
committee to look at everything including the reduction of age
limits?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
that question because I think it is very helpful.
The examination by the justice committee will be without any
kind of bounds or governors, whatsoever. The committee is free
to make whatever recommendations and proposals it wants.
There will not be any attempt to try to restrict the thinking or the
activity.
I would go so far as to say that the legislation the Minister of
Justice will be bringing forward in June and will be passed prior
to the report of the justice committee is open for review, even
though it would be passed before the actual study by the
committee.
4243
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, in the member's statement he outlined his concerns for
the fact that we may send young people under 18 years to
penitentiary or to prison. I do not think that is the issue here. I
think crime is the issue and the Young Offenders Act is the issue.
If they are prepared to commit the crime they ought to be
prepared to do the time. That is the penalty or the price they pay
for antisocial behaviour in this country.
What does the member say to victims of young offenders'
crime? The case that comes to mind very quickly is the
Martensville case in Saskatchewan. I know personally some of
the victims. What does the member say to the parents and the
grandparents of two and three year old children? Does he say
that we cannot send young offenders to prison because they may
get sexually abused or that it is not a nice place? How would the
member handle that?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are saying
that at all. I said that when we take 16 and 17 year olds out of the
young offenders system we are taking them not only for violent
crimes. We are taking them out of the system for theft and
vandalism. We are taking them out of the system for everything.
For purposes of murder and other serious crimes that is
something we have to deal with in the legislation the minister
brings forward. Hopefully there will be changes. If not, there
will be the ability of the committee to determine any changes.
Sending 16 and 17 year olds to prison and having them
sexually and physically abused will not help society when those
young people get back on the streets. Punishment has to happen.
When we talk about parents who have lost their children because
of murder by a young offender, there is no one in the House who
has a lock on sympathy and downright remorse for what
happened. Anybody in the House, particularly myself, would
love to do something that would be helpful to those parents.
This is why I say crime prevention to stop it from happening
to somebody else has to be something that we have first and
foremost in our minds. Eighteen is an internationally recognized
age. Sixteen, eighteen or whatever will be before the justice
committee. Every member on the committee will have a chance
to examine that aspect of the legislation.
(1115)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, once
again, a reactionary roar full of sound and fury has risen up from
the Reform Party benches. This motion tabled by the hon.
member for New Westminster-Burnaby is one more skirmish
in a hysterical and perverse crusade by the Social Panic Party.
Who are these Prairie crusaders ganging up on now? Young
people who are not eligible to vote and who are represented in
this Parliament by adults, adults who are running scared and
who want young offenders to be punished like adults-who are
their role models-for the same crimes. It is clear from all the
statistics that juvenile delinquency is marginal in proportion to
the general crime rate. However, it takes only a few isolated and
unfortunate cases for a pack mentality to develop and demands
to rise for exemplary punishments for young offenders. The
focus is on punishment.
Reactionaries are swept up in an irrational thirst for
retribution. Why? To appease their own adult consciences
because they realize these crimes are committed by young
people who imitate them. They tell us: These young people have
committed adult crimes, so they are adults and should be
punished as adults. They tell us: Forget 30 years of research on
the treatment of juvenile delinquency. They say: The statistics
on the genuine and positive rehabilitation of the vast majority of
young people supervised by youth protection agencies are so
much garbage. Forget social clemency for children whose
criminal tendencies are usually the result of disintegration for
which adults are largely responsible.
Echoing this hysteria, the Panic Party is now calling for
exemplary punishment under the Criminal Code for young
people over 16, for penitentiary terms and even life sentences.
I am shocked and appalled by this motion, a motion that was
communicated to us on very short notice, although its tone and
substance is what we have come to expect.
I spoke previously on a motion by the Reform Party which
stated that criminals enjoyed privileged treatment before the
courts and that victims were ignored by the judicial system. At
the time, I said that this statement was not supported by any
verifiable statistics and reflected a complete ignorance of the
facts.
On the same occasion, I reproached the mover of the motion
for lending her voice to reactionary groups and for playing along
with the media. I also remember how the Reform Party
responded to my statements in this House on gun control and the
provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act that
discriminate against married women. I must conclude that the
Reform Party is entirely consistent in its ideology.
The motion before the House this morning is part of a
disturbing trend. I hope that all Canadians will see what Reform
Party members perhaps do not see in their political positions. I
see all the signs of a nostalgic fascism still unaware of its
implications. I see a desire for reverting to a society that our
democracy rejects. I hear a call for ``an eye for an eye, a tooth for
a tooth''. But if it were ideological-
4244
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the
word or the joining of the words ``nostalgic fascism'',
particularly ``fascism'', with respect to the Reform Party is not
unparliamentary language.
(1120 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In reply to the point of
order raised by the member for Kootenay East regarding words
used in debate, first let me make a comment that when remarks
are made of a general nature and not specific to any one member,
that being one criterion, I would say no, it would not be deemed
unparliamentary.
However, I will seize the occasion to remind all members that
of course when language and tones sometimes cause disorder
the Chair is apprised of that and I would ask all members to keep
that in mind in the selection of their words or their statements or
their tones.
In conclusion to the point of order raised by the member for
Kootenay East, at this time this is not deemed unparliamentary.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, some people's sensitivities must
certainly be spared. So I will continue talking about the Reform
Party's motion.
I said that I thought it was calling for the law of retaliation.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the time you
took to think it over will be given to me to continue after?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let us say that I will use a
rule from the game of soccer. I will take that time and charge it
to my account, so I will not take it from you.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I admit my ignorance of soccer, so
I will have to trust you.
We were talking about the law of retaliation. If it was
ideological, I would say that such positions are disturbing
because they arise from convictions that might one day result in
laws that could not be enforced. I do not believe that it is
ideological. The Reform Party's motion has much more to do
with electioneering than with philosophy.
Anyway, just saying that the Reform Party's positions might
be philosophically motivated would shock them, I am sure. They
are not philosophers but politicians. The basis of this motion is
nothing but public sentiment that the Reform Party is trying to
use to its advantage. That is very easy.
Riding the wave of public feeling, the Reform Party is
declaiming that young people are not charged for the crimes
they commit, that young people commit more crimes than adults
do, that the sentences imposed on young people are ridiculous
and that most violent crimes are committed by young people.
That is the rumour. Even if the hon. member does not say so
openly, his whole argument is based on these propositions.
One can present such a motion without believing that juvenile
delinquents are a large enough criminal group in society to
really threaten public safety.
(1125)
On the contrary, all the statistics available so far show that
young people are charged more often than adults for their
offences.
According to the 1991 report of the federal Department of
Justice, the charge rate for young people was 61 per cent
compared with 25 per cent for adults, and the data shows that
16- and 17-year-olds are treated more severely than adults.
On the other hand, according to the same figures, the
conviction rate on charges laid against young people is still
much higher than for adults. Finally, since it is the most serious
offence, young people who commit murders may be tried in
adult court.
A young person convicted of murder in a superior court of
criminal jurisdiction is liable to life in prison. It is only when the
individual is not tried in adult court that the maximum sentence
for murder is five years.
If the Crown does not ask that he or she be referred to adult
court, he or she will be tried in juvenile court. And even if the
Crown makes that request, it will be up to the judge to decide
depending on the circumstances of the case. This system works,
Mr. Speaker. Unless we systematically challenge the judicial
system, we must admit that the judges are in the best position to
assess the objective and subjective circumstances of an offence.
I think the law is quite adequate in letting judges decide
whether or not the case should be referred to adult court. That is
why I think the law should not be amended in any way in this
regard. All the parties concerned with juvenile delinquency say
that the current system works well. Not perfectly, of course, but
well.
That is not good news to the Reform Party, which urges us to
focus on isolated cases. Canadian figures are generally
consistent from one province to another. I therefore can say
without a doubt that juvenile crime is not more prevalent in
Western Canada than in Quebec or the Maritimes.
At this point in time, nothing can reasonably justify the
hysteria of those who blame young people in their fight against
crime. On the contrary, everything shows that crime is a reality
of adult society. The proportion of teenagers guilty of Criminal
Code offences is quite marginal compared with adults.
I have before me the latest figures from the Quebec public
security department, and the same ratios can be applied to the
Canadian population as a whole. In 1993, only one out of 51
qualified murders may have been committed by a young person.
4245
The ratio is 6 out of 25 for second-degree murder and 0 out of 4
for manslaughter.
On a grand total of 90 murders committed in Quebec in 1993,
young people may have committed 7, or less than 10 per cent. Of
241 attempted murders, 25 or about 10 per cent may have been
committed by young people. As far as crime against property is
concerned, young people committed 644 out of 3,177 robberies
or about 20 per cent and 2,244 out of 21,592 offences against
persons or a little over 10 per cent.
With respect to drugs, the facts are overwhelming. The vast
majority of drug offenders are adults. Less than 5 per cent of
offences for heroin possession, trafficking or smuggling are
committed by young people. For cocaine offences, the rate is 8
per cent. Who can argue that the crime rate is higher among
young people? Or that the proportion of criminals is about the
same among young people as it is in the adult population? Let us
face it: While adults represent 75 per cent of Canada's
population, they commit over 90 per cent of crimes. Mr.
Speaker, the reality is clear. Young people are not criminals. In
their teens, that short period from 12 to 18 years of age, a very
small proportion of them, less than four per cent in fact, will
commit an offence, and that includes any incident, from the
most ordinary to the most serious one. The majority of these
offences will be assaults following arguments, as well as acts of
vandalism and statutory offences.
(1130)
The current Young Offenders Act is based on a long study of
juvenile delinquency. We cannot talk about juvenile crime,
because the reality does not support that false perception. The
overwhelming majority of young people will reach adulthood
without any problem, while two adults out of three could one
day become part of the statistics on criminality.
Faced with such evidence, what is the relevance of a motion
such as the one which is before us and which we will vote on? If
the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby looked at the
issue carefully, he knows that amending the Young Offenders
Act as proposed in his motion would have the immediate effect
of making that act almost useless. Since juvenile courts almost
always hear cases involving young people aged 16 to 18, why
does the hon. member not simply suggest repealing the act? It
would be simpler, more honest and more direct. Such a measure
would not be hidden behind a pretence of good intentions.
On what philosophical view of human nature is this notion of
criminal responsibility based in the case of ten-year-old
children? I agree that a ten-year-old child knows the difference
between good and evil, but does the hon. member truly believe
that a ten-year-old understands the nature of what is evil? Does
he think that a child of that age is already corrupted and bad to
the point of purposely doing something wrong and drawing from
it a gratuitous satisfaction related to the fact that he is copying
adults?
Who does the member represent? Does he speak on behalf of
these paranoiac groups who have nothing better to do than throw
the population into a panic? Or those individuals who flood us
with hysterical correspondence reeking of hate? Or those new
right-wing extremists who think that a jail sentence is still the
best solution for young offenders?
In 1984, the new Young Offenders Act was based on a humane
approach to juvenile delinquency. Realizing that young people
were not criminals and that the dependency on their parents had
the effect of reducing the risks, the legislator, after countless
consultations, passed a law which favours a helping relationship
between the various officials and the young person guilty of an
offence.
The purpose of the law-and I repeat it again in case the
member for New Westminster-Burnaby did not catch all the
subtleties and nuances-is to help the young offender become a
responsible person, by ensuring an effective intervention by all
the professionals involved.
Instead of imposing a judicial sentence which would
immediately turn the young offender into a criminal with a
record, the law favours the effective rehabilitation of that young
person through a series of actions. And if you read the act
carefully, you will see how generous its provisions are in that
respect. If that law helps only one young offender stay away
from a life of crimes, it will have achieved its goal. The
Criminal Code, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than
to punish those who are guilty of an offence. If you make a guilty
offender out of a young person, he will remain guilty for the rest
of his life. However, if you give that person a chance to see what
his options are, you will probably save him.
I realize that such a solution is not acceptable for someone
who is bent on revenge, but if adults seek revenge, let them first
use that solution on themselves. Let them build social, family
and political structures adapted to the young before avenging an
isolated offence committed by a young person to whom they
were unable to teach honesty. This motion is simply deplorable.
It might have afforded me the opportunity to discuss the
amendments that the Minister of Justice gave us notice of some
months ago, if it had had the merit of proposing something
substantial in the administration of the Act. I know that there is a
strong temptation among the Liberals to yield to certain
pressures to make the Act more severe. I know that some day we
will have to examine certain situations that the Act did not make
provision for when it was adopted because the social reality at
the time did not demand it.
4246
(1135)
I am prepared to admit that the system should be adjusted to
new realities, particularly regarding organized crime. I am
aware of the danger from bands of young people in certain urban
areas. I believe that this is a phenomenon with which we must
come to terms specifically, but we will certainly not do so by
changing the focus of the Act, by stripping it of all its impact on
the practical level and by lowering the age of criminal
responsibility. I do not believe that bands of young people have
many members between the ages of 10 and 12.
The problem of bands of young people is related to that of
adult organized crime. In this regard, we will take a position at
the proper time. For the present, I ask this House to reject the
motion of the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened carefully.
I want to make this very clear. By our motion today we are not
asking for increased penalties particularly. We are not
discarding the social help side for those offenders who can take
it up. We are asking that the Young Offenders Act, under the
concept of diminished capacity for handling young offenders
somewhat differently than adults, simply apply to the right
group.
Why does the member misrepresent what I have said? Why
does she feel it necessary to misrepresent our motion today? I
ask what philosophy she has that in view of obvious national
concern of what is not working she would essentially defend the
status quo.
The big debate in the House the last time when the Young
Offenders Act was passed was largely about the upper age,
whether it should be 16, 17 or 18 and what the cut-off age should
be. The House was essentially divided 50-50 at the time. A
decision was made and for the last 10 years we have lived with
the consequences of that decision.
I say to the member that she should ask her constituents what
they want rather than telling them what they should want. The
data is in from the national mood, from what we have been living
with. The people have asked for our motion today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have in no way
distorted the motion put forward by the Member for New
Westminster-Burnaby. I commented on his motion. I did not
say anything about extending sentences, contrary to what he
says. I mentioned the fact that he wants to lower the age from 12
to 10 and from 18 to 16. That is what I talked about.
When he asks me to talk to my constituents about what they
think about his motion, I can tell him that right now. We know as
a result of many surveys that have been conducted throughout
Quebec, and I imagine throughout Canada, that people are
reasonably satisfied with this legislation. As I said, it is not
perfect, and there is room for improvement. However,
Quebeckers are not currently in a panic over the Young
Offenders Act.
You hear a great deal about it, as I understand, in the West and
in the English-language press. Why exactly are they panicking
so? Is the press exaggerating? Or is it the work of a few paranoid
people? I am not sure, but people are not paranoid in Quebec.
The Member must be aware of what is happening elsewhere, and
not just in his area, where he claims there is a general sense of
panic.
(1140 )
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed listening to the hon. member but with great respect I
caution that it is not helpful to a reasoned debate to have
inflammatory rhetoric.
I represent a riding in the metropolitan Toronto area, not in the
west. As recently as May 2 of this year I held a public forum as I
do every month. The issue was public safety. I want to tell the
hon. member that in the five and a half years that I have had the
privilege of representing the people of Scarborough West I have
discussed many issues with them and in particular crime issues.
I want to refer specifically to the actual wording of the
opposition motion, not what various people think it says. The
opposition motion urges a response to the ``evident lack of
confidence that has arisen from Canadians over the Young
Offenders Act''.
As far as I am concerned that is a fact in Scarborough West. I
believe that the majority of my constituents have an evident lack
of confidence in the Young Offenders Act. As recently as May 2
they asked me, in no uncertain terms and in nothing less than a
clear majority what the government was preparing to do about it.
The government is quite aware that there is a problem with the
Young Offenders Act. That is why in the red book the
government proposed amendments and that is why the Minister
of Justice is going to be bringing forward amendments and is
going to be putting the entire act to the justice committee for a
complete review.
I am satisfied with that action by the government. In fact I
applaud it. I have told the people of Scarborough West what we
are doing and they are prepared to wait because there is no panic.
But make no mistake about it, there is an evident lack of
confidence. We have seen motions not from alleged fascists out
west but from people on my side of the House bringing forward
private member's bills co-sponsored by Liberals dealing with
the age restrictions.
I want to ask the hon. member, are the good people of
Saint-Hubert so different from the good people of Scarborough
West? Is the hon. member telling me in good conscience that
everything is okay as far as they are concerned with respect to
the Young Offenders Act? If so, does she still support the justice
minister's suggestion that the act be reviewed by the justice
committee?
4247
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that
when I mentioned panic earlier, I did say in the West. I also
mentioned the English-speaking press. What I mean is that this
panic does not exist in Quebec. It just does not. This is a fact.
Again, it may be due to our distinctiveness.
I also wanted to say there is no point causing people to panic,
even in regions where, as you indicated, lack of confidence is
already evident over the Young Offenders Act. You said lack of
confidence had arisen over this legislation. It may be the case,
but I do not think that proclaiming it from the rooftops will solve
anything. I think a better way may be, as I said earlier in my
speech, to open up the act. I said that it needed improvement, not
that everybody was telling us all was well with the world. I said
changes were required.
For one thing-I did not mention this earlier and this is a very
personal point of view-I think the Young Offenders Act should
be amended to provide that offenders between the ages of 16 and
18 have to go before adult court when they are charged with
murder and only then. That is my own position, and I want to
make that clear.
So, I did not say there was general jubilation over the Young
Offenders Act, but I did say that it did not produce the same
panic reaction as it did in your region.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois and I agree with most of what she said.
(1145)
Since we in Quebec have a definite position on the
amendments that could be made to the Young Offenders Act,
could she tell us in this House what the consequences would be if
Parliament adopted the motion now before us concerning age?
What would be the consequences for the whole system that we in
Quebec spent years putting in place and which now gives very
good results? What would be the consequences of adopting the
Reform Party motion on the whole system as far as young
offenders in Quebec are concerned?
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, in
Quebec at the present time all the parties involved favour the
status quo.
So if we change the whole system by modifying the definition
of ``young person'' to mean a person between 10 and 16 years of
age instead of 12 and 18, we will certainly clog the courts and
the already overcrowded jails. Furthermore, we will not
rehabilitate young people by turning them into hardened
criminals, as we know very well that prisons are not schools.
So, to give my colleague a quick answer, I think this would not
be a solution for us in Quebec, as all the parties involved really
favour the status quo.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take exception to a couple of things
the member for Saint-Hubert mentioned.
Yes, we are here as politicians and not philosophers. We do
not live in a dream world that there is a perfect society and a
separate nation. The member accuses the Reform Party of being
hysterical, of being paranoid, of having knee-jerk reactions to
isolated incidents.
I would suggest to her that there is a bit of hypocrisy here with
an isolated incident in Montreal that the whole country was
horrified about that they are now demanding strict gun control
legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I think that the term ``hypocrisy''
is unparliamentary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The term ``hypocrisy'' in
general is not in itself unparliamentary. If an hon. member is
unhappy because another hon. member called him or her a
hypocrite, I would certainly take the opportunity to remind that
hon. member that it is unparliamentary.
[English]
Resuming the question, the hon. member had the floor.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the
member feels that because we are reacting to a public concern
that was indicated by a survey I took with over 3,000 responses
received that 90 per cent of my constituents support lowering
the age because they are concerned about young people who are
falling through the system because they are too young to be
given any help because they have made some poor decisions.
How does the hon. member feel that these young people below
the ages of 12 will be helped to change the direction they are
going if they do not fall under this act?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I
did not say directly that the Reform Party was paranoid or
everything that she says. I just said that they may have such
tendencies, which is quite different.
Besides, when people say now that society is really disturbed
about the Young Offenders Act, I do not think that using forums
like this, the House of Commons, the media and so on and
emphasizing what some say is the weakness or laxity of the
Young Offenders Act will help the debate; I do not believe that
4248
saying everything is wrong in society and in our legal system
will help us and move the debate forward, not at all.
I think that we must look at the law, as I said earlier, because
basically it satisfies those concerned and the public, but in some
cases perhaps it can be improved. I do not think we have to
panic.
(1150)
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the whip of the Reform Party I would like to advise the House
that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our speakers on this
motion will be dividing their time.
When I came to Parliament I came with the belief that as a
member of Parliament I should be reflecting my constituents'
wishes to Ottawa, not the reverse. For far too long the people of
Canada have had the impression, much of it correct, that when
they elect politicians in their constituency somehow they come
down here and take on a particular aura, that somehow Ottawa
ends up engulfing them.
I am committed to representing the views of my people in my
constituency and they are starting to know that and believe that.
I believe the future of Canada resides in our young people.
The young people of Canada truly are the future of Canada
because as great and as magnificent as this country is physically
with all of the assets that we have from the Atlantic to the Pacific
to the Arctic, we are still no more than the spirit of the people of
Canada.
I have been going out and making presentations to schools
throughout my entire constituency as a first priority. Every day
that I have been in my constituency since January I have made it
a priority to be in a school because this is where the future
citizens of Canada are and our young people are our country's
future greatness.
At Fernie Senior Secondary School, Mr. Randy Rae teaches
Law 12. In addition to being a teacher he is a rancher and also a
director on the regional district of East Kootenay. Randy
understands democracy and believes in democracy. Coming to a
consensus with his class that the Young Offenders Act is flawed,
he directed them to construct a process to try and make some
changes to the act. He also told them that it would not be a waste
of time because he believes that he has a member of Parliament
who will go into the House of Commons and represent his and
his students' wishes to Ottawa. He is right.
The assignment identified the present Young Offenders Act,
explained what it is and how it works. They got copies of various
changes that have been proposed to the act and finally conducted
interviews, had discussions and surveyed at least 10 different
people each and then summarized their views.
It is interesting that the survey results reflect much of what
the Reform Party has been proposing in terms of changes to the
Young Offenders Act: stiffer penalties for young offenders,
lowering the age at which a youth is considered to be a young
offender, holding parents financially responsible for the actions
of their children in some cases, and allowing the media to
release the names of repeat young offenders.
Within the survey we came across two people who were
talking about the inclusion of corporal punishment in the
penalties of the Young Offenders Act. This is indicative of the
responses that I have been getting on the street.
However, understand clearly this is not the Reform Party
position nor is it necessarily my position. All I am saying is that
because the present system of justice for young offenders is not
working, my personal opinion is that we should be prepared to
take a look at corporal punishment after a thorough objective
review of all pertinent information gathered from around the
world.
As I pointed out before, it was interesting to see that some of
the points brought up in the survey were reflective of what the
Reform Party has been promoting. This reminded me of
something that took place in last year's federal election. The
editor of one of our local newspapers slammed our belief that
the Young Offenders Act should be amended so that parents and
guardians of young criminals should have the legal
responsibility to exercise parental control over youth. In fact a
great deal of our media attacked the party for this view.
However, this survey conducted by the students supports this
line of thinking.
I believe that society has responsibilities, responsibilities to
the young people of our community and to their parents. Clearly
there has been a fork in the path. The politicians who have come
to Ottawa have been going down the fork of permissiveness,
whereas society as reflected in the comments gathered by the
young people in this survey and comments made by people I
come across daily, whether it is at trade fairs I attend or clubs or
organizations or in our schools, as people come up to me and
communicate to me it is very clear that people who come to this
House historically have been co-opted by the system. They have
been co-opted by Ottawa and they have ended switching from
the path that people in the constituency wanted to the path that
was established by the Liberal Solicitor General, Jean-Pierre
Goyer, 23 years ago in 1971.
(1155)
My only question is will this government listen? It has
promised and promised, but will it listen? Will it actually turn
around and start to bring in what needs to happen or will it get
engaged in a review of the justice system that is going to take
4249
another 18 to 24 months? Will it meet the demand of the people
of Kootenay East and indeed all Canadians?
No one can argue there is not a need for change to the Young
Offenders Act. It is clear there is something wrong when we
consider statistics from recent years as reported by Statistics
Canada in January this year. In 1992 youths accounted for 13.7
per cent of all persons charged with violent crimes, up from 10.5
per cent in 1986. That is a jump of 3 per cent in just six years.
Of the 135,348 youths charged in Criminal Code incidents in
1992, 15 per cent were charged with violent crimes and that
figure was up from 10.5 per cent also in 1986.
Even more shocking is the rate of increase in violent youth
crime compared with that of adults. Since 1986 violent crime
among our youth has risen at an average annual increase of 14
per cent compared with an adult increase of only 8 per cent over
the same period of time.
Recently the Liberal member for London West who is also
vice-chairman of the committee for justice and legal affairs told
this House that when it comes to youth crime we should divorce
perception from reality. She went on to say that Canadians
would be able to tell their concerns to a committee when the
legislation undergoes a thorough 10-year review. If that is going
to take another 18 to 24 months that is not soon enough and that
is what our motion is all about.
With respect to the vice-chairman of the justice committee
and her attempts to dilute my party's thrust and concern about
the Young Offenders Act there are many victims and families of
victims hurting because of this inept legislation and quite
frankly they are not interested in a 10-year review. There are
problems we have to confront now.
I would like to read the following incident as was reported by
Canadian press news wire this week. The vicious assault which I
am about to relate took place in Oyama, a small community of
about 500 homes located 30 kilometres north of Kelowna in the
Okanagan:
A man whose head was caved in with an axe after he scolded a teenage driver
for running a stop sign was in critical condition today and might be permanently
paralysed.
Rodney Bell was hit in the head with the blunt edge of an axe in front of his
horrified wife and children. Eight teenagers showed up to confront Bell at his
secluded lakefront home on Friday just before midnight, a day after he chased
them when they sped through an intersection, narrowly missing his car. Bell
tried to reason with the teens, one of them grabbed an axe from a nearby
woodpile and swung it full force at Bell's head. The gang then fled.
Police have arrested two 16-year olds in connection with the assault but they
cannot be named under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.
As Mr. Bell lies in a hospital clinging to life, and if he does
survive with the possibility of some form of paralysis ahead of
him, the greatest injustice is probably the last line of the story:
One teen was charged with aggravated assault and remains in custody while the
other was charged with assault and released-
He has gone back to school:
-but of course they are too young to be named under the protection of the
Young Offenders Act.
I am committed to the concept that the youth are the future of
Canada, that they are Canada. The minimum they should expect
is protection by law for themselves, their persons, their property
and protection for their parents.
I commend the students in my constituency. I commend
Randy Rae and the Fernie Senior Secondary School and I thank
them for their diligence, for their project and for the effort they
made to communicate with me. It is this kind of communication
from my constituents that gives me confidence that I am
speaking for them when I speak about the Young Offenders Act.
It is this kind of communication that I want from people in my
constituency. Your Reform MP truly is different, I am listening.
I want to represent the views of the people of my constituency
in this House. I hope the Liberal government gets it through its
head that is what we are doing and that is what we are here for.
We might not be using the correct political words. We might
even be doing things that are politically incorrect. We do not
care about political correctness; we want results. Above all we
care about representing the views of the people of Canada. In
this particular case we demand that the government move
immediately so that we protect our youth and our parents by
force of law.
(1200)
I implore all members of the House to support the motion to
start the momentum toward changing the Young Offenders Act.
Our young people, the future of Canada, demand our support and
our protection.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with great interest to the debate this morning. I do not
normally agree with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, but I
want to stress the point that the member for Saint-Hubert
stressed.
If we listened to the questioning in the House during question
period over the past several weeks we would almost get the
impression that we are in a panic situation in Canada and that
crime was escalating. That is generally not the case throughout
the area. That is why I agree with the member for Saint-Hubert.
In Quebec we are taking a calmer approach. I caution Reform
4250
members opposite. I find some of the questioning very
judgmental and causing a bit of panic where there is no cause for
panic.
Let us take a look at what our party is committed to. On the
government side we are committed to reviewing the Young
Offenders Act. Since the beginning of Parliament the opposition
side has requested that it wants to be more participatory in the
drafting of legislation. We are going to refer the matter to
committee for its recommendation.
I find the motion a bit premature. I am having a hard time
understanding how reducing the age to 10 years old or
preventing the disclosure of the names of some young offenders
will improve the statistics the member opposite quoted. How are
we going to improve the 15 per cent or the 135,000 by reducing
the age? Is the brunt of the motion to reduce the age to a lower
level so that we have more people involved in the statistics? Are
there not other ways of addressing the problem?
It is going to committee stage so why do we not wait for the
committee to report? Members opposite are part of the
committee. What is the panic?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, there is a consciousness on our part
when 3,000 people turn up in Alberta on a sunny afternoon. I
believe it was the member for Mississauga West who indicated
that this was an issue. It is not a panic issue. It is just that
Canadians are demanding changes.
The specific change we are proposing is an indicator that in
fact there will be some momentum. With the greatest of respect
to the member, to the Solicitor General and to the justice
minister, I suggest when we get into this review we all know that
Parliament moves at glacial age speed. We are going to be in a
12, 18 or 24 month process. The people who are talking to me are
demanding change now. We are simply requesting that members
of the House of Commons recognize that people are demanding
change quickly, are demanding change now.
I am speaking on behalf of the students whose report I
presented in the House of Commons today. In my judgement it is
the young people in society who are the most severely
inconvenienced and put under pressure by an inefficient,
incompetent Young Offenders Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I have a short
question but first I want to make a brief comment. This morning,
I have the impression that Reform Party members have, in their
press clippings, a lot of articles taken from Photo Police. I do
not know if this kind of weekly exists in Western Canada, but
this is the impression I get when I hear these descriptions of the
terrible things that are happening.
(1205)
I cannot agree with them. The Bloc's position was presented
earlier and will later be explained in further detail by the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm. As far as I am concerned,
making criminals of younger children will not solve the
problem. Does the member agree that we should have a
proactive approach and provide support to young people, so that
they do not end up doing things like that?
The question raised earlier by the hon. member was a call for
the Liberal government to provide assistance and create direct
employment programs to keep our young people busy and give
them jobs. Again, I do not think that we will solve the problem
by making criminals of younger children. I would like to see the
two opposition parties work together and convince the Liberal
government to take proactive measures instead of sending
young people to jail.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in the original presentation of the
motion my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby came
up with some excellent examples of how young people under 12
years of age had fallen through the cracks when they could have
been helped by the process. A whole group of people are
currently abusing that end of it. They are involving young
children because they cannot be charged.
There has been a change in our society. Looking at the upper
end, at the 16-year old end, on behalf of the people in high
school I say the problem is that the straight kids need protection
and the Young Offenders Act is not doing it.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more than 10 minutes. I would like to
start by reading the declaration of principle in the Young
Offenders Act:
(1) Young persons should bear responsibility for their contraventions, but should
not be held accountable in the same manner, or suffer the consequences for their
behaviour as adults.
(2) Society must be afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour.
(3) Young offenders have special guarantees of their rights to due process.
(4) Young offenders have special needs and require assistance that is not available in
the adult system.
The Young Offenders Act has given young offenders more
protection of their rights, but in no measurable way has it
provided society with any protection. Our concern is that the
balance is not there.
It is time we started talking about reality. The reality is that
society has changed. When I was younger we may have had
fights but they were not with weapons. We used our fists or
4251
pushed each other around but we did not pull out knives. The
reality today is that our children feel the need to arm themselves.
The motion today dealing with age is, as my hon. colleagues
have suggested, a reflection of the feelings of Canadians.
Although they have heard a lot of talk about changes to the
Young Offenders Act and Parliament studying it, they also
realize that the deadline of January 16 for proposals is long past
and they are no closer to a decision having been made.
Our motion gives Parliament an opportunity to give some
indication to Canadians that we are listening, that we care and
that we will act to do something to protect society, particularly
our children because that is what is being demanded.
I would like to share an example of why we feel we need to
lower the age limit to 10 years. I received a letter from a
constituent involved in an accident. On Sunday, April 24, he was
driving home. He proceeded through a major intersection on a
green light but was hit by a stolen car that was running a red
light, being pursued by the police. It sounds like a crime was
being committed. Actually it was more than one crime, but
because of the Young Offenders Act no crimes were being
committed. His car was sideswiped by the speeding vehicle. It
was just lucky that no one was killed: not the driver of the stolen
vehicle and not himself.
(1210)
The driver of the stolen vehicle was 11-year old Michael
Smith. Mikey, as he is known, has admitted to stealing over 30
cars. He boasts that he will continue to do so until he is 12 years
old. His mother, Bonnie Hartwick, has asked authorities to
arrest her son in order to do something about it. She says she
does not know what to do with him and has begged for help. Our
system does not allow Mikey to receive that kind of help.
What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for the Mikeys of the
world to kill somebody before we can help him? We are talking
about lowering the age limit so that offenders who are going in
the wrong direction at such a young age can be brought into the
system and dealt with, so that we can turn them in the right
direction before it is too late.
Let us not forget those two ten-year-olds in England who
murdered a two-year old child. In Canadian society absolutely
nothing could be done in that situation. The problem is with the
act and the age limits. It is time we reacted and changed it so that
we can address the issues.
Another concern is upper age limits. Sixteen and seventeen
year olds know the difference between right and wrong. I speak
with considerable experience, being a mother of four boys. My
youngest is 14 years old. When we are talking about 16 and 17
year olds like Huenemann, Lord and Gamache, we are talking
about 16 and 17 year olds who are not innocent children. They
are vicious, cold-blooded murders. They are not petty thieves.
They are not kids or young people who have been charged with
shoplifting, stealing cigarettes or even stealing cars. These
cold-blooded individuals viciously murdered another human
being. As 16 and 17 years old they knew what they were doing
and they should be treated as adults committing adult crime. I
also suggest that our courts have the flexibility to move 16 and
17 year olds to adult court but they seem very reluctant to do so.
I share again a case in my constituency. Two years ago
16-year old Jesse Cadman of Surrey was murdered by another
16-year-old. He was viciously stabbed in the back during a fight
because his murderer did not like the hat he was wearing. Jesse's
killer was apparently told by his friends not to worry, that he was
a young offender and could only be incarcerated for a couple of
years. That almost happened. Jesse Cadman was viciously
assaulted by a 16-year old kid who knew what he was doing and
almost got away with a couple of years.
The youth court judge refused to raise Jesse Cadman's
murderer to adult court. It was only because Jesse Cadman's
parents, specifically his father, organized a group called CRY,
Crime Responsibility Youth, and pressured the justice system
that Jesse Cadman's murderer was raised to adult court.
CRY has been circulating letters demanding, asking, begging
the House of Commons to change the Young Offenders Act. In
just three weeks my office received over 300 letters. I went out
into my community to see if it agreed with Mr. Cadman's
position, a position expressed by others, that the Young
Offenders Act needed to be changed specifically with respect to
age limits. I wanted to know whether my constituents felt that
the age limits should be lowered. In 3,000 responses over 90 per
cent of my constituents have said yes, we feel the time has come
when we need to change the ages, to lower them to allow the
younger offenders to be brought into the system so they can be
turned around and lowered at the upper end so the murderers of
Jesse Cadman and the murderers of the little Shawns over on the
island can be dealt with as adults who are responsible for their
actions, knowing what they did.
(1215)
The public is demanding that the House of Commons do
something and not just study, not just continue to look at
legislation. They are asking, they are begging us to show some
sense of concern, some sense of urgency in dealing with this
issue.
That is the reason we have put this motion on the floor. It
gives us the ability to show Canadians that we are prepared to
listen to them, that we are prepared to consider their concerns
and that we are prepared to take action, not just to talk about it,
not just to study it, but to take action and do something about it.
4252
I believe it was very unfortunate that last week when the
member for York South-Weston introduced Bill C-217 debate
was limited to only one hour and it was not votable.
That bill was to change the Young Offenders Act. It is very
important that we start giving these kinds of bills the attention
they deserve. I do not think we are over reacting. I do not think
we are being paranoid. I think the member for York
South-Weston and the members of the Reform Party are being
sincere when we say we should do something now in the interim
before the review of the Young Offenders Act is completed. Why
do we not do them? Why not do just a few things to show that we
can do something and do it now?
I ask this House, I beg this House, here is an opportunity to
show Canadians that we are concerned, that we are prepared to
do something concrete. It is not the answer to everything. There
are other changes that need to be made. We do need to focus on
crime prevention. Nobody is arguing that. However those are the
things that will have results in the long term.
Canadians are asking to be given something in the short term.
Give us something that will give us hope that changes are
actually going to be made so that we can feel that the
government believes in the protection of society and the
protection of our children.
I have shared a letter with the Minister of Justice from a
13-year old in my constituency. This 13-year old was
confronted by a 15-year old who stole his hat. His parents
supported him in making that 15-year old accountable. When
they confronted the 15-year old he pushed the father aside and
said: ``Hit me. I will charge you''. That 13-year old is terrified.
He is terrified that this 15-year old is going to find out where he
lives and is going to come after him. He is terrified to go to
school. He is terrified to go out on the street because he knows
that this kid is going to get even with him.
I received a letter from the mother of a 13-year old girl who
was beat up at school by 15-year old girls. She told her mother
and because the mother told the school these kids are out to get
her. She is no longer going to school because she is terrified that
she is going to be victimized again. We have to protect our
children and we can only protect them by doing something now.
I beg this House, please support this motion. Let us show
Canadians that we are sincere and that we are prepared to do
something and not just talk.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of comments on the
hon. member's speech.
I know about the concerns she has with respect to the children
in school. I believe we have all encountered them and we have
all heard about them, sometimes from our own children.
(1220 )
The problem is that what she is saying is not going to, even if
we agreed with her, make any difference as far as the Young
Offenders Act is concerned because we cannot incarcerate those
children for threatening and intimidating other children. What
we have to do is work in the community.
There is a lot of hypocrisy by the provinces on this. They want
changes to the Young Offenders Act but what they do not
mention is that they are responsible for children under the age of
12. They would like to have people believe that there is nothing
they can do to help those children through the Children's Aid
and other means such as education through the school system.
They would like to blame the fact that these children are at risk
and not being helped because the federal government will not
lower the age. It is the provinces who refuse to do what they
should be doing for these children under 12.
I want to ask the hon. member one question. I ask her in good
faith because I really want to know and it would be helpful.
When we talk about 16 and 17-year olds the examples used are
always with regard to murder and violent offences. Does the
hon. member feel that is where the changes should be made
while keeping 16 and 17-year olds who commit offences that are
non-violent within the Young Offenders Act? Is that a
possibility? Is she saying that is something that could be done?
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think that is enough.
The courts have discretion as to what kind of sentencing they
give. They do not have to send everybody to maximum security
prisons for minor offences. The courts have that discretion
already.
I think what the member is saying is that only the most vicious
of the 16 and 17-year old offenders should be taken into adult
court. What we are suggesting is that the courts should have
discretion. If they feel that a 16 or 17-year old does not have the
capacity to understand what they have done or does not
appreciate right from wrong, the courts can lower them to youth
court. However, as a 16 and 17-year old they know right from
wrong and automatically should be held accountable for their
actions.
The courts have the discretion to give them suspended
sentences or whatever if the offence is of a more minor nature.
Even in an adult court, the flexibility is there to deal with
them in a different manner so that the punishment does not have
to be harsh or not fair. The discretion is there in adult court and
that is where 16 and 17-year olds should be treated.
An hon. member: Send the right message.
4253
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I want to indicate that I will be sharing this time with the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
I am pleased to have a chance to address this important issue.
The Young Offenders Act has been recognized as one element of
our criminal justice system that is in need of some change and
some reform. I know I have heard voices somewhere in different
parts of the country saying: ``Let's get rid of it altogether''.
However, I am certainly not one who believes that and I do not
think that many members in the House feel that way.
The level of crime committed by young offenders appears to
have increased marginally. What is more important about that
area of crime is that the violence associated with that category of
offender appears to have increased perhaps more than
marginally. These types of offences are very disturbing to
society at large and to the communities where they occur. They
feel particularly handicapped in responding appropriately when
young offenders commit serious offences because of the shelter
from normal criminal procedures given to young offenders,
things like non-publication of name and disposition away from
the normal criminal court process in young offender courts.
I am one of those who concedes that we have to pay some
serious attention to the increase in violent offences among
young offenders.
Most of us here have not directed much of our attention to the
petty crimes of young offenders. They have been a problem and
always will be but we have petty crime problems with adults too.
It is the more serious crimes that disturb us.
(1225)
The government agrees there have to be changes in a number
of areas of the criminal justice system. Our election platform
indicated that in the last election campaign. The Minister of
Justice has told the House-I know members opposite have
listened-that he will be introducing a bill to amend portions of
the Young Offenders Act within the next few weeks. This bill I
gather has been a long time in preparation, reaching back into
the previous Parliament and he is committed to doing that.
Second, the government is prepared to refer the whole issue of
the Young Offenders Act to the justice committee which will
review it and report back probably recommending additional
changes. They may be sweeping, they may be modest, I do not
know, but the decision as to what will be recommended to the
government will be in the hands of the members of that
committee. I look forward to playing a part in that exercise as do
all members of the House.
One of the most important facets of the Young Offenders Act
regime is the belief, it is really a premise, that young offenders
have an opportunity to salvage the rest of their lives if society
will permit them an opportunity to do that. The young offender
is before the court because he or she has made a serious mistake.
The premise that somehow society must intervene and provide
an opportunity for the young offender to get his or her act
organized is very much a fundamental part of the Young
Offenders Act.
One of the things that the government has recognized is that in
many cases the sentencing of young offenders is too short to
enable them any kind of access to treatment. A two or
three-month sentence is simply not enough time for the
agencies and corrections professionals to offer to that youth
some kind of a framework that would permit the youth to get his
or her life properly organized.
I met a young offender at Camp Dufferin in Ontario about two
years ago. I remember this vividly. I asked him what he would be
doing when he got out, having served three or four months. He
said: ``I guess I'll just go back to the pool hall''. That is where
the problems all began. He had no place to go. The three or four
months in the facility were nice, structured, organized. It was a
bit like a boot camp, it was organized, it was disciplined. When
it was over so was the regime of treatment.
There are some other perceptual problems with the Young
Offenders Act and I want to bring this one to the attention of the
House if members have not mentioned it already. Every time an
adult says the Young Offenders Act is useless, it is not working,
it is not tough enough, that is the message our youth are getting.
This is not helpful.
First of all I do not think it is entirely accurate. A lot of the
young offender sentencing or dispositions under the Young
Offenders Act are quite significant but the youth are not getting
the message that it is disciplined, it is significant. They are
simply accepting the message that the Young Offenders Act is a
zero on the Richter scale of punishment or of responsibility or
accountability.
There are a number of areas that we have to look at in the
Young Offenders Act. The motion today deals principally with
revising the age group from 12 to 17 down to 10 to 15. I have
introduced a bill in this House recommending reducing the age
to 10. I have done that, having looked at it closely.
(1230)
Different provinces across this country have different types of
legislation for those under 12. I was surprised to find that while
some provinces have good legislation which can enable the child
welfare authorities to intervene for the protection of the public,
in Ontario they can only intervene for the protection of the child.
For the young offender who commits a relatively serious
offence, sexual assault or robbery-and these things happen
involving 10 and 11-year olds now-I am told that all the police
can do is take the child home to the parents. That does not do any
favours for the child, especially when the parents are not at
4254
home, which is often the reason the problem began in the first
place. There are urban dysfunctional families.
There is no ability on the part of the provincial authorities to
take care of our 10 and 11-year olds. The young offenders
regime in each province should be able to accommodate an
offender who is 10 or 11 years old in the same way it
accommodates an offender who is 12 years old. I certainly
support that. On the issue of the 16 or 17-year old, I have not
made up my mind. I tend to think the issue should be reviewed
by the committee, as envisaged by the Minister of Justice.
There are different views on sentencing and on the issue of
publication of the names of young offenders. This is a complex
area. It involves the interface among privacy, the public interest,
the media and information exchange between institutions. Even
those institutions which help young offenders are sometimes
handicapped by the existing barriers to publication and
disclosure in the Young Offenders Act. This area has to be
reorganized and I hope it is done at the committee level.
The category of dangerous young offender does not need
much justification. I believe the minister's bill when introduced
shortly will direct attention to that category of young offender.
I want to indicate from my perspective of sitting on this side
of the House, the Minister of Justice and this government are
``on the case''. There will be ample opportunity to address the
issues raised today in the opposition motion and many of the
other issues in the Young Offenders Act. I look forward to
working with other members in that exercise.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, when I read this Reform Party motion last night, I
could not believe my eyes. Here we have a party, the Reform
Party, which for several weeks has been standing up in this
House proposing prompt and comprehensive action to deal with
youth crime. As a matter of fact today the two previous speakers
for the Reform Party said we must have prompt action now to
deal with youth crime.
What did we get? The Reform Party had an opportunity. It had
an opposition day and it could put its specific proposals to the
House, but all we get is a simplistic proposal to change the age.
That is going to deal with youth crime? That is the kind of
prompt, comprehensive action it wants to deal with youth crime,
one simplistic proposal to change the age? It is true that in his
speech the member for New Westminster-Burnaby referred to
other matters which should be changed, but why are they not in
this votable motion, if the Reform Party thinks we need action
now?
Perhaps the reason we are getting this simple one line
proposal is that the Reform Party is not really sure what should
be done about youth crime. Maybe it is because it has no real
commitment to any other proposal but this one simple change.
(1235 )
Perhaps it is because the Reform Party really does not know
what should be done about youth crime that we are getting such a
simple one proposal motion. Maybe this one point resolution is a
sign that Reform members are beginning to realize this matter is
more complex than they originally thought. Maybe they are
beginning to realize there is no simplistic solution that we can
simply take off the shelf and youth crime will go away.
The tough hard line approach to criminal justice has been
tried in some of the United States. Florida, Georgia, Texas and
Louisiana have the tough hard line approach proposed by the
Reform Party and what are the results?
Florida has 9 murders per 100,000 population; Georgia has 11
murders per 100,000 population; Texas has 12.7 murders per
100,000 population; and Louisiana has 17.4 murders per
100,000 population. In Canada, where we have a more humane,
rehabilitative and comprehensive approach to deal with crime,
we have 2.5 murders per 100,000. And the Reform Party wants
to move in the direction of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Georgia,
and other states. I hear that from Reformers every day in the
House.
We in the Liberal Party have said that some amendments are
required to the Young Offenders Act and we are going to
introduce them. The Minister of Justice said he is going to
introduce them within a couple of weeks. But we have also said
that this is not the comprehensive solution to youth crime.
Merely changing a few words in the Young Offenders Act is not
going to stop youth crime.
It misleads the public. I believe certain members of the
Reform Party are sincere, but they are really misleading the
public when they say they want prompt action now, and they
give us a one line proposal to simply change the age in the Young
Offenders Act. They mislead the public if they think that is
really going to deal with the problem of youth crime.
People who are familiar with the problem say over and over
again that if you really want to do something about youth crime
you have to address its many, many causes. Whether it is the
breakdown in families, whether it is the lack of jobs, whether it
is the lack of recreation, or whether as some of my colleagues
have said it is that many young people have no home to go to,
there are many causes. Unless you address those causes you will
not get real solutions.
It appears the Reform Party has based this motion on the
presumption that there has been a considerable increase in youth
violent crime. That is not the case. There has been an increase in
certain categories, but the impression Reform members give is
that the situation is out of control.
4255
It is much worse in some parts of the country than in others.
But if we look at the statistics, offences resulting in the most
serious personal injury, that is the offences of homicide,
attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and so on, account for
2.4 per cent of youths charged with a violent offence, and 0.4 per
cent of all youths charged with Criminal Code offences. The
majority of charges, 62 per cent of those charges against youth,
are for property offences.
With respect to murder, the highest rate of murder with
respect to young offenders 12 to 17 years old was in 1975 when
there were 68 youths between 12 and 17 who committed murder.
The lowest was in 1987 when there were 35. There really is no
discernible trend. Thirty-five are too many. Sixty-eight are too
many. They are all too many. But this sort of panic approach that
everything is out of control is completely wrong.
The Reform Party is proposing in its motion that the age be
reduced from 12 to 17 years inclusive, which is the age for a
young offender under the Young Offenders Act, to 10 to 15
years.
Under the present law persons who are 18 or more are treated
as adults and they go before the adult courts. Those under 18
down to 12 years go to youth courts and are covered by the
Young Offenders Act. As most of us know, a youth between 14
and 17 years can be transferred to the adult court on a motion
presented by the crown to have that individual transferred to the
adult court because the crime has been serious, a crime of
violence and so on.
(1240)
Let us repeat over and over again that those under 12 years are
left to the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is up to the provinces
to do something to protect the public and to rehabilitate and take
care of those persons under 12 years.
Why did we pick 12 and 18 a few years ago when we did the
Young Offenders Act? We did so because 18 was considered the
general age of majority, not only in Canada but around the
world. Therefore we said that once you were 18 you would be in
adult courts and if you were under 18 you would be in the youth
courts. We picked the age of 12 because that was the generally
recognized age of puberty, and under 12 years you were
considered not to have the same characteristics as a person 12
years and older. That is why we picked those ages.
As I said, the Minister of Justice is going to bring in a bill in a
few weeks dealing with very specific changes to the Young
Offenders Act. It will go much beyond this simplistic motion
presented today by the Reform Party. He has also said he is
going to refer the entire Young Offenders Act to the justice
committee of which I am the chair for a complete review, no
holds barred. Every part of the act will be looked at. Action will
be taken, but action will be taken in a deliberative way.
Again this morning I heard Reform Party members
continually asking whether we favour the rights of the offender
or the rights of the victim, or do we favour the rights of the
offender or the safety of society. These are not exclusive things.
This is a false proposition.
It is not a contradiction to be concerned for the protection of
society and for the offender. As a matter of fact if we are really
interested in protecting society, we have to believe in
rehabilitation because the overwhelming number of offences are
limited offences and those people will be returned to society.
Therefore we have to care about what happens to offenders when
they are under our control, whether it is in a prison, on probation
or parole, or whatever. If we do not show concern for the
offender we are ignoring the safety of society.
We have to be extremely concerned and improve our
programs for victims of crime and for protection of society.
Sure, we must do that. But to pretend that you do one or the other
and you ignore the offender and the offender's rights and the
rights of society to make sure that the offender returns to society
a safer person is wrong. We must do both. Rehabilitation is in
the best interests of society.
In conclusion let me say this. We must deal with the Young
Offenders Act and youth crime and the Minister of Justice will
present us with a bill in a few weeks. We are also going to get a
complete review of the Young Offenders Act. We must do that.
However, we should not deal with youth crime in the
simplistic manner suggested to us this morning by members of
the Reform Party. It will have no effect on the youth crime rate
in this country. It will not solve the problems they refer to and
they have raised some pretty serious problems.
They keep raising these individual cases which are horrible
examples of crime by young people. Everybody will agree that
these are horrible examples. By the way, because these crimes
are reported in a spectacular way in the press the public has the
perception that the youth crime problem is more widespread
than it is. However we admit there are serious problems but we
do not deal with them in the simplistic way the Reform Party
suggests today.
We are going to get a bill in a few weeks. We are going to have
a complete and thoughtful review. We are going to hear from
individuals and organizations from all parts of the country.
That is the way to do it. We hear from all sides. We get input
from experts and ordinary citizens. We get input from the police.
We get input from correctional officers, social workers, teach-
4256
ers, psychologists, the whole gambit of people who have some
interest in this matter.
We will do it that way. That is the way we should do it. I invite
the public during that review to work with us in Parliament to
improve the situation and have better laws and a better situation
with respect to youth crime.
(1245 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my hon. colleague opposite. Members
would know that my hon. colleague opposite has a long history
in this Parliament and has been involved in the criminal justice
system as far as Parliament is concerned for many, many years.
As a matter of fact as my hon. colleague mentioned he is at
this time the chair of the Commons justice committee, a very
important and powerful role within the Commons. I would point
out that the chair of the justice committee has a particular
perspective on crime as evidenced by the fact that recently the
member is on record of having suggested that perhaps 15 years
is the maximum that anybody should be in jail for any crime no
matter what that crime might be, no matter what their age.
The member opposite will also recall that in this Parliament
on October 7, 1971 as a continuation of changing the
incarceration system, the jail system, a very needed change, the
government of the day directed the emphasis away from the
protection of society to the rehabilitation of criminals, which is
just fine. The Solicitor General of the day is on record of having
said: ``From this day forward we will put rehabilitation ahead of
the protection of society''. That was October 7, 1971. This was a
quantum shift in direction of the correctional service. It was a
quantum shift in direction of attitude of this Parliament.
Perhaps after 23 or 24 years we might revisit this and say
``Wait a minute. Let us back up. Maybe we should ensure that we
have a concentration on rehabilitation because we know how
important that is and we do not want people to reoffend. We also
have to protect society''.
At any rate, the hon. member asked: ``Since we have this
opportunity to present a votable motion, why would we make it
so mild?''. The reason we made it so mild is that it was only by
having the mildest of possible motions that there was any hope
at all of getting any support from the Liberals who got us into
this mess in the first place. We want to move this debate
incrementally down the road. We wanted to make this motion so
mild that it would be virtually impossible for anyone in this
House to disagree with it.
How wrong we were. If the hon. member opposite does not
like this motion, would the hon. member opposite, the chair of
the justice committee, tell this House and Canadians what is his
number one priority? If he were going to introduce a motion
today what would that motion be?
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
questions of the hon. member. First of all, the proposal he is
putting before the House today is not mild. It is harsh and
ineffective. He is including 10 and 11-year old children under
the Young Offenders Act who should be dealt with because they
are below the age of puberty under child protection acts and
other legislation under provincial jurisdiction.
We are against it because it is a harsh piece of legislation and
it will be ineffective and it will not solve the problems he is
referring to.
Second, with respect to the quote attributed to Mr. Goyer, the
Solicitor General on October 7, 1971, all I can tell him is that I
was appointed Solicitor General in 1972 and I took the
completely opposite point of view. If he wants quotes I can give
him many quotes in which I said over and over again that our
principal goal and our priority is protection of the public in
everything we do in the Solicitor General's department. That
was the policy from 1972 right on. I can put on record if he
wants-not today but any day he wants-speeches made in this
House, legislation, speeches outside the House which are totally
contrary to the quote attributed to Mr. Goyer. I do not know
whether that quote is complete or not. Let us forget about the
quotes of Mr. Goyer. I can give him quotes from myself, Mr. Fox
and Mr. Blais, many Solicitors General over the years who have
not supported that simple quote that was cited in the House
several times.
The members of the Reform Party talk about bringing a new
approach to Parliament and taking a more honest and fair
approach with respect to things. Yet today the hon. member has
accused me of saying that 15 years should be the maximum for
criminals of all kinds. I never at any time said that and I would
never support such a proposal, never. However, I see there is a
letter campaign going around Parliament to all members which
accuses me of saying murderers should be released
automatically after 15 years. It is completely false.
(1250)
What I said was that for first degree murder the parole
eligibility date should be 15 years and we should do away with
article 745 which gives the possibility of release after 15 years
and that for second degree murder it should be 10 years. There is
quite a difference from what the hon. member said and what that
letter says. He should correct that. He should apologize for
suggesting that I said there should be automatic release or
release for all prisoners no matter what their crime after 15
years. He is wrong.
When we had parole eligibility at 10 years less than 50 per
cent got released on that date. If he looks at the statistics, parole
eligibility does not mean that you are released automatically. As
4257
a matter of fact you have to prove that you are rehabilitated and
no longer a danger to the public. That is not easy to do.
The purpose of parole eligibility is to ensure that those who
are really rehabilitated and are not a danger to society can go
back into society, pay their own way, take care of their families
and not be taken care of by the state.
Let us make sure that when you cite me or you quote me that
you quote me correctly. I do not mind your disagreeing with me
on what I really say, but do not distort what I have said.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know that members have
very strong views on a very important subject, but in wanting to
give everyone the opportunity to speak, as many as possible
during the course of the day, I have to respect the timeframes.
Mr. McClelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To the
member opposite, I unreservedly withdraw that remark in
impugning his character. I thank him for the opportunity of
setting the record straight.
Mr. Allmand: I appreciate it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for his assistance.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to join the debate on the Young Offenders Act
today.
In starting out, my party and my constituents and I look
forward very much to seeing the results of the bill being drafted
by the justice minister to be tabled in this House. I would
express the idea that it is unfortunate that the extensive review
process and recommendation process that the former speaker
spoke of would not take place before the drafting of the bill so
that there would be some real opportunity for change.
I believe the Young Offenders Act was an attempt to balance
the approach of the socialistic juvenile delinquents act and the
demand to protect society from crime.
I am not advocating the repeal or the abolishment of the
Young Offenders Act as some members in society are today.
After consulting with individuals within the RCMP and
corrections field it is my belief that the fault lies more in the
administration of the legislation than in the legislation itself.
Perhaps legislated sentencing grids or mandatory minimum
sentences providing less discretionary powers to the courts
might be more of a deterrent to young offenders.
I am here to advocate amendments to the act to deal with the
20 per cent of the young offenders this act does not work for.
One of the better aspects of the juvenile delinquent act was the
ability to charge individuals who contributed to the delinquency
of youth. If we brought this measure back it would bring back
the responsibility to the parent and would not allow adult
criminals, i.e. drug offenders or car theft ring leaders, to hide
behind young offenders.
There have been a lot of statistics thrown around here today in
the debate and I have a few of my own that I would like to throw
into the pot. According to Statistics Canada in 1991, 22 per cent
of all federal statute charges were laid against youth. Of the
146,000 charges against youth, 13 per cent or 18,800 of the
charges were violence related. Since 1986 the violence related
charges have increased by 102 per cent despite a 1.8 per cent
decrease in the population of this age group. I think there is a
crisis here.
(1255)
Of all the youth charged approximately 53 per cent were over
16 years and approximately 46 per cent had prior records. Of
this 46 per cent 19 per cent had five or more prior convictions. It
is this 19 per cent that are the problem we really want to address.
This particular group appears to be flaunting the law and hides
behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The victims of youth offences have been left out in the cold
and are not included in the legal process. We all would agree that
the victims and families of victims suffer greatly and feel
violated, abandoned and unprotected by the Canadian justice
system.
I can only ask the previous speaker for the Bloc and a number
of other speakers I have heard today how they would feel if their
own family were torn apart and destroyed by a repeat young
offender with no respect for authority.
I think the recent introduction of youth justice committees
and victim service units in parts of my constituency in Alberta is
making a difference. For the first time the victims and the
community are having a say in the process. I would strongly
encourage more victim service units to be developed throughout
the country as victims have the ability to have their voices heard
in the sentencing of their assailants through the use of victim
impact statements and it is making a difference. Victims as well
should be financially compensated by their assailants, the guilty
party, to the greatest possible extent. It is Reform Party policy
that the Young Offenders Act be amended to include: the
lowering of the age of eligibility of being charged from 12 to 10
years of age as stated in our motion; offenders aged 16 and 17
would be considered adult offenders; offenders aged 14 or 15
who commit serious offences should be transferred to adult
court; the release of names of offenders to the public and to the
news media; the holding of parents responsible where it can be
shown that a lack of parenting control is evident; that offenders
in custody should be required to enrol in adult life skills
upgrading programs.
4258
The justice minister and some members opposite suggest that
to solve the problems of youth crime we must attack the root
causes. These root causes are poverty, permissive social
attitudes and the perceived lack of opportunities. I say certainly
we must continue to work to resolve these problems but these
problems will be not solved quickly if ever.
Society more and more is losing faith in our justice system
and demanding immediate change. This demand for quick
action is becoming more and more urgent as we witness the
dramatic increase in the instances of brutal violent crime like
the recent stabbing of a young mother in her home in the city of
Edmonton, or the stabbing death of a 16-year old youth in Hull
only last week, or the series of drive-by shootings at locations
all across the country.
Only two days ago the theft of a large semi-trailer truck by a
young offender who went on a joy ride ended in the killing of a
mother and daughter right here in Ottawa after trying to escape
from the police.
I would wager that almost every member here today knows an
example in which an overlenient treatment of a repeat young
offender allowed uncontrollable youth to thumb their noses at
the system.
Last summer I travelled through my constituency. I recall a
particularly alarming example of a juvenile habitual property
offender who was sentenced to do community work as
retribution for his crimes. This youth was escorted to the
community cemetery with a lawn mower and a can of gas and
was instructed to cut the grass. When the supervisor returned
some time later to check on the progress, not only was the young
offender gone, but so was the lawn mower and gas can which
was later found to be sold some piece down the road. Sometime
later rumour has it that in an expression of frustration this youth
was last seen leaving the community bound and towed behind a
pick-up truck. This youth went on to reoffend and eventually
moved on to adult court, but he never did reoffend in that
particular community again.
This example not only demonstrates in a real way the
disregard many of these repeat offenders have for the system but
I believe it is also an ominous sign of the direction communities
and individuals might go if they continue to lose confidence in
the criminal justice system to protect their property and their
families.
(1300 )
I am sure all members here would agree that vigilante justice
is not something that we want to see. Therefore I urge the
government to respond to this growing public concern as
demonstrated by the huge criminal justice rallies taking place
across the country and to move quickly in order to restore public
confidence in this most vital criminal justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech of my colleague from Athabasca and I
think that it was made with sincerity and honesty.
I note, however, that the examples given concern specific
cases, and the member asked what would be the reaction of Bloc
members or Government members if their child had to
experience particularly painful situations caused by young
offenders.
No doubt the reaction would be one of outrage and it would be
a strong reaction concentrating on punishment and resentment.
It must be noted, however, that as members of the Parliament of
Canada, we have the responsibility to look at things in
perspective and a little more coldly, perhaps.
I note with interest that the member for Athabasca pointed out
that it is necessary to attack the roots of the problem, which are
poverty and the problems of drugs and poor schooling. There is
no doubt that the often excessive reactions or the crimes
committed by young offenders can be explained by a particular
sociological context. But I particularly liked what the member
for Athabasca said at the start of his speech.
He implied that the problem may not be the Act, but the
administration of the Act. It is indeed my impression in looking
at the Act and, frequently, in looking at what judges do, it is my
impression that it might, in some cases, be applied with more
severity.
For example, unless I am mistaken, young offenders may be
brought before adult courts under the current Act. So, I would
like to ask the member for Athabasca this question: Does he not
think that if judges, those who apply the Act, and also the people
who apply it in the prisons, those who are concerned with issues
of parole, if these people paid a little more attention to the
concerns of some and applied the Act with more severity,
perhaps we would not be obliged to amend the present Act?
[English]
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the member
and I are in agreement in much of what he said.
I very much agree that more vigorous enforcement of the
regulations that are there now would be a giant step in the right
direction. Certainly having said that, there is a small percentage
of offenders the legislation now is not working for. I would
suggest from my statistics that would be some 25 per cent of the
offenders who are repeat offenders. A number of them repeated
many times and the legislation simply is not working for them.
There has to be a real deterrent put in the system to deal with
those offenders.
Let us not lose perspective. The legislation that is there is
working for 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the offenders who go
before the courts. I really hope that we do not throw out the
whole act, that we bring in amendments to the act that will deal
4259
severely with the percentage of young offenders the act is
working for.
I would not go so far as perhaps some of my colleagues or
constituents who made some remarks lately about the youth in
Singapore who got caught writing graffiti on cars and the
punishment that was applied to him is perhaps severe in most
Canadians' eyes. However, that particular youth I am sure will
never write graffiti on cars in Singapore again.
(1305)
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I thank you
very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for the
opportunity to speak to this very topical and important debate
today.
What we are talking about today is the confidence that
Canadians have in their legislatures to be aware and to be part of
what is going on. For instance, we cannot have rallies in
Edmonton and Calgary of 5,000 people and then our
parliamentarians here in Ottawa pretending that there is not
outrage in the land over the perception of the Young Offenders
Act, or criminality in general.
The debate today is focused on one aspect of the Young
Offenders Act. In reality what we are talking about here today is
whether or not Canadians feel safe in their own homes, whether
or not Canadians have security of the person, whether or not
Canadians have a sense of safety with their property. When you
leave your home and come back, what is left?
All of us knocking on doors in the last election can recall
walking down street after street where people are hostages in
their own homes, paying monthly remittance to burglar alarm
companies. Why? Because people can break into a home, walk
down a street, break into another home, and if they are under
certain ages all they ever get is a slap on the wrist.
The statistics that we have had here today will show that crime
by those who have been accused and convicted is not
particularly high. Let us talk about the number of crimes
committed, not the number of convictions. Let us talk about the
number of people who are convicted on one crime but who have
done perhaps a half dozen or 15 or 20, or perhaps two.
Statistics are not always the measure of the security that
people feel in their homes. Perhaps better security would be the
growth of the private protection agencies in Canada, growth of
the industry in providing protection in people's own homes and
their own businesses.
We have to have balance in this debate. As we go forward over
these next weeks and months as the government introduces its
Young Offenders Act and the changes thereto, we need to have
balance. To do so we need to know where we started and have
some idea of where we are going to go.
I will read the motion for those viewers who might have just
tuned in.
That this House urge the government to respond to the evident lack of
confidence that has arisen from Canadians over the Young Offenders Act, and
recommend modification to the definition of ``young person'' in section 2(1) of
the act to mean a person ten years of age or more, but under 16 years of age.
The effect is to lower it by two years. This, as other hon.
members have mentioned, would serve on the upper end to
ensure that there is a venue for more strict retribution, and on the
lower end to bring people into the system so that they can be
helped at an earlier age.
This motion responds to a very evident concern in my
constituency. Fully 80 per cent to 90 per cent of my constituents
are calling for a strengthening of the Young Offenders Act; fully
80 to 90 per cent of my constituents want stricter penalties and
harsher penalties in the courts.
We are talking in this House about gun control laws, the
potential changes to gun control. Yet our courts do not enforce
the rules we have now. That is the primary problem, the primary
cause of the crime that we have in our society today.
If we are going to do anything about crime, young offenders or
adult offenders, there must be three certainties. These are the
three certainties that we have when raising our own children: the
certainty of detection, the certainty of a swift and fair trial, and
the certainty of retribution.
(1310)
I would submit that many Canadians feel that our criminal
justice system, particularly as it applies to young offenders, not
only does not have one of these pillars to make it successful, it
has none of the pillars.
When your home is broken into, when the police finally get
there they do a report and you submit it to your insurance
company and that is the end of it. Once again we are hostages.
We are paying increased premiums for insurance because we
accept the fact that our homes are going to be broken into. A
swift and fair trial-how many of these instances ever come to
court? And retribution, give me a break.
Here we have a criminal justice system particularly as it
applies to young offenders which has none of the pillars that
would be required to change attitudes, not one. It is not the way
we would respond or react in our own homes with our own
children.
If our children did damage to our own property and came
home would we be upset? Would there be detection? Would
there be a swift and fair trial? Would there be retribution? You
bet there would. Why is it then that while we would take this
responsibility personally as a nation we absolve ourselves of
this responsibility and we say because a child may have wet the
bed, they therefore have the right to do whatever they want to do
to society, it is society's fault.
4260
An extension of that argument, logical or illogical as it may
be, could well be that every child who is born and lives in
modest circumstances would naturally go on to be an offender of
some description and every child born into more privileged
circumstances would never get into trouble. We know that is not
the case. Offences, whether young offenders or not, cut across
all demographic lines, across all racial and linguistic barriers. It
has to do with societal values and what we as a society have
decided is okay and what we as a society have decided is not
okay.
My colleague who just spoke said that he does not agree with
the fact that this young fellow in Singapore doing whatever he
was doing, abusing the law, ended up getting the punishment of
the day in Singapore which is caning.
I would submit that there is one heck of a lot less crime in
Singapore than there is here. I would question where people
would feel safer, in downtown Ottawa, downtown Toronto,
downtown Vancouver, downtown Edmonton or downtown
Singapore.
I am not suggesting we go all one way or all the other but I can
remember from my personal experience a brush with the law. I
got involved with the Reform Party at a very young age. I went
to reform school I think when I was about 11. I was at a camp
with other young boys and we decided we had had about enough
of that so we ran away. I guess we were 11 or 12 or something
like that. We were on the loose for three or four days.
I can look back at it now and imagine the pain and suffering
that caused to everyone associated. I would have gone crazy if
one of my kids had done that.
In any event, we sort of lived off the land. If we had had the
brains we would have been able to figure out how to steal a car
but we could not, which is not to say we did not try. What we
were doing was mischief. It would be perceived as mischief
today.
I will never forget walking along a street and feeling the hand
of the law on the back of my neck as he picked me up. He could
probably be arrested for that. There I was walking along the
street. The next thing I knew my feet were off the ground and I
had this hand around the back of my neck holding me up, a voice
saying: ``Get in the car, kid''. To this day I have trouble eating
Shreddies because that is what they served us at the detention
home. That is not to say that every kid who gets in trouble as a
youth is going to turn out all bad. They may end up being
members of Parliament, perhaps a logical extension. I throw no
collar on hon. members opposite. I am speaking strictly about
myself.
(1315)
How are we as parliamentarians going to get somewhere with
this perception, not just of youth crime but criminality in
general? I submit it goes much deeper than changing or applying
the law. It has to do with the values that we treasure in our
society. It has to do with things like family values, with a sense
of community. It has to do with accepting personal
responsibility. It has to do with leaders leading. It has to do with
people who are responsible taking responsibility.
We have heard today of students in school being wild and
doing whatever they want to do. Do the teachers like that? I
submit they do not. The teachers will tell you time and time
again that they are handcuffed. We have put them in handcuffs
so they cannot do anything. They cannot touch the children.
They can say: ``You are a bad little Johnny, you are a bad little
Sue. You should not be doing that''. Saying that is not going to
change a thing.
We have to change our values. We have to make personal
responsibility and personal accountability, whether you are a
young offender or a mid-sized offender or an adult offender, the
primacy.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Edmonton Southwest took the liberty of relating a story which,
in my opinion, shows how a young person who commits a minor
crime or offence can turn himself around and become a model
citizen. Not only can he do so, but we must make every effort to
ensure that this happens.
My colleague, the member for Saint-Hubert, indicated to us
this morning that young people commit 10 per cent of all crimes,
regardless of their seriousness. This means then that adults are
committing the other 90 per cent. I feel that we must always
keep in mind the fact that crime is primarily the work of adults,
and it is often organized.
As the Bloc Quebecois's spokesperson for young people, I
think we have to send a very positive message to our young
people, and tell them of our intention to crack down on crime.
Figures provided by the Library of Parliament indicate that
despite the addition of police officers and security personnel
over the past 30 years, things have not improved.
A short while ago, I repeated what my colleague, the member
for Saint-Hubert, had said, namely that in Quebec there were
few protests and few movements and no mobilization of people
demanding major changes to the current legislation. However,
we are led to believe on listening to the members of the Reform
Party that this is not the case elsewhere.
I would like to ask the honourable member if he can give us
statistics or survey results from his region or even crime rate
statistics to support his own position and his party's position on
this legislation, because we confess that we, from Quebec, do
not understand.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, in my presentation I spoke
briefly about statistics, their value and what they say or what
they do not say. The statistics we received at the justice briefing
had to do with the number of charges and convictions but it had
nothing to do with the number of offences and break-ins. If the
4261
number of break-ins and the number of offences are combined,
those statistics are up dramatically.
(1320)
What I am responding to and the statistics that I quoted came
from surveys in my constituency of people who are specifically
concerned about the effect of crime.
It is absolutely essential, as we proceed with this debate, we
do not make the blanket statement that all young people are bad.
They are not. The vast majority of them are great. The vast
majority of them are inspirations. We see them coming through
here on tours and we are involved with them. It is something that
we need to be very cautious about as we get into this debate and
as we proceed down the road that we do not suggest for a
moment that all kids are bad.
However there is a time when we have to recognize things as
they are, not as we wish them to be. There comes a time when
young people, regardless of age, show by what they have done
that they need special treatment, that they need the care that
society has to give them or that society needs to be protected
from them.
In my view we need to draw a distinction between people who
make a mistake and people who make the same mistake over and
over again and do not learn from it. If you make a mistake once
and learn from it that is experience. If you make the same
mistake over and over and over again that is character. We have
to make the distinction between those who need a nudge to get
themselves on the right track and those who are a danger to
society. We have to be very careful that we do not paint everyone
with the same brush.
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Pierrefonds-Dollard.
I rise today to respond to the motion under debate respecting
the Young Offenders Act. The government is very much aware
of Canadians' concerns respecting youth crime.
During the election we campaigned on the need for reform of
the Young Offenders Act. Since the election the Minister of
Justice has indicated on several occasions his desire to proceed
expeditiously to respond to some of the key concerns in this area
with an amending bill in the very near future.
In addition, the minister has also indicated his commitment to
a review of the entire act. This will be undertaken by the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs over the
course of the coming year.
I am a member of the justice committee and I am particularly
pleased to be part of the committee that will be doing the review
of the Young Offenders Act. The act is now 10 years old. As it
happens I had just finished law school at the University of
Saskatchewan when the Young Offenders Act was introduced.
Our class was among the first to do a very detailed study of what
was then a new act so I am pleased to be part of the group that
will be reviewing the act after 10 years of practice.
One aspect of the committee will be to listen to the viewpoints
of all Canadians, to listen to the concerns that are certainly very
real.
The Young Offenders Act creates a separate system of justice
for young people. It has a unique spirit and philosophy which
seeks both the protection of society and takes into account the
special needs of youthful offenders.
The Young Offenders Act provides for a balance between the
imperatives of assuring public protection and meeting the needs
of our young people who run afoul of the law. We should not
forget that the interests of society do include the objective of
rehabilitation of young people as well as for the protection of
society itself.
The interests of society also dictate that we should allow
young people to mature and, as the hon. member just mentioned,
to learn from their mistakes and that is a need for a separate
juvenile justice system. We believe that the protection of society
entails two obligations: preventing young people from
committing criminal offences and helping young people who
commit crimes to become law-abiding citizens again.
As a parent I subscribe to the principle that young people are
responsible for their actions. I am also cognizant of the fact
however that young people are not on an equal footing with
adults in terms of their degree of responsibility and if they were
I would probably not need to be a parent.
Owing to their state of dependence and the level of
development and maturity of young people they have special
needs. These needs include counselling and support as well as
supervision, discipline and guidance. The adequacy of the
Young Offenders Act for youth involved in very serious offences
however has become a major public issue in Canada.
(1325)
From a public perspective there is a strong lobby for increased
sentences in the belief that they would offer enhanced protection
to the public, provide general deterrents and reaffirm
fundamental norms regarding the sanctity of life and societal
repudiation of the crime of murder. Canadians must have
confidence in the laws designed to protect them.
One of the major concerns of the public relates to minimum
age of criminal responsibility which under the present
legislation is 12. Many would like to see it lowered to 10. Under
the
4262
previous legislation, the juvenile delinquents act, the minimum
age of criminal responsibility was seven years of age.
Support for lowering the age to 10 is not new. In the
consultations and debates leading up to the passage of the Young
Offenders Act, some observers made much the same argument
we are hearing now, that we should have a lower age of 10.
Others suggested it should be as high as 14. The age of 12 finally
received broad support in the belief that, generally speaking
children under 12 would not have the knowledge and experience
to appreciate fully the nature and consequences of their actions,
nor would they be able to participate meaningfully in the
proceedings against them. These capacities of course are
fundamental to a fair and just criminal prosecution.
Another concern of the public relates to the maximum age of
criminal responsibility, the upper end of the scale under the
Young Offenders Act. It has been suggested to lower to 16 years
the maximum age under the Young Offenders Act. The issue
surrounding the maximum age also received a great deal of
attention in the debates that preceded the passage of the Young
Offenders Act in 1982. The inclusion of 16 and 17-year olds in
the juvenile system was done in the belief that it was in the best
interests of youth and Canadian society that young persons be
dealt with in this manner.
For the vast majority of young offenders, particularly those
committing less serious offences, the current age limit allows
them the time to mature away from the influence of older, more
hardened adult offenders. I think this is the point that was being
made by the member from Edmonton.
The government is committed to a juvenile justice system
which will effectively seek to provide protection for our
communities, to hold young people responsible for their illegal
acts, but also to take into account any special needs a youth may
have which are pertinent to the youth's offending behaviour and
therefore relevant to the goal of rehabilitation.
The issues of minimum and maximum ages are very important
to the operation of the act and Canadians' belief in it.
Consequently this issue will be looked at in the context of the
broad based review of the juvenile justice system. This will
allow all views on the issue to be examined in the context of an
overall examination of the act.
Another public concern has to do with the publication of the
name of the young offender. It has been suggested that the name
of the young person who has committed or who is alleged to
have committed an indictable offence where this youth has been
previously convicted on at least two separate occasions be
published. There is scope under the current Young Offenders
Act to allow for the details of an offence or a trial to be reported.
Broad coverage of the youth justice system, the trends, the
profiles of youth and successful programs is permitted under the
present act.
It is important however to distinguish between perception and
reality. The current emphasis, particularly in the media on
extreme or exceptional cases, creates a distorted picture of
juvenile crime and its treatment by the justice system. In view of
that it is important to understand that there are a number of
reasons that support the prohibition on publication of
information serving to identify young accused, including such
things as the protection of innocent siblings of offenders from
shame and possible ostracism, encouragement to youth to
comply with a disposition and to remain free from further
involvement in crime, prevention of barriers arising that may
stand in the way of a youth becoming more positively involved
in a community, including employment and educational
opportunities.
We must also remember the families of young offenders are
often part of the rehabilitation process and the prohibition on
publication may enhance their capacity to move forward
positively for the benefit of the youth, the family and the
community.
In the context of public safety the publication of a youth's
identity may foster an illusion of public safety. The media
however can only offer selective publicity rather than full
reporting of all cases to a limited segment of the population.
Balanced against this however is the protection of society.
The Minister of Justice has indicated in his response to the
throne speech that he is in favour of a greater sharing of
information about convicted young offenders with those who
need to know for reasons of safety. He has also indicated that he
intends to include provisions related to information sharing in
the June bill.
(1330 )
I would like to comment quickly on an important election
proposal to increase the maximum penalty available in youth
court for first and second degree murder. Again the Minister of
Justice has indicated he is committed to increased sentences for
certain violent crimes, including murder.
In the June bill, the Minister of Justice will develop his
proposals in a way that will seek to improve the juvenile justice
system and to promote more effective and efficient measures to
help young offenders while providing protection for the public.
In many cases the criminal behaviour of youths appearing
before the youth courts constitutes an isolated and often not very
serious act. For a much smaller percentage of youth however,
their criminal behaviour is part of a pattern of more serious
difficulties. It is essential to understand the special needs of
these youths if their interests and indeed the long term interests
of society are to be met.
Canada's Young Offenders Act has received international
recognition by the United Nations as a model for juvenile
4263
justice. It clearly takes a bold step by delineating the parameters
of criminal law for youth and permitting resort to criminal law
sanctions only for behaviour which is clearly criminal.
In doing so however, it has firmly entrenched the recognition
that adolescents are to be distinguished from adults because
their needs are distinct and therefore warrant a distinct response.
This distinction must not however detract from the principle
that society is entitled to protection from the criminal activity of
youth.
Canadian courts have interpreted interests of society to mean
both protection of the public and rehabilitation of offenders.
This dual interpretation places a very heavy onus on the juvenile
justice system to deliver on both fronts. The magnitude of this
task is best illustrated when youths are involved in violent
crimes or chronic reoffending. These classes of offenders reveal
the multidimensional nature of the challenge facing those
involved in the juvenile justice system and the challenge that
lies ahead of us.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member in referring to our motion of lowering the age from 12
to 10 under the law said that many people support this. My
question is how many?
In a situation like that which happened in Britain where two
10-year olds murdered a two or three-year old, how would she
suggest we deal with that situation in our society under our law?
Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Speaker, I believe what I said was that
prior to the passage of the original bill there had been arguments
on both sides as to whether the age should be 10, 12, 14 or some
other age. The consensus was that 12 would more adequately
meet the needs. Therefore I cannot answer directly the
member's question of precisely how many supported 10 years, if
I understood the member's question properly.
On the tragic situation in England with children of that age
involved in a brutal murder of a baby, I would like to be able to
tell the hon. member that simply by cranking up the Young
Offenders Act we can prevent that kind of thing but that simply
is not true. It is not possible for that sort of abhorrent behaviour
to be legislated away.
What we must keep foremost in our minds is the dual aspect of
our juvenile justice system which is to have a system that will
protect people from repeat offenders and at the same time to
look at the underlying causes of the kinds of behaviour we saw in
the tragic British case. Only by dealing with it as a complete
package can we provide any solutions to these kinds of things.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member is a member of the justice committee would she not
agree that when this matter is referred to the committee there is a
fairly high probability we will not see any recommendations
from the justice committee at least until 1995?
There seemed to be some references earlier in this debate that
everything is wonderful in Quebec according to the Bloc
members and that we are talking about a regional matter. As the
member comes from western Canada perhaps we do not have
that communication barrier.
Would she not agree that on the basis of the representations
she has had with her own constituents, is there not a real
groundswell of concern on the part of her constituents as there
are on the part of mine? This very simple thing of doing
something that very logically is going to happen, would she not
agree it would be a good strong indicator to the people of Canada
and her constituents that the House really was serious about
doing something?
(1335 )
Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public will realize
this government is very serious about doing something by the
fact that the justice minister has moved swiftly to introduce
immediate changes in June. That is something he has committed
to do from the beginning. Also the entire act will be turned over
to the non-partisan parliamentary committee for a thorough
review which will involve a careful study of what works and
does not work in the act and what can be improved upon.
I know the hon. member opposite enjoys giving us his views
on how we should listen to the constituents by referendum and
other measures. I can think of no better way than to ensure that
the parliamentary committee system is following that process
by permitting Canadians to bring forth their views, people who
are involved in the criminal justice system from all aspects.
Canadians will be reassured to know that the justice minister is
committed to providing a process by which their concerns can be
heard and action taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
the Young Offenders Act is extraordinary because its
application is not general.
It is extraordinary because it provides for different conditions
for young people. It is extraordinary because its approach and
philosophy are unique. And finally, it is extraordinary because it
recognizes the specific needs of our young people.
The Young Offenders Act strikes a balance between
protecting society and meeting the needs of the young person.
We must remember that the rehabilitation of young offenders is
as important to society as protecting society itself. Society also
has an interest in letting a young person acquire the maturity he
needs to cope with the realities of life.
Protecting society, to us, means two things: an obligation to
prevent the young person from committing criminal offences
and an obligation to provide the help he needs. Of course, young
4264
people are responsible for their actions, but they cannot be
expected to assume the same level of responsibility as adults.
Because of their dependent status and their level of
development and maturity, they have special needs and requuire
not only counselling and support but also monitoring, discipline
and supervision. The treatment of young people who are in
trouble is something we should not just accent but actively
promote, approve and support.
Mr. Speaker, the question of youth rehabilitation is not an
easy one. It is clear that the existing legislation has its
shortcomings, and the tragic incidents that occurred recently are
an indication that it must be improved. Criticism of this
legislation is becoming increasingly vocal and widespread.
Many factors contribute to a general lack of public confidence,
including a poor understanding of the phenomenon of youth
crime and of the provisions of the legislation.
For instance, the public does not realize that in youth court,
sentences may be for the same period as sentences given in adult
court for a similar offence, and proportionally speaking, more
offenders are convicted in youth court than in adult court, and
this applies to practically all types of offences.
I agree there is a very genuine public concern about the
increase in violence among young people, but when we talk
about youth violence, we must also consider the broader social
and cultural context in which it occurs. Poverty, low self esteem,
unemployment, little education, isolation, lack of decent
housing and early exposure to abusing treatment, often in the
young person's family, are all factors that in many cases will
cause a young person to become violent.
(1340)
Throughout the election campaign, the Government promised
to proceed quickly with reform of the Act. It adopted a
comprehensive and balanced approach to criminality among
young people, with a number of leading ideas, including
recognition of the importance of preventing the particular
problems of Aboriginal youth and the defence of a separate but
strengthened system of justice for all young people, except the
most dangerous.
In order to adopt the best approach to reform, the Government
is taking into consideration a number of factors that are deemed
important. It is clear that the system of justice for young people
cannot be assessed in isolation from other systems, that is, youth
protection, health and education, which are essential to the
prevention of crime among young people and which interact
with the justice system when an adolescent commits an offence.
The confidence of the public must be re-established, but the
federal government will not achieve this on its own. It is useless
to blame the Act blindly without taking a look at the
shortcomings of its application and the inadequacy of services.
[English]
The Minister of Justice announced recently the strategy
chosen to reform the Young Offenders Act. The proposed new
justice strategy has two phases: first, a bill which shall be tabled
during the month of June; and second, a parliamentary review
which will examine the nature and extent of youth crime.
The review will also look at the age limits, parental
involvement and alternatives to criminal responses. In fact the
old justice system applicable to youth will be under review. The
review will examine ways the federal government can better
prevent child and youth crime and promote integrated responses
to child and youth problems at the federal level with health,
immigration and employment.
The bill will focus primarily on murder and other serious
personal injury offences. Other changes to the act are also under
study to better respond to youth who are involved in criminal
activities. These changes may include amendments to court
provisions, custody provisions, and the evidence provisions of
the act.
The government wants to strengthen the effectiveness of
intervention in the interests of greater protection and enhance
rehabilitation in the youth justice system. The government is
also looking at alternatives to custody for less serious offences.
These changes will represent important improvements to the
act. They target two distinct categories: youth whose behaviour
shall be addressed by the youth system in the community; and
youth involved in the most serious offences who may require
longer sentences.
The proposed changes remain true to the ideal of an
individualized approach which permits the youth court to make
the most rational choice in the individual circumstances of each
case. I believe that the modifications will be well balanced, will
recognize the principle of rehabilitation and will encourage
community based sentences.
It is true that Canada is having problems with a minority of
youth who are involved in serious and violent crimes. But we
must not lose sight that the vast majority of youth who are dealt
with in the juvenile system do not reoffend; they become
contributing members of our society.
Our youth justice system is geared to dealing with the
particular needs of young people who are still developing and
maturing. The youth justice system benefits from a specialized
judiciary with expertise in dealing with young persons. It allows
pre-sentence reports which allow for a more holistic approach
than that pursued in the adult system. It also allows for
specialized medical and psychological reports which may be
ordered when the judge is of the view that the young person may
be suffering from problems such as learning disabilities or emo-
4265
tional disorders. It has the capacity to involve families at all
stages of the process.
It is obvious that youth crime requires a multifaceted
response. Legislative change alone will not solve the problem,
but it is an important first step to restoring public confidence.
(1345)
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments about the remarks by the member for
Pierrefonds-Dollard. I would also like to make a few
comments, because I personally have the pleasure of having
teenagers who say things sometimes that I find a little annoying,
such as ``You know, Dad, if I'm arrested, no problem. They
won't do anything to me until I'm 18.''
That reflects to a certain extent what young people are saying.
They say that even if they do things that are wrong, the police
cannot arrest them in any case or charge them, because they are
minors. This is one of the aspects, when we talk about
enforcement, as the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard
mentioned, that I feel we should consider, in this respect in any
case, without penalizing young people unduly. We should at
least inform them of their responsibilities.
He also mentioned the fact that young people often behave the
way they see adults behave. If we misbehave, chances are our
children will do the same. In my opinion, we should maybe think
a little about changing the laws as they apply to adults and the
way in which adults are judged in order to create a better society
and to ensure that our children can behave as well as possible
when they have to accept responsibility. We should ensure that
we adults set a good example.
We should also talk about violence on television. We should
also talk about giving young people hope. As long as young
people do not have any hope, they will more likely tend to give
up on life, not really care and not show any respect for society. It
is in this spirit that, in my opinion, we have to respect these
young people who, basically, are not really guilty of these
crimes. This does not mean that we have to let them do as they
please, but I feel we have to be very open, as the law stipulates. I
feel that we have to be very open-minded in the way in which we
judge these young people.
I would like the member, since I have the opportunity to ask a
question, to tell us what he thinks we could do to improve the
way in which we mete out punishment to young people.
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Longueuil for
his question. As a parent, I too am always being told, even by my
own family, that parents should never strike their children
because they could be hauled off to youth court.
In answer to your question, I think the problem today is the
fact that the current legislation is poorly understood. Young
people often rationalize that if they commit a crime, a minor
one, it will not be a problem for them because when they turn 18,
they will not have a criminal record and they can do whatever
they like.
That is the impression young people have. The reality of the
legislation is, however, quite different. Which is not to say that
this government is unwilling to make changes to the act. I am
sure that the changes will be aimed first at broadening people's
understanding of the legislation as it will be defined in the future
and second, at ensuring that young offenders face up to the
reality of what they have done.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure whether the hon. member is trying to defend the
Young Offenders Act or not judging from his speech.
I would like to ask the hon. member a few questions here.
First, does the hon. member know or could he tell this House
what the sentence is right now for a young offender, say age 16,
committing rape or murder? He says that they may consider
longer sentences. I certainly hope they would do more than just
consider it.
(1350 )
The vast majority of youth are very respectful, hard working
and are trying to get ahead. I wonder if the member realizes that
the majority of children going to school today and trying to learn
are going there in fear of the minority creating these problems. I
would hope they would also take into account and listen to some
of the youth today about the problem that the minority is
creating before they make any decisions.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon.
member's question. It is not a matter of defending the Young
Offenders Act as it now stands, but rather of amending it and
improving it. There are problems in this country today and we
must deal with them. As was mentioned, gangs of youths are
terrorizing other young people in primary schools, high schools
and CEGEPs, and they must be brought into line. The answer,
however, is not simply to drag them into court and sentence
them. I am a bigger believer in social reintegration with the help
of psychologists, doctors and experts. If we do nothing but send
young offenders to jail, we will end up with hardened criminals
on our hands.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, for once this House cannot be said to lack consistency;
it has shown great singleness of purpose. About ten days ago, the
hon. member for York South-Weston, a government member,
introduced Bill C-217, a public bill to lower age limits for the
4266
purposes of the Young Offenders Act, to increase maximum
penalties and allow the publication of the names of young
offenders.
Today, the opposition motion moved by a Reform Party
member from British Columbia calls upon the House to urge the
government to respond to the evident-as far as they are
concerned-lack of confidence over the Young Offenders Act by
recommending a change to the definition of ``young offender''
in Section 2(1) of the said Act to mean a person to be ten years of
age or more, but sixteen years of age or less.
Again, we are falling back on lowering the minimum age. I
say it is somewhat similar to what Bill C-217 called for because,
as indicated earlier in this debate, lowering the age to 16 does
not change the rigour of the act. They said: ``We simply lowered
the age limits'' but the fact of the matter is that lowering the
maximum age of young offenders to 16 means that those
between the ages of 16 and 18 who will be tried by adult courts
will incur adult sentencing. That is where the change will hurt,
in terms of sentencing.
Why? Why an approach reflecting such intolerance, an
intolerance that seems to come mainly from English Canada but
which unfortunately is echoed in this House? As I said earlier,
by dint of being alarmists, you end up colouring facts. Some
members have been crying wolf for so long that they are seeing
its tail. Let us stop telling ourselves horror stories and face facts.
The sad reality is that delinquency is probably here to stay. We
will always need legislation to crack down on actions society
considers as unacceptable but in a civilized state legislation
must also seek to have a positive effect.
In the young offenders' case, we need an act that will not turn
this young offender into an old one and this, for the rest of his or
her life because such is the wish of an intolerant society. A
modern state must search for the causes of this criminal
behaviour and if possible, try to eradicate them from the young
offender's heart. Could we not do this in a non-partisan way,
without shaping the entire act around a senseless murder,
focusing instead on striking a balance between punishment, in
the form of the sentence, and rehabilitation, that is to say the
young delinquent or offender's social reintegration?
To do so, we must look at the statistics, which mirror reality
back to us. We must not settle for the headlines on the front page
of sensationalistic papers or their legal columns. I believe that
this feeling of insecurity is magnified by the information widely
disseminated by the press. Reassuring statistics are seldom
published. But statistics can be reassuring and indeed they are,
particularly in Quebec.
(1355)
According to a study by Jean Trépanier, criminology
professor at the University of Montreal, only one out of six
offenders is a minor. That is a far cry from the 50 per cent
suggested by today's debate and the emphasis on amending the
Young Offenders Act.
According to the study, juvenile crime even fell to about 8 per
cent in Quebec in the last 15 years, and even in Montreal there
was a substantial decline over the same period. The number of
young offenders in Montreal went from 10,145 in 1979 to 6,679
last year. I will be honest with the members of this House and
say that what is a problem is that the proportion of crimes
against persons committed by young people, which are more
visible and get more media coverage, climbed significantly
during the same period.
Despite the higher figures, the number of crimes against
persons committed by young people is still small in absolute
terms. That is why I think that the motion presented today by the
Reform Party is wrong. The perception in Quebec is quite
different. What do we do differently for young offenders in
Quebec so that our perception of this problem is apparently
different from that of the other provinces?
In Quebec when a youth commits an offence, his case is
immediately taken over by social services and not by the judicial
system. We immediately and completely de-criminalize the
legal process. It is important to remember this because Quebec
seems to be the only place in Canada where young offenders are
looked after by social services from the beginning of the legal
process to the sentences handed down by the courts.
Quebec has a list of offences. When a crime is not on this list,
it is up to the police to decide whether or not charges should be
laid. If the offence is listed, law-enforcement authorities must
refer the case to the judicial system by lodging a complaint
against the young offender. The youth protection director then
becomes responsible for the minor. As I told you, if I am not
mistaken, only Quebec does things this way.
In Quebec, and this may surprise some people, the maximum
sentence is three years plus two years on parole. Having studied
the problem of young offenders, I can tell you that even in
Canada the majority of juvenile crime workers recognize that
Quebec does things differently. And this distinctiveness is felt
in the way it treats its young offenders.
With the Young Offenders Act in effect and the whole system
serving young offenders in Quebec, things are working out quite
well. I think that the figures are encouraging. One only has to
look at the report to be convinced-
4267
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but he can continue later. A point of order has been
raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
_____________________________________________
4267
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
with the unanimous consent of the House, I move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), concerning forestry practice in
Canada and clear-cutting, the House authorize the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources to travel from May 23 to 26, 1994, to British Columbia and
Alberta and in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick on May 30 and 31, 1994, and
that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1400)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
again with unanimous consent of the House, I ask leave to revert
to the presentation of reports by standing and special
committees for the purpose of tabling in the House the 21st
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs regarding the membership of committees.
I would ask to dispense with the reading of the report.
[Translation]
It deals with substituting Mr. Leblanc for Mrs. Debien on the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the 21st report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4267
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
many of us heard reports a few weeks ago that the coconut oil
used by movie theatres was not as healthy as originally thought.
Last week American movie chains decided to switch from
coconut oil to a healthier Canadian canola oil. Cineplex Odeon,
a Canadian company, declined to make this switch preferring to
wait and study the matter further. This answer is not good
enough. A Canadian company should be supporting healthier
Canadian products before it supports inferior foreign products.
However this seems to be the rule in Canada rather than the
exception. We have seen this problem before involving
Canadian wines and innumerable other Canadian products.
When will we start buying superior Canadian products and
putting Canada's unemployed back to work?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud today, May 12, International Nurses'
Day, to pay tribute to the 264,000 nurses in Canada and
especially the 65,000 nurses in Quebec. More than ever, these
professionals of whom a lot is asked deserve recognition for the
outstanding quality of service they give the public.
Today's theme is ``nurses make all the difference''. I thank
these men and women whom I know well, from having been
around them for a long time, for their contribution and their
faithfulness. Their skill and their ability to listen are what make
our health services as good as they are.
As we recognize this fact, we recognize the essential
contribution of nurses to maintaining the basic values of our
society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, a
44-year old forestry worker and family man lies in critical
condition in hospital today because a group of teenagers split his
4268
skull with an axe Saturday night. The wife of the victim said he
had hollered at the teenagers for running a stop sign the previous
day.
The government suggests that poverty and unemployment are
to blame for youth crime. If poverty and unemployment were to
blame, why was there no noticeable increase in crime during the
dirty thirties? Why does Newfoundland, with Canada's highest
rate of unemployment, nevertheless have the lowest rate of
crime?
This assault took place in the beautiful orchard growing
community of Oyama, B.C., with a population of less than
1,000, no inner city, no slums, no gangs. The students at George
Elliott High School are organizing a car wash to raise cash for
the victim's family. This demonstrates that they are responsible
young adults.
When will the government shoulder its responsibility by
reforming the Young Offenders Act?
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations recently
decided that beginning in 1994, May 15 of each year shall be
observed as the International Day of Families.
In spite of the hectic pace of the 1990s, the importance of
family must not be taken for granted nor underestimated. It is
the family unit which passes on culture and tradition from one
generation to another. It is the family which provides the
primary source of caring and nurturing for our children. Indeed
our future survival depends on the family.
(1405)
The Canada Committee for the International Year of the
Family feels that we must support our families in order to
maintain a compassionate, productive and tolerant society.
We must resist the forces that threaten to tear our families
apart. Instead we must embrace the family ties that make
Canada a strong nation.
This Sunday it is worth reminding ourselves that despite all
our differences we have family ties that bind us locally,
nationally and globally.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, the cities of
Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph, known as
Canada's Technology Triangle, had the honour yesterday to host
the federal Minister of Industry.
During his visit the minister announced a new government
program to help the economy's engine of growth, small
business. As a result of an ongoing dialogue with this sector, the
minister announced a $50 million program providing financing
in addition to bank loans.
It is appropriate that the minister should discuss small and
medium sized business in Canada's Technology Triangle since
this area is one of the country's success stories in the new
knowledge based economy in which this sector is key.
I join with the members for Cambridge, Guelph and Waterloo
in thanking the minister for his recognition of the needs of small
and medium sized business.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, next
week, May 15 to 21, is National Police Week. Police Week was
started in 1970 by the Canadian police community to increase
knowledge of the police in Canada and to stress the need for
co-operation between the community and the police.
[English]
National Police Week is an occasion for all Canadians to
recognize the professionalism, personal sacrifice and dedication
shown by members of Canada's many police services in carrying
out their duties.
As police services continue to adapt to new demands in our
society, all of us within this partnership will have to work
together more than ever if we wish to fight crime in the most
effective and efficient manner.
We in government recognize the dedication and pledge our
continued support for the work they do. I invite all Canadians to
join us in saluting our fine police men and women.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, another
dramatic turn of events in the Haitian tragedy took place in
Port-au-Prince yesterday. A few days before the May 21
deadline set by the UN Security Council for the military
dictators to leave power, they appointed a puppet president as
head of state instead.
The Bloc Quebecois protests and vehemently condemns this
masquerade. The Canadian government must stop waffling on
the Haitian issue. Has Canada obtained all the assurances it
wanted from the Dominican Republic that that country will
respect the total embargo and how much longer must we wait for
Canada to take a clear and unequivocal position? Canada must
stand ready to intervene, in co-operation with the international
comunity, to end what is going on in Haiti once and for all.
4269
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker,
today I join my colleague from the Bloc to pay tribute to nurses
on this International Nurses Day in National Nursing Week.
Since the days of Florence Nightingale the nursing profession
has improved upon the knowledge base and standards of bedside
nursing as well as expanding the nursing practices and
principles into health care areas such as research, education,
counselling and administration.
Nurses are the backbone of health care by participating in
nearly all aspects of health and providing service seven days a
week, 24 hours a day. Nurses continue to meet the challenge of
providing their services with less funding. They extend the extra
effort needed to help maintain the excellent nursing service
standards we enjoy.
Let us on this occasion not only recognize the invaluable work
of nurses but also pledge to take the necessary steps to solidify
financing of health care in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
May 12, 1994, is International Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Day,
a disease better known as chronic fatigue syndrome. This
terrible disease generates more and more interest because of the
professional, social and emotional problems it causes to its
victims, and also because of the enormous related costs to
society. This syndrome is very difficult to define. Indeed, there
is no definite criteria to diagnose this condition.
(1410)
Researchers have concluded that it may be caused by various
agents associated with several diseases.
Whatever the future holds, we do hope that research will find
a physiological explanation for the chronic fatigue syndrome.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians
should know that the small business sector in Canada is
responsible for the creation of well over 80 per cent of all new
jobs. Clearly the renewal of our economy depends on strong and
vibrant small businesses.
Our government has recognized this fact and is working
toward a stable climate so small business can grow and thrive.
We will achieve this by improving the Small Businesses Loans
Act, working with the banks to make capital more accessible,
and lowering payroll taxes. Further we will reduce the burden of
government red tape that chokes small business growth. After
all government must work in partnership with the business
community, not pretend to be its master.
Small business owners in my riding have often told me they
are anxious for the day when the onerous bureaucratic load
imposed on them by government is a thing of the past. For
example, the government remains committed to the goal of
replacing the GST with one that is more efficient and fair, easier
to administer, and much more convenient for small business.
The government takes its commitments seriously and will fulfil
its promises.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, Canada
needs a comprehensive railway strategy that ensures the country
is well served into the future.
[Translation]
Railways make a positive contribution to our country's
economic development. It is important to recognize that main
lines and branch lines serving Canadian communities are
essential to our economic infrastructure. Several thousand jobs
depend on railway transportation, and many others could be
created if the government adopts a proactive approach in that
sector.
[English]
Recently CN indicated that it wishes to abandon yet another
line servicing industry in Simcoe North as it has done in many
areas of eastern Canada. Every short line closing represents lost
jobs and lost potential.
On behalf of all Canadians I ask that the government lead the
campaign to keep our important rail infrastructure intact.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the initiative of the Rural Dignity and Ralliement
gaspésien organizations, hearings are currently being held in
Bonaventure and Gaspé regarding the maintenance of the
railway service.
Several groups and individuals expressed their views and
supported the idea of maintaining the Chaleur, the only passen-
4270
ger train still in operation in the Gaspe Peninsula and a vital tool
for the region's economic development.
Given the fact that the Liberal Party is not represented at these
hearings, I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of
Transport the legitimate concerns expressed by residents of that
region. Will the minister pledge to hold official public hearings
on this issue, as recommended in the Liberal Party's report on
the future of the transportation sector in the Gaspe Peninsula?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, from the inception of the
GST, Joe Arling's motel in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, has
remitted payments as instructed in Revenue Canada's guide
which states that lodging rentals for periods exceeding 30 days
are GST exempt.
An auditor has now informed Mr. Arling that the exemption
only applies if more than 90 per cent of the rooms are rented
long term. This is not in the guide and only recently became
known to Revenue Canada staff, let alone to taxpayers.
Revenue bureaucrats acknowledge that Mr. Arling tried to be
compliant but maintain the ignorance of the law, even when
agents of the crown provide misinformation, is no excuse. They
will not consider a negotiated settlement and are determined to
play hardball at any cost to the department and to my
constituent.
Businessmen who do their best to serve as unpaid tax
collectors do not deserve shabby treatment by unyielding
bureaucrats.
This case was brought to the attention of the Minister of
National Revenue two months ago, and I am still awaiting a
response.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
today is Canada Health Day, dedicated to the theme of building a
healthy future.
The Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian
Hospital Association and other community and volunteer health
organizations will showcase their work across the country with
justifiable pride.
Canadians are being reminded today of the milestones in
health our nation has achieved and what more as a people we can
do to ensure the health of all.
(1415 )
That International Nurses' Day is also celebrated today is a
happy coincidence. Nurses have always played a pivotal role in
the building of a healthy Canada and a healthy world.
I salute the organizers, both associations and individuals for
their initiatives. I salute this government and Parliament on
their unwavering commitment to the mission of all health care
professionals and volunteers to keep Canadians and all world
citizens healthy.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to congratulate one of my
constituents for her outstanding athletic achievements and
dedicated community work.
Tracey Ferguson, a resident of Markham, was honoured last
week with the YMCA's Young Woman of Distinction Award.
The sponsors of the award selected Ms. Ferguson, citing her as a
stellar role model for the youth of my riding.
Although only 19 years of age, Tracey has achieved an
exceptional list of athletic and volunteer awards. As an Olympic
wheelchair athlete she has won gold medals for basketball at the
1991 World Games and the 1992 Paralympics. She has also
received the 1993 Terry Fox Humanitarian Award for volunteer
work.
On behalf of my colleagues in this House I congratulate Ms.
Ferguson.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great sadness that I rise today on behalf of the NDP caucus
to pay tribute to the late Mr. John Smith, leader of the British
Labour Party.
It is often said that in Britain the left owes more to Methodism
than to Marxism. John Smith, a Christian socialist, exemplified
this tradition, a pragmatic Scot whose political beliefs were
shaped by both Christian faith and ideological analysis, who was
cut down at the zenith of his popularity with the British people.
To his family we extend our condolences and recall the words
of the biblical tradition: ``Well done thou good and faithful
servant''.
To his comrades in the British Labour Party we say the
struggle continues. To the United Kingdom we say a fine
alternative Prime Minister has been tragically lost. To his fellow
Scots we invoke the words of the famous Scottish song: ``O
flower of Scotland when will we see thy like again''.
4271
4271
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public
Works.
As various observers sound the alarm on the disturbing state
of public finances and the federal deficit, the government
announced that this year, it will blithely spend $67 million on
polls to which Canadians will not have access although they pay
for them through their taxes.
Considering the present state of public finances and the
federal deficit, what justification can the minister give us for the
fact that his government will squander as much as $67 million
on polls conducted by friends of the government, since the
contracts will be awarded at the discretion of the ministers?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
Leader of the Official Opposition for his question, but he is
factually incorrect.
The $63 million that he refers to is an expenditure of the
Government of Canada which will be made for the purposes of
advertising and polling. It is something that governments, since
the beginning of Confederation if you will, have spent money on
in order to inform Canadians of the various programs that they
have and how Canadians can take advantage of those programs.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I think the minister would be more factual if he told us
that the government's real reason for deciding not to reveal
polling results is that it does not want Canadian taxpayers to
know it has already started on a massive series of polls in
Quebec in preparation for the referendum on sovereignty. Will
the minister admit as much?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that
the Leader of the Official Opposition would not find favour with
the new guidelines that the government has produced.
I want to quote for the Leader of the Opposition as well as
other members of the House: ``I am delighted to note that the
processes and the review of the principles to provide openness
and transparency and to avoid concentration of an excessive
amount of business in one region or to one supplier is good
news''. That comes from Claude Boulay, president of the
Association of Quebec Advertising Agencies.
(1420 )
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is important for
governments, whether they be provincial or federal, to have the
benefit of providing information to Canadians across this
country on the variety of programs and the various things they
are doing on behalf of their constituents.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is that things are not what they seem. The
government claims that its policy is to inform Canadians. In
fact, it made a commitment during the election campaign to
promote transparency in government, but now this policy, which
is apparently so transparent, will let the government keep the
facts and information under wraps.
Specifically, I want to ask the minister how he can reconcile
with previous commitments the government's decision to hide
from the taxpayers the results of countless polls that will be
conducted to fight Quebec's sovereignty.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member
opposite was a member of the previous administration I did an
examination of the guidelines that the previous administration
had and I want members to know that is the extent of the
guidelines-
The Speaker: Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. minister but I
would remind him that it is better if we do not use any props in
Question Period.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition that this is the first time that a cabinet, federally or
provincially across this country, has dared to put in place
guidelines procedures which address the fundamental issues of
accountability, competitiveness, openness and transparency.
What I expected from the Leader of the Opposition was that
he stand in his place and say he wished to apologize, that he
wished he could have done it when he was a member of the
former Tory cabinet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the state of the Government of Canada's public debt remains a
matter of extreme concern, while the financial community has
reached negative to the government's budget and deplored the
timid expenditure reduction measures it contained. Neverthe-
4272
less, the government insists on turning down requests for a much
needed examination of all public spending.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that Canada's debt represents 84 per cent of GDP,
while in other G-7 countries, with the exception of Italy, the
debt represents less than 33 per cent of GDP, would the minister
agree that the government should clean up public spending by
eliminating waste and duplication?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree that
waste and duplication should be eliminated. In fact, that is one
of the reasons why we asked the minister responsible for public
service renewal to initiate a program by program, line-by-line
analysis of government spending.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
would the Minister of Finance agree that the way to stop wasting
public funds-and I am thinking of the government's decision to
spend $67 million on polls-would be to have a special
committee analyse public spending item by item, as we have
been asking since the beginning of the election campaign?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, a system already exists,
and I am referring to the committees of the House when they
consider the Estimates. If the hon. member were sincere about
what he is asking, he would ask his colleagues to go to
committee meetings and, as part of the process of considering
the Estimates, analyse the budgets of all government agencies.
[English]
Committee by committee there is a way of looking at
government expenses. It is called the estimates and what I would
suggest to the hon. member opposite is that if his colleagues
would go to committee and do their job maybe they can examine
these expenses.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the minister of Indian affairs.
In a response to a question put to the minister on May 5 the
minister told my colleague for Calgary Southwest categorically:
``In the legislation that will be before the House dealing with
aboriginal people he will see clearly that the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms will apply''.
(1425 )
Yesterday, however, the Minister of Justice said that
application of the charter within self-government remains an
open question.
Who speaks for the government on this issue? Will the
minister guarantee this House that the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms will apply under self-government for aboriginal
people, yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, let me make it plain that the
federal government believes that the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms should apply to all Canadians, including
aboriginal Canadians, under self-government arrangements.
I emphasize that this government remains committed to
ensuring that the individual rights and freedoms of all
Canadians will continue to be protected even under new
aboriginal self-government arrangements.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, my
supplemental is for the same minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Justice said that the question of
human rights is a priority for federal negotiators. There is a big
difference between a guarantee and a priority.
Does the minister consider the charter rights of aboriginal
people to be a bargaining chip in the process of self-government
negotiation or will he offer an ironclad guarantee that the
government will not enter into any arrangement that does not
ensure full and complete charter rights for all Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to what I have
said. I think it was very clear that this government remains
committed to the proposition that the charter applies to all
Canadians.
As we embark upon the negotiations for the implementation
of the inherent right of self-government our intention, our
resolve, will be to assure and guarantee that human rights are
available to all Canadians including aboriginal persons in any
self-government arrangement.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, we have been
assured over and over again of that fact and yet we seem to be
getting a mixed signal from this government. My final question
is for the minister of Indian affairs.
Yesterday the minister admitted he does not fully understand
self-government, he does not know where it is going and that
many aboriginal people including chiefs do not approve it. In
spite of this minister has said that once the machinery of
self-government gets rolling there will not be any way for
anyone to stop it.
4273
What right does the minister have to conduct this
uncontrolled experiment on Canadians when he admits that he
has no idea of the consequences?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, if my good friend had come to our
Liberal convention yesterday he would have heard the speech,
but there is hope some time maybe in the future he will cross
over the floor and he will get the benefit of hearing-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: Well, there is always hope. He would get the
benefit of hearing the entire speech in which we laid out the
things that we have done from the B.C. tree process to
co-management starting in Saskatchewan, to dismantling in
Manitoba, to the Labrador Inuit and Nunavut, throughout the
country, all in a six-month period. We also were very clear that
it is difficult.
When Liberals make a promise, even if it is difficult, we keep
that promise.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, we know
that Canadians will receive two million doses of flu vaccine
made in the U.S.A. this year. The federal government as broker
has so decided. The other vaccines will come from BioVac,
which says it is dissatisfied with the agreement because it must
lay off 26 people in addition to cancelling a major investment
project.
My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Can he tell
us whether it is a new provision of his code of ethics that led his
Minister of Public Works himself to send a draft letter in which
BioVac should express its satisfaction to him with regard to his
decision to separate into two parts the contract for supplying
vaccines, and does the Solicitor General support such a
procedure?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
raising the issue once again of BioVac and Connaught Industries
in terms of what the Government of Canada did on a particular
contract which provided a vaccine primarily for the purposes of
provincial governments across this country.
I want to say to the hon. member that we believed then as we
do now that the arrangement was a very equitable one. It was in
the best interest of all of the various stakeholders. With regard
to the reference about a requested letter, I have no knowledge of
this information and will be happy to take it under advisement.
(1430)
[Translation]
The Speaker: The hon. member should wait until the end of
question period to ask that question.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Minister justify the use of such a procedure with respect to a
supplier to the Government when his responsibility to award
government contracts is absolutely incompatible with such
behaviour?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
once again made another factual mistake with regard to the
contract between BioVac and Connaught Laboratories.
If the hon. member has evidence that BioVac or Connaught
has done anything incorrectly or inappropriately, she should
bring it to the attention of the House. If that is the case, we will
examine it. I have no information before me to suggest that.
The member knows that the contract that was let was fair,
equitable for the participants and all the stakeholders. Yes, I can
understand the hon. member's desire to have 100 cents on every
dollar. She has to realize there is much more to her concerns than
just having the contract go to one company.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Many Canadians will remember that the Liberals protested
when the Tory government kept poll results secret and many
Canadians will remember the Liberal election promise of open
government. Unfortunately the government does not seem to
remember any of these things.
My question for the minister is this. Can he outline what
specific criteria other ministers must follow when contracting
polls in secret? What specific criteria will determine whether
poll results are to be kept secret or is that information secret as
well?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): The hon. member has asked several
questions but let it be said that the guidelines are very clear. We
are the first cabinet ever to put guidelines in place in order to try
to address this situation.
I want to quote for the hon. member Frank Graves, the
chairman of the industry and government liaison committee of
the Canadian Association of Market Research Organizations
when he said: ``On behalf of the Canadian Association of Market
Research Organizations, I would like to express our approval of
the general direction and principles stressed in the new policy.
4274
We strongly support any moves to a more transparent and
competitive process which will stress best overall value as the
key to the selection of suppliers''.
In essence that is the purpose of the guidelines, to have a
competitive process, to make sure that it is open and transparent
and that there is accountability. That is what the guidelines do.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I also asked
whether the results of the polls would be kept secret. According
to the guidelines, they are to be kept secret at the discretion of
the minister. Perhaps the next government will also find an
empty book when it goes looking for the rules. There do not
seem to be any.
My question for the minister is this. If the government is
elected by the people and uses money that belongs to the people
to ask questions of the people, why is he going to keep the results
secret from the people?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
obviously has not read the guidelines.
The guidelines say quite clearly-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dingwall: I want to thank hon. members for their
support.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know
that the guidelines say very clearly that the bulk of polling
information will be made available to the public. The hon.
member should understand, and I know it is difficult, that the
Supreme Court of Canada has ruled repeatedly that there are
certain confidences that cabinet can and must preserve to protect
the public interest, to protect Canada's interests.
(1435)
If the hon. member is suggesting that there can never, ever be
a situation where a poll should not be released to the Canadian
people, that it could never, ever offend the best interests of the
public, he is living in a fairy tale world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Ontario Legislature yesterday passed, almost
unanimously, a resolution calling on the federal government to
negotiate with the provinces concerning its reform of social
programs. In addition, the Premier of Ontario, who is concerned
about the budgetary impact of reform on his province, said that
many of the programs targeted by the federal initiative come, for
the most part, under exclusive or shared provincial jurisdiction.
In view of the major objections raised by Quebec and now
Ontario concerning the centralizing objectives of the
government's reform proposals, when will the Minister of
Human Resources Development finally sit down with the
provinces and negotiate directly with them? When will the
meeting slated for April 18 finally take place?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the
commitment to full discussion and consultation with the
provinces was our idea, not that of the provinces.
When we first announced this initiative in January we said
that we wanted to do it in full partnership with provincial
jurisdictions as well as with a wide range of Canadians and all
the stakeholders and interest groups. I am certainly pleased that
the Ontario legislature endorsed the principle of sitting down to
have a fair and open discussion.
As an example of that, about two weeks ago I met with the
Ontario ministers of education and community services to have
a close, direct discussion concerning the very important
initiatives we want to take.
I am very pleased that the Government of Ontario, along with
all other provincial governments, are prepared to co-operate
with us in undertaking a major forum. I just wish the Bloc
Quebecois would be as co-operative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): The question asked was:
When will the meeting slated for April 18 be held with all of the
provinces to initiate a process?
Can the Minister, under these circumstances, and because the
meeting did not take place and a new date has not been
announced, confirm that his action plan, originally slated to be
ready at the end of April, will be tabled before Parliament
recesses as scheduled on June 14?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, it is very important to ensure
that before there is a full meeting of all the ministers involved
that we are able to agree on agendas and work on a number of the
initiatives.
4275
We are trying to put in place developments that would lead
toward a proper child care policy. We have to examine a number
of strategic initiatives that would be part of our $800 million
program.
As a consequence I have asked the deputy minister of my
department to be in touch with his counterparts across the
country and to sit down and arrange those agendas. That meeting
will be taking place at the end of the month, I believe the date is
May 30, at which time all the deputy ministers of all the
provinces will come together so that we can work out the kind of
agenda and program that will be required for federal-provincial
discussions and consultations.
I want to report to the hon. member and to the House that we
are carrying forward this process in a very deliberate, very
careful and very consultative fashion. I know that will make her
very happy.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Since the federal budget in February things have changed.
Real and nominal short and long term interest rates have risen.
This and next year's growth projections are down.
Unemployment has remained dismally high and, in short, every
economic indicator has turned rather sour.
(1440)
Yesterday we learned the true reason for this. According to a
recently released study, Canada places below Poland, Ethiopia,
Brazil, New Zealand, and even war-torn Rwanda-
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please put his
question.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): My question is for the Minister
of Finance. Now that we have classed ourselves among the third
world nations of indebtedness, will the finance minister admit
that the debt problem of Canada is the number one economic
problem we face.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have a set of
statistics which may well have been written by Lewis Carroll but
they certainly have very little relationship to reality.
In the last three months we have created 115,000 jobs, the
help wanted index is up by 2 per cent in both April and March, an
increase of .7 per cent in the leading indicator, consumer and
business confidence is up more than 13 per cent in the first
quarter, housing starts are up 5.9 per cent in April, retail sales
are up .9 per cent.
The International Monetary Fund has said that next year in
terms of employment, productivity, growth and confidence
Canada is going to be either first or second of all the G-7 nations
and I will take the IMF.
The Speaker: I thought for a minute there we were going to
get into quotations again.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Finance certainly can be optimistic but Canadians are very
concerned about the deficit and the debt and I am sure the
minister is as well.
The minister has acknowledged that the number one item at
the finance ministers' meeting in June is to be a national
strategy on deficit reduction. Is the minister willing to do that
with the intention of emerging from that meeting to set national
targets for deficit reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House-I believe
to a question from the same member last week-I am certainly
prepared to suggest to my provincial counterparts that the
deficit and debt reduction be an important item for discussion at
the forthcoming finance ministers' conference.
However, I would like to remind the hon. member opposite
that when we made the deficit projections for the year just ended
we set out a target of $44 to $46 billion, a very unfortunate and
very high target. That was based on a continuation in January,
February and March of the unfortunate figures that the nation
suffered in terms of employment and growth in the months of
October, November and December of the previous year.
I am delighted to say that as a result of the very large scale job
growth which is much higher than we projected that the deficit
will come at the lower end of that scale. In fact it may well come
in lower.
What that demonstrates is that while cutting government
spending is certainly a very important objective of the
government and is an essential part of deficit reduction, what it
also demonstrates is that getting Canadians back to work is the
most important thing we can do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, after reiterating his intention of harmonizing the
various sales taxes, the Minister confirmed that he wanted to put
in place a single tax, and I quote: ``We want to introduce a sales
tax- because that is what the business community, consumers
and provincial governments want''. In addition, the Minister of
Finance refused to promise that he will not encroach upon
provincial jurisdiction where tax matters are concerned.
4276
(1445)
Regardless of the alternative to the GST, is it in the Minister
of Finance's plans to have his proposed single tax combining all
provincial and federal taxes administered and collected by the
federal government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that
consumers as well as the business community in all of the
provinces really want a harmonized tax to reduce administration
charges and make life much simpler for consumers. That is what
we want and what I believe the vast majority of provincial
governments want as well. Of course, how we go about
harmonizing the tax is certainly open to discussion and we are
quite amenable to that.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has stated that provincial governments want
a single tax. Can he confirm whether negotiations are under way
with provincial governments to combine provincial sales taxes
and the GST into a single national sales tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Negotiations have already taken place. In January, finance
ministers met in Halifax and discussed this option. Everyone is
eagerly awaiting the finance committee's report on the GST.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As he knows, Quebec City
has filed an application to host the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Given the dual responsibilities of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs as Minister responsible for Quebec and head of the
Canadian diplomatic corps, what does he intend to do to support
Quebec City's efforts to host the Winter Olympics?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to announce that the Government of Canada
will appoint as ambassador a career diplomat whose only
mandate will be to help Quebec City in its bid to host the 2002
Winter Olympics.
The Department of Foreign Affairs will provide logistical and
technical assistance to Quebec City, as we did in the past for
other Canadian cities that wanted to host the Olympic Games. I
am convinced that this ambassador, who will be appointed after
consultations with Quebec City's organizing committee for
2002, will be an invaluable asset to Quebec City in its bid to host
the Olympic Games.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, politicians in
Canada are well looked after by the health care system, thanks to
the extravagant extended benefits plan enjoyed by political and
bureaucratic elites. Maybe that is why the Minister of Health
thinks that medicare is free.
Will the minister admit that health care has two tiers, one for
regular people and one for the political elite?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the short answer is no.
If the member is referring to the fact that additional coverage
is provided for members of our health plan, it is provided for all
employees in the public service. There is an extra $10 charge for
people who want supplementary service, the same as is done in
the private sector. Therefore we do not believe in that two tier
system the member is talking about.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, the health minister
has stated over and over again that she believes in one tier health
care in Canada. To quote her: ``You should have access to
treatment according to need instead of the size of your wallet''.
Could the minister explain why people can jump to the front
of the line if their wallets contain a card identifying them as
members of Parliament?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): That is
absolutely not true, Mr. Speaker. The services we provide for
our public service employees are in accordance with what is
provided by most employers in the private sector. We want to be
a good employer for the public service.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, referring to
the dispute between the Quebec government and Mohawks in
Kanesatake over the collection of gas taxes, the Minister of
Indian Affairs stated it might not be a bad idea for Mohawks to
go to court to resolve their conflict with Quebec that has shut
down gas stations on their reserves.
4277
How can the Minister of Indian Affairs, in his capacity as a
responsible member of the federal government, incite people to
attack the validity of legislation falling under the jurisdiction of
the Quebec government?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, there are now two ways that we can
get solutions. One is through litigation and one is through
negotiation. There is a certain frustration among the aboriginal
people. For instance, the Williams case was decided in 1983 and
keeps being deferred and deferred with no solution.
To answer the question: Should they go to court? That is an
option. If the aboriginal people do not feel we are addressing
their concerns in a prompt and efficient manner, then perhaps
the courts might be the option but they are not mutually
exclusive. We have to deal with the aboriginal people to reach
just solutions and if we are not just, they can always go to the
courts.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Indian Affairs not realize that by interfering in this
matter instead of contributing to its resolution, he is in fact
inflaming an already tense situation between the Mohawks and
the Quebec government? Does he not realize that?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the reverse is
true. For the first two months that we sat here, we heard
continuous Mohawk bashing from the members opposite. I see
they have discontinued that, which I am thankful for.
We have tried to work with the Mohawks meeting with them at
the round table. Mr. Sirros from Quebec is meeting with them
regularly. Ministers from across the country will be meeting
with them next week.
I will be discussing with Mr. Sirros not only the problem
brought up today, but also the problem of what we are going to
do south of highway 344. The Bloc has not only said that should
be our concern, it has invited the federal government to go into
Quebec to solve it.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The minister has heard the debate today in this House on
behalf of Canadians demanding immediate action on the Young
Offenders Act. Although the throne speech did not indicate that
the juvenile justice system was a government priority, the
minister has said he will make a start in June.
Will the minister take his cue from today's debate and
introduce an immediate change-
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could rephrase his
question. As the matter is before the House at this time it should
not be a matter for Question Period. If the member could
rephrase the question it would be appreciated.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, will the justice minister introduce
an immediate change to the age parameters of the Young
Offenders Act?
The Speaker: The question deals specifically with the debate
we are having today. It is rather pointed. I would permit the hon.
minister to answer the question if he so desires, but if not I will
go on to the next question.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I
said as recently as yesterday that we will be introducing
legislation in a few weeks dealing with the Young Offenders Act
in terms of making changes immediately. Also the statute will
be referred in its entirety to the justice committee for a thorough
review after 10 years of experience with the act. It is my view
the question the hon. member has raised would be best dealt with
before the committee during that careful and methodical review.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, will the minister admit that the law is educative, that
general deterrence is important and that the message sent
matters? Will the minister assure this House that he will not
defer any longer with more studies and consultations but will act
and introduce his amendments soon?
(1455)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are going
to be tabling legislation in June to deal with specific changes to
the statute. That is our intended course.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday members of the Union of National Defence
Employees produced a letter signed by a senior official of the
Department of National Defence indicating it was the
government's intention to completely shut down CFB
Shearwater in Nova Scotia as soon as a replacement was
determined for the Sea King helicopter fleet.
This statement is completely contrary to assurances given by
both the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister on
this matter.
4278
I ask the minister today: Was this official relaying current
government policy and if not, what is the policy of this
government with regard to the future of CFB Shearwater?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was
as shocked as the hon. member when this letter came to my
attention. Certainly that was the position of the previous
government, but as you know we cancelled the EH-101
helicopter contract. Therefore the position as stated in that letter
no longer is government policy.
I am sure there is a future for all military installations in Nova
Scotia, including the greater Halifax area. However that will
have to wait for the defence review which is under way.
My colleague and I visited the repair this week and the work
being done at CFB Shearwater especially with the Sea King
helicopters is ongoing. It is good work and will serve the
Canadian Armed Forces well in the months and years to come.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice. We learned this morning
that the government was considering appealing the Federal
Court decision in the Thibodeau case regarding alimony.
Apparently, the Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance have
already informed the Liberal caucus of the grounds for appeal
the federal government will set forth.
My question is as follows: Can the Minister of Justice confirm
that his government intends to appeal before the Supreme Court
and, if so, what are its grounds for appeal?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government is
considering an appeal of the judgment of the Federal Court of
Appeal in the Thibaudeau case primarily for practical reasons.
The government wishes to make it clear and emphasize that
we do not repudiate the result in the case in the sense that tax
equity particularly for single parents and those providing for
children is among our principal priorities. As we made clear in
the budget documents and as we have made clear in the policies
of this party, the government is committed to ensuring we have
tax policies which get the maximum amount of dollars into the
hands of parents who are looking after children, which is our
ultimate concern.
The judgment last week came at a time when the policy is
being developed. We are concerned that the situation at the
moment in Canada has been destabilized by this judgment in a
sense that those who are paying support and those who are
receiving it are not certain of their rights. The judgment was
unbalanced in the sense that the result dealt with those who
received the money but not those who deduct the payments. We
have those practical concerns.
Let me say in closing that we are dedicated to a tax policy and
a fiscal approach that will properly provide for children and for
single parents who look after them. At the same time we are
considering an appeal so that indirectly this judgment does not
redound to their detriment by causing confusion about their
rights.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that by appealing this decision, his government
perpetuates tax discrimination affecting mainly women, by
continuing to consider as taxable alimony paid to them for child
support?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the
government is considering an appeal and no final decision has
been made.
On the question of discrimination, this government has made
it clear and the Minister of Finance has said on more than one
occasion that we are prepared to discuss and consult broadly
with those most affected by this tax policy to ensure that we
improve it to the point where it gets the dollars into the hands of
the people who are looking after children. Our purpose in all of
this is to achieve that result.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
The west coast fishery is on the brink of disaster. The
department of fisheries has reduced its number of officers from
153 to 85, with a further 25 per cent reduction over the next three
years.
Some have been replaced by native fisheries officers whose
only mandate is to monitor the fishing activities of their own
reserves. As a result of this and other closures fish stocks are
being decimated.
Given these facts why is the minister closing the fisheries
office in Sooke, B.C., and decreasing the number of fisheries
officers who are on the front lines of the war on poaching in this
area?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, there is absolutely nothing so trying, nothing that tests
the patience of reasoned, rational, kindhearted and gentle people
more than the constant barrage, the constant complaint, the
constant call for cuts to reduce the deficit most days of the week
4279
and the occasional call for more expenditure on other days of the
week.
The Reform Party really should make up its mind.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail's
Atlantic train between Halifax and Montreal is well used and
important to the people of Saint John. My question is for the
Minister of Transport.
There is an expectation that a private short line company will
purchase and operate the main line railway from Saint John,
New Brunswick, to Sherbrooke, Quebec, under provincial
jurisdiction. It appears that a proposed amendment to the NTA
may be required before VIA passenger trains may operate over
such a provincial railway.
If this is correct how soon would the government be able to
enact this legislation, if requested, and what procedure would be
carried out to accomplish same?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the question put by the hon. member is an important one for
people in New Brunswick.
Although it is very speculative in its nature, I can assure the
member that as Minister of Transport we will expedite whatever
legislation or modifications to existing rules are required to
accommodate good railway service, both passenger and freight,
in New Brunswick and in the rest of Atlantic Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I wish to draw your attention
to the presence in our gallery of the hon. Marcelle Mersereau,
Deputy Premier and Minister of the Environment of New
Brunswick.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, could I
have the unanimous consent of this House to table draft letters of
satisfaction to be sent to BioVac by the office of the Minister of
Public Works?
The Speaker: The House heard the hon. member's request. Is
there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to table her
draft letters?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, as is the
custom, at this point I would like to ask the hon. Leader of the
Government in the House to tell us what is on the agenda, not for
the next few days but, rather, for the weeks to come.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, I have to confirm that the House will not sit tomorrow
and will not sit next week. In fact it will resume on May 24. The
work that hon. members do-and I am sure they have work to
do-will have to be done outside the Chamber during that
period.
On May 24 and May 25 the House will begin work on Bill
C-28 regarding student loans followed by Bill C-27, the income
tax technical legislation. If there is time we will also call Bill
C-26, to amend the National Library Act.
Pursuant to special order on May 26 the House will consider
report stage of Bill C-17, the budget implementation
legislation.
(1505)
After the House leaders meet again the week we are back, we
will have further information for them and for the House.
Mr. Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
[Translation]
That the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs tabled in the House today be concurred in.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
_____________________________________________
4279
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
4280
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam
Speaker, before carrying on, could you tell me how much time I
have left?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Thirteen minutes.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, before Question Period,
I was explaining the Boscoville report to the House. For those of
you who are not familiar with it, Boscoville is an institution for
young offenders in Montreal. You probably knew that, Madam
Speaker.
From 1968 to 1983, a very serious study was conducted with
25 young people who had committed homicides. It was found
out that those 25 young people, thanks to the treatment and help
they received in Boscoville, were rehabilitated once they left
that institution and did not commit other offences. Moreover,
the study shows that these results were obtained over a period of
about three years.
So, it took three years for young offenders treated in
Boscoville to be turned into responsible persons.
In Boscoville, a great deal of emphasis is put on rehabilitation
and reintegration. I used that institution as an example because I
have here with me this very serious study which was used by
several committees. Statistics and details are available. There is
a definite trend in the rehabilitation process of young offenders
in Quebec. This study is an extremely important document. I
could have chosen another institution, since there are several
similar ones in Quebec.
This rehabilitation effort is a team effort involving educators,
as well as the family, which plays an extremely important role
when a young person has committed a crime such as an
homicide, but also young offenders themselves, because a lot of
work is done by these young people in the course of the
treatment.
The objective is to rehabilitate the young person, who must
recognize that he has changed by accepting those whom he will
meet following his stay in the institution.
Rehabilitation means first and foremost the explicit
recognition of a profound moral transformation which makes
the young offender feel that he has regained his dignity as a
person. It also means that he must reassert himself on a social
level, so as to deserve to be accepted everywhere, without any
reservation, as an honest and responsible citizen.
Can that objective be reached by lowering the legal age of
young offenders?
(1510)
To ask the question is to answer it. I can understand that the
perception of juvenile delinquents in English Canada is
different, since they do not have the whole protection system
that we have set up in Quebec in recent years.
In some provinces, we can even say that young people are
practically treated as adults once they are found guilty of an
offence, except that there is one wing for young people and
another for adults. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the young
offender spends time in prison, which is a school for crime.
It is to be expected that people in western Canada see things
differently than we do. The whole approach to young offenders
is completely different. Only in Ontario have they really begun
in the past few years to acquire facilities similar to those that
exist in Quebec for looking after juvenile delinquents. But even
so, Ontario's experience is fairly recent; they still do not have
the full program and do not have complete results from setting
up such a system.
You must understand that stiffer penalties such as those called
for in this motion or lowering the age limit for the Young
Offenders Act is not a solution to the problems facing society
today. Instead, we must take a very clear political option,
namely giving the whole legal system facilities for treating
juvenile delinquents. That is what we must realize and that is the
way to go.
I have already said that Private Member's Bill C-217 is
simplistic. Of course, it is much easier for society to try to crush
or wipe out the rebelliousness of a young offender by
imprisoning him, isolating him and putting him out of
circulation for a period of time. That definitely solves the
problem while he is in prison, but what happens to the young
person after? What does he become?
I think that we must instead really look at the young person's
problem. We must know why that individual committed the
crime of which he is accused and how he can really be helped to
return to society.
I think that most citizens of Quebec and of Canada are
prepared to listen to those who have spent their career, their life,
in this cause, those who have received training in this area, who
have met with offenders every day and try to help them. We must
listen to them, but we must also ask ourselves the right
questions. We, as legislators, have the obligation to ask the real
questions. Such as, what can I do with them? Not for them, but
what can I do with them, with the young offenders? Why has this
offender committed these crimes? What can I do to ensure that at
some point he or she will be able to re-enter society as an honest
citizen who does not require constant supervision?
The motion that we have before us invites the Government to
lower the age for considering a young person a young offender
under the Act from 18 years less a day to 16 years less a day.
I do not know whether the proponents of this amendment are
aware that nearly 80 per cent of the clientele who are currently
treated and monitored in the reception centres under the
authority of the Quebec director of youth protection are
precisely
4281
between the ages of 16 and 18. These figures are surely not
different in the other provinces of Canada.
What is dangerous to Quebec, and that is why I am fiercely
opposed to any amendment of this nature, is that such
amendments directly affect the philosophy and the entire system
of rehabilitation that we have developed in Quebec.
By lowering the age to 16 years less a day, the desire no doubt
is to ensure that young people are automatically referred to adult
courts. But such referral already exists in the present Act. If the
Crown prosecutor believes that the young person should be
brought before the adult courts, he can do so when the person is
between the ages of 16 and 18, and this is not done. The system
hardly ever does it. According to the statistics, only 5 per cent of
referrals are made to adult courts. This means that we must not
attack the consequences of a disastrous social phenomenon, but
rather attack the cause, the root of criminality. That is what is
important and that, I believe, is what the motion has completely
ignored.
The causes must be attacked, as I just said. But perhaps we
may wonder what are the causes, because today I rarely heard
reference to the causes of criminality.
There was a discussion panel that examined this question, and
I will list some of them for you. Crime is caused, among other
things, by the weakening of the social fabric, unemployment,
poverty, the disintegration of the family, social isolation and the
loss of community spirit, the lack of a collective sense of
responsibility, violence in the media and on television, drug and
alcohol use, the slowness of the judicial system and uncertain
sentences.
(1515)
Those are all the true causes of crime, and that is what we are
trying to forget with the kind of motion we have before us this
morning.
I said a few moments ago that I was opposed to changes of the
kind being proposed in the motion. I am opposed as a member of
the Bloc Quebecois. However, it goes farther than that, because
the Quebec National Assembly took a stand on this issue on May
4 and 5 in a debate that was non-partisan and sincere. During the
debate, the government and the opposition parties tried to
determine what should be changed in the Young Offenders Act
and what should remain the same.
In this non-partisan debate, the members unanimously passed
a motion, which reads as follows: ``This motion is to the effect
that this Assembly insists that any amendments to the federal
Young Offenders Act comply with the laws and policies of
Quebec with respect to youth protection''. Through this short
but explicit motion, Quebec has made its position very clear.
From now on, no one in this House can claim to be unaware of
Quebec's position in this regard.
In conclusion, I will summarize the Bloc's position with
respect to this motion in these terms. I have ten points that I will
make very quickly.
First, we are against the motion presented by the Reform
Party, because the motion is basically repressive. With it, we
forget the ultimate objective of the criminal justice system,
which is the rehabilitation of the offender. Second, crime
statistics do not justify the lowering of the age from 12 to 10.
Third, the motion does nothing to deal with the problem of youth
crime. Fourth, the increase in criminal offences by young people
is largely due to acts of minor assault against peers. Fifth, in
1992, according to the latest figures, the crime rate rose less
than in previous years, which may indicate that the changes
suggested in the motion would be unnecessary.
Sixth, an increase in crime statistics and media interest in
crimes committed by young people have amplified the problem
of juvenile crime. Seventh, a general increase in the number of
violent crimes, largely due to minor assault. Eighth, many
intervenors maintain that the problems concerning the referral
of young people to adult court are caused by the attitudes of the
various parties, not by the legislation. Ninth, the motion
overlooks the whole issue of rehabilitation and social
reintegration, and tenth and last, according to the information
we have so far, there is no indication that more severe
sentencing and lowering the age under the act have any deferrent
effect whatsoever.
For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, as you may have
guessed, I am against the motion and any bill that would
ultimately undermine the entire rehabilitation and social
integration system we set up in Quebec years ago for the benefit
of young offenders.
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Madam
Speaker, the dissertation just given deals quite succinctly with
many of the areas in dealing with some of the problems of young
offenders.
I am wondering whether the hon. member would consider that
perhaps a reduction of the age from 18 to 16 would be reasonable
so long as the young offender who is of the age of 16 or 17 could
still apply to the courts to be placed in young offenders court,
thus eliminating the repeat offender from being able to be in
young offenders court but allowing the young person who
seldom gets into trouble to remain in young offenders court.
If I am not clear on that, perhaps I can put it a different way. At
present the crown must apply to elevate young offenders into
adult court. Would perhaps the reversal of that onus be more
appropriate by having the young offender apply to be placed in
young offenders court?
4282
(1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier,
according to the statistics I analysed, more than 80 per cent of
young people in youth court are between the ages of 16 and 18.
The reversal of the onus, which make it incumbent on the young
offender to apply to be tried under the Young Offenders Act
instead of in adult court, would have two implications. First, the
considerable number of applications will increase the burden of
the courts. All, or at least 80 per cent of young offenders will ask
to be tried under the Young Offenders Act, which will put an
additional burden on the courts.
Second, at the present time a young offender may be referred
to adult court, but only 5 per cent of such cases are actually
referred. So this would create an additional burden and more
work all around for nothing, since we know that 95 per cent of
the applications by these 80 per cent will be approved by the
judges who make the final decision on the basis of the
jurisprudence, their own experience and the merits of the case
and the available evidence, and decide not to transfer these
young offenders to adult court.
I think that putting the onus on young offenders between the
ages of 16 to 18 to apply for a referral to youth court instead of
the reverse, which is the case now, is not the answer. I do not
think that is a good way to deal with the problem.
[English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt):
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by making the following
comment. I am concerned that my hon. friend is operating under
certain false premises in terms of his feeling that the motion put
forward by the Reform Party is speaking for all westerners.
As a westerner I would like to tell the House and my colleague
that the policies that underlie the motion we have heard from the
Reform Party which seem to favour punishment over any kind of
analysis of the problems facing our young offenders are
certainly not the policies or the approach favoured by western
Canadians and certainly not by me or my other western
colleagues in the government.
I would like to invite him to visit us in the west and I
personally will tour him to meet various people who will show
him another side of western viewpoints on this issue.
Second, I can understand why my hon. friend would come
away with this notion, assuming he sees the Reform Party as
speaking for some westerners, given the nature of the motion put
forward which are debating today. I say that because this motion
offers simplistic solutions to complex problems. It reflects the
Reform Party's obsession with cuts and saving a penny no
matter what the cost. It also reflects a rather slogan approach to
solving very complex difficulties that face us as a society.
I come from the west and I also have a Scottish background.
No one could be more concerned with saving a few pennies than
my ancestors from Scotland. Therefore, I would like to say to
this House and my friends in the Reform Party that I would put
to them three slogans for their consideration of this very serious
problem. One is that we consider the old comment about being
penny wise and pound foolish.
I would also ask them to consider another slogan dealing with
money, pay me now or pay me later. The third slogan is haste
makes waste. I feel quite qualified to speak on all three of those
and to expand on why I mention those.
On penny wise and pound foolish, certainly we may throw a
few young offenders into prison today and maybe that will make
us feel that we are saving money in some ways because we do
not have to bother rehabilitating them, but we will ultimately
pay the price because, as my learned friend points out, they go to
the university of crime in prison and they learn very well. If
there is no money to help with their difficulties we end up with
more serious criminals.
Pay me now or pay me later is on the same theme. I will not
bother repeating myself.
Finally, on haste makes waste, we are dealing here with young
offenders who have a multitude of problems. As my friend from
Quebec has pointed out it is not a simple matter of saying this
person wanted to steal a car, lock him up. To proceed in an
analysis of this issue in a hasty manner, possibly a knee-jerk
response to such things as the tragedy in Britain which was
brought up earlier today will only make us pay a much higher
price down the road.
(1525)
I congratulate my friend from Quebec for his thoughtful
analysis of the root problems. I agree with him that careful study
is warranted. I congratulate the Minister of Justice on taking this
kind of approach to the young offenders. I urge the minister and
this government and all thoughtful members of this House to
proceed on a slow and steady course to analyse the root
problems, to balance the dual concerns of protection of society
and dealing with the problems facing our young people.
I would conclude by saying I am pleased to have my friend
from Quebec on the justice committee with me and I look
forward to working with him to provide solutions to all of these
very complex problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to
speak after such laudatory comments from a government
member. We do not hear that every day, and I will take it with
pleasure today. I am also pleased to know that there are people in
4283
Western Canada who think differently from the Reform Party. I
congratulate the member for rising to say so.
Currently, what is heard in this House is amplified by all the
media attention surrounding the issue that we see in the
newspapers and the whole issue of young offenders. I see that in
Western Canada there may be people who think somewhat as we
do in Quebec. I therefore invite the Minister of Justice to pay
attention when he wishes to amend the Young Offenders Act. It
seems there is a position in Quebec that may in some respects be
reflected in Western Canada.
The Young Offenders Act can be amended if there is felt to be
a need to do so. As for me, in Quebec, we do not see the need to
amend the Young Offenders Act, but the need the apply it fairly
and provide the resources for it to be applied throughout
Canada.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, I found it
interesting when the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm
spoke about the Boscoville Institute. I would like him to say a
little more about this institute which plays an important role in
Quebec. It could serve as an example for the rest of Canada.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I had planned on talking
about it in my speech but as I was interrupted, I skipped a few
passages dealing with the Boscoville Institute. What is
interesting about this institute is that individuals are assessed as
soon as they arrive. A case study was done to draw a profile of
young offenders.
I think it is important for Reform members and those who
support lowering the age limit to know what the 25 young
offenders treated at the institute were like. There were very few
repeat offenders; it was usually their first time in court.
Second, the offence seems to be the result of a set of
circumstances rather than of a life focused on crime. Most
young offenders come from a very deprived environment at
every level. Again, bells rang when I heard some members deny
that most young offenders come from poor families. The
statistics say otherwise. Let us look at the statistics and we will
see what the situation is. Of course, there will always be black
sheep but the vast majority come from underprivileged
backgrounds.
Third, the motivation to go to an institute such as Boscoville
is very high. People know one another. Young offenders think it
is to their advantage to be treated under the Young Offenders Act
when they can be re-integrated. It is extremely important to
them, which may explain why in the end there are almost no
repeat offenders.
There are roughly two treatment phases at Boscoville. I think
I will eventually have the opportunity to discuss it in greater
detail. I see that my time is running out. I will eventually have
the time to describe the two phases. I think I will submit this
document to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
because it is extremely important.
(1530)
If the federal government wants to intervene, if it has money
to invest in young offenders, it should perhaps consult with the
provinces in order to invest in the right places, like the
Boscoville Institute, where it is extremely important to
emphasize self-respect and make young people acknowledge
their actions.
After the second phase-the process is actually much
longer-, they acknowledge their actions and learn to live with
the consequences. In the end, however, they can re-integrate
society as better and anonymous citizens who pay taxes and
support the system.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate
the hon. member on his speech.
[English]
If I may say so respectfully, it was a very helpful analysis of the
issues we face in respect of this legislation and in the debate
today.
As we discuss this resolution, Canadians have made it clear
that community safety and crime issues are high on their agenda.
Concerns about youth crime particularly in light of the tragic
events in recent months have made this subject one of particular
importance for the House of Commons.
I know that members of all parties would want me to observe
at the outset that when we speak of youth crime and young
offenders, we speak about a small segment of young people in
Canada today. By far the vast majority of young Canadians are
dedicated toward improving themselves and leading productive
lives as citizens of this country.
Nonetheless, members of the public have expressed growing
concern about how the Young Offenders Act works and how it
deals with youth who do commit crimes. I believe in the act; I
believe in its fundamental principles and the model of juvenile
justice it creates for Canada. And while I believe in the focus on
both public protection and youth rehabilitation, I recognize and
this government recognizes there is a need for changes in the act
now.
[Translation]
As I said, I will be introducing a bill to amend the act in this
House in June. This bill will reflect the commitments made
during the election campaign to improve the act's provisions as
they pertain to youth crimes, particularly violent crimes of a
serious nature.
Let me just say, however, that amending the legislation is not
in itself a solution to youth crime in Canada. To say so would be
to mislead Canadians.
4284
[English]
It must be clear that progress in dealing with youth crime
means not only initiating more effective criminal justice
responses but it also means crime prevention in a broad and
constructive sense. It means addressing the causes of crime as
well as an acceptance of the need to address the culture of
violence in which our children and youth are growing up in
Canada today.
In my capacity as Minister of Justice I co-ordinate on the
Prime Minister's behalf the efforts of nine ministries of
government which are addressed to the question of violence in
Canadian society. It is a broad effort which includes ministries
as disparate as: Heritage Canada, with responsibility for
broadcasting and which deals with violence on television and in
movies; the Ministry of Health, which deals with programs for
young people, programs for pregnant women, and government
undertakings to ensure the provision of social services in the
health context to deal with some conditions that breed crime in
this country; and the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, because the criminal justice system fails so
profoundly in dealing with the needs of the aboriginal peoples.
(1535 )
These efforts are made in recognition of the fact that we must
not only make the Young Offenders Act more effective, we must
also adopt a wide ranging approach to the entire question of
crime and youth crime in particular.
I am fond of speaking of the root causes of crime. I respond to
questions in the House about crime in that way and I stress a two
track approach to the challenge of crime in Canadian society:
Amend statutes like the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal
Code to ensure they send a stern message that there is to be
accountability, that there is punishment and it will be certain and
effective. At the same time acknowledge and communicate that
the criminal justice system by itself is not going to be able to
overcome this problem in our society.
If the answer to crime was simply harsher laws, longer
penalties and bigger prisons then the United States of America
would be nirvana today. Surely that is an abject lesson for us all
that that approach alone will not and does not succeed. Surely it
is plain that the causes of crime must be addressed.
When I am asked about the causes of crime, I surprise no one
when I refer to dysfunctional families, to the abuse of children,
to the fact that some children do not have a hot meal once a
week, to the fact that schools and their curricula have become
irrelevant for many children. Young people in large numbers
feel they do not have a stake in our economic system and have no
future to look forward to. They lose an interest in preserving and
enhancing the status quo because for them it is something in
which they have no part.
Therefore I say that the Minister of Human Resources
Development, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Industry have as much to do with crime prevention as the
Minister of Justice. We are only ever going to be able to have
long term and effective results if we create a society in which we
minimize the conditions which breed crimes.
Almost 30 years ago Lyndon Johnson became President of the
United States of America. I was reminded recently by someone
who made reference to a study done I believe it was by the
Eisenhower Foundation, in respect of the great society. This was
the program of legislation President Johnson introduced in 1964
or 1965 by which the Government of the United States of
America undertook a broad initiative in terms of education for
young people, strengthening of the health care system, headstart
programs for the disadvantaged, the kind of integrated
comprehensive approach of which I speak today.
The study done some 25 years after the programs of the great
society were introduced demonstrated the effect of those
initiatives and the positive consequence of putting the emphasis
on that aspect of government as well as criminal justice.
Those studies showed that for the beneficiaries of the great
society, for those kids who were brought up with the advantage
of those programs, the contrast between their lives and the lives
of those without those programs was very stark. There was a
higher degree of employment, a lower crime rate, a greater
degree of stability among families, a greater degree of health.
These are demonstrable consequences of enlightened
approaches which recognize the linkages between social
programs effectively designed and administered in the criminal
justice system.
In developing our responses to young offenders we must also
keep youth crime in perspective. Let us bear in mind it is adults
in this country who continue to commit the majority of crime.
Seventy-nine per cent of crime is committed by adults. Adults
commit 86 per cent of all violent crime in this country.
While there is no doubt that some youth crimes of violence are
on the increase, the increase in youth violent offences is for less
serious offences. The number of youths charged with homicide
and attempted murder for example has remained relatively
stable over the years.
The vast majority of crimes committed by youth are property
crimes. Sixty per cent were property crimes in 1992. More than
half of those crimes were for theft and most of those involved
property with a value of less than $1,000. Only 14 per cent of
young people charged in 1992 were charged with crimes of
violence, including homicides. That is an increase of only 6 per
cent since 1986.
4285
(1540)
Let us not lose sight of those facts when we propose changes
to the law. But we do propose changes and let me speak to those
now.
[Translation]
As far as amending the legislation is concerned, we are
considering the possibility of increasing the maximum
sentences handed down by a youth court for the crime of murder.
Judges would also be allowed to hand down longer sentences if
they felt such action was necessary to ensure reintegration and
to better protect the public. Maximum sentences would include
periods of reintegration into the community to ensure that
youths receive some supervision and support when they return
to the community. This is a determining factor both for the
young person and for the safety of the public.
[English]
We also believe that the adult system may be more
appropriate for dealing with some 16 and 17-year olds who
commit violent offences causing the most serious personal
harm. In addition, public safety concerns may require that the
act be clarified to allow for information to be shared with
professionals such as police and schools and with select
members of the public when violent offenders are involved.
We are looking as well at longer retention of records in the
cases of young people convicted of personal injury offences.
Furthermore we acknowledge that crime victims often feel that
the justice system fails them. One response to that concern
would be to allow victim impact statements to be considered by
the court in sentencing a youth, similar to the adult system.
May I observe that too many of Canada's young people,
disproportionately aboriginal and minority youths, are ending
up in custody. Currently one-third of youth cases with guilty
decisions result in custodial sentences and nearly half of those
sentences involve property offences.
When we put lower risk youths in custody, we use up
expensive and limited resources that are better directed at youth
posing a danger to the public. It may also increase the likelihood
that those persons will reoffend upon their release. Where
appropriate, such youths should be held accountable to
communities and to victims through community based
sanctions, away from the influence of more antisocial offenders.
I should emphasize that in designing the changes that I will
introduce in the House in the coming weeks, I have attempted to
take into account the views of the provinces and the territories.
The provinces and territories administer the statute. The federal
government shares the cost, but it is primarily their obligation to
administer it.
At the same time as we introduce the changes to which I have
referred, I have also made it clear that the government proposes
to initiate a broad public review of the Young Offenders Act in
this its 10th year since proclamation. The review which will
involve Parliament will be comprehensive in scope. Speaking to
the resolution which is before the House today, may I say it is the
view of the government that the age at which the application of
the statute should begin is a matter which should be considered
by the justice committee when it undertakes its broad and
comprehensive review.
[Translation]
I hope that with this in-depth review, we will succeed in
achieving a much broader consensus on the most effective way
of resolving the numerous, difficult problems associated with
youth crime.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about the
importance of crime prevention, particulary as it concerns
young people.
[English]
I emphasize, as I have already, that we approach our task from
a broad based perspective acknowledging that our traditional
response to crime by itself is inadequate. We are committed to a
comprehensive and an integrated approach that looks to
reducing opportunities for crime, improving enforcement
efforts and addressing social factors.
(1545)
I call upon all members of the House to work with the
government to improve the Young Offenders Act so that we can
ensure that our youth, the nation's greatest resource, grow up as
law-abiding and fully participating members of Canadian
society. That is a challenge for all of us.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, I think
the minister knows that I and all the rest of us on this side of the
House are very respectful of his approach to many of these
issues and I wish to phrase a question in that spirit.
It has been said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. When I
use statistics I recognize that as being a problem. The statistics
that I have which seem to be somewhat reflective of what the
minister has used, although giving a different impression, are
that in 1992 youth accounted for 13.7 per cent of all persons
charged with violent crimes, up from 10.5 per cent in 1986. That
represents a 30 per cent increase in that very short period of
time.
Of the 135,348 youth charged in Criminal Code incidents in
1992, 15 per cent were charged with violent crimes and that
figure was up from 10.5 per cent also in 1986 which represents a
50 per cent increase.
4286
Even more shocking is that although there have been
increases in terms of the percentage of violent crime charges by
adults which was an increase of 8 per cent in that period of time
the average annual increase has been 14 per cent among youth.
I feel that perhaps there has been a reflection today on the part
of some Liberals and certainly many of the people from the Bloc
who have spoken on this issue that perhaps, and the word has
been used, the Reform Party is panicking or the Reform Party is
not being reflective, or the Reform Party is exaggerating the
issue. I suggest with the greatest of respect to the minister that
the people in my constituency, and I believe all across Canada
including the great province of Quebec, are deeply concerned
about what is going on.
I ask the minister if there might not be some place in the way
in which this Parliament of Canada works for there to be
something such as we have suggested in our motion, at least one
thing that this government, this Parliament, would go ahead
with as a hard and fast solid indicator to the people of Canada of
just how seriously we respect their opinion, that in fact there are
changes coming.
I respect that there has to be a full look at it by the justice
committee. I respect that and I would not want the full
legislation to be anything other than well thought out. Is there
not some way such as we have suggested that we could take at
least one small step in good faith to the Canadian public and say
we do see this as being serious and yes, we are going to do this
and regain the confidence of the people of Canada as I am sure
the minister and the government would like to have.
Mr. Rock: Madam Speaker, dealing first with the concern
that the hon. member refers to, I acknowledge and I respect the
concern and I make every effort to communicate that to
Canadians and indeed to members of this House.
I do not suggest for a moment that there is not concern out
there. There certainly is. I think that the changes we are going to
propose reflect this government's awareness of and response to
that concern.
(1550)
I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that in the campaign
document on which we saw an election last fall we expressly
said that changes were needed to the Young Offenders Act,
including longer maximum sentences for crimes of serious
violence, adjustments to the transfer provisions and a greater
sharing of information between police forces, school boards and
other appropriate authorities as well as greater treatment and
rehabilitation efforts and other specific measures.
This is not something to which we come at the eleventh hour.
It is an awareness that we reflected in our campaign documents
and these are changes to which we are committed.
I acknowledge the concern and I respect it. The changes we
will propose not only to the Young Offenders Act but to the
Criminal Code and in the crime prevention council will be
intended to address those concerns.
I do think, though, as I said in my speech, that it must be kept
in perspective. The perspective to some extent is furnished by
facts and some of those facts are statistical. The hon. member
has referred to some statistics of his own in response to mine and
I can only tell the hon. member that the best information
available to the Department of Justice is reflected in the
statistics I gave which include for example that 14 per cent of
those charged with violent crimes in 1992 were in the age
bracket 12 to 17 and that is an increase over 1986 of some 6 per
cent.
The hon. member has different statistics, as least they
sounded inconsistent when he gave them, and perhaps we should
compare our sources and find out just how one explains the
disparity. Regardless of the statistics, surely we have enough
evidence for concern and its concern that we are going to
address.
My hon. friend asked about two other specific matters that I
would like to deal with. The first is what can we tell the public
about concrete changes we propose. I tried to do that in the
course of my remarks and perhaps too obscurely. In the course of
my speech today I mentioned that we perceive the need for
longer maximum sentences for crimes of serious violence; that
we perceive that for some 16 and 17-year olds charged with
crimes involving serious bodily harm or death adult court might
be the more appropriate place for the trials to occur.
I mentioned as well the sharing of information, by which I
mean that when a young offender has been convicted of a crime
of serious violence the community should protect itself by being
aware of that fact. We should provide responsibly for the
dissemination of that information from police forces to school
boards and others who need to know for the protection of
society. I mentioned victim impact statements in the youth court
among other things.
I offer those as some indication of the directions in which this
government intends to go in the changes it will introduce.
Let me address the other thing that the hon. member raised
which is process. The hon. member asked how is it that we can
reassure Canadians that these changes and the initiatives of
which I spoke are going to be undertaken at a reasonably early
time.
I propose, as I mentioned, to introduce this legislation in June.
In the regular course of events it will be referred to the justice
committee for consideration and then it will be brought back to
the House for debate and for a decision.
4287
I see that process as something quite separate from the long
term review. A long term review may take six or eight months of
committee hearings during which they will entertain witnesses,
they will gather evidence and take the views of Canadians and
they will report back in due course after a methodical and
intensive examination of Canada's juvenile justice system. That
may not be back before the House with recommendations until
some time next year. That is separate and apart from the short
term bill, the concrete proposals for specific changes in the
statute that I will propose in June.
I fully expect that legislation will go through the process of
the committee and back to the House without delay, without
awaiting the longer term review.
(1555 )
With the collaboration of parties opposite, this week we
passed a piece of legislation in two days and sent it to the Senate
for consideration. I am not suggesting that is going to happen
with this bill, but I use it as an example of parliamentary action
which is directed and which is effective in producing early
results.
I see the bill which I will propose in June being considered
and returned here for a decision I hope by early in the fall so that
it can be put into place. Then, in the fullness of time, the
committee will conclude its methodical examination and report
with its recommendations.
I hope that responds to the points made by the hon. member.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will allow a short
question from the member for Matapédia-Matane.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Madam Speaker, I
would have a question for the hon. minister.
Having been a teacher all my life, I have spent a lot of time in
juvenile court. I have come to the conclusion, and you said so
yourself a moment ago, that unless prevention is undertaken
very early on, at the elementary or secondary level, drastic
legislation, much too drastic legislation has to be passed, the
price of which society will have to pay sooner or later.
In my region, politicians have visited schools and worked
very hard. But then, the funding-provincial funding of
course-was cut. I have also heard that the RCMP's prevention
budget was cut as well.
Should we not put emphasis, much more emphasis, on
prevention, in fact give it all we have got in terms of money as
well as highly qualified staff to try to nip this problem in the
bud, so to speak?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. Minister of
Justice as briefly as possible, please.
Mr. Rock: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I respond by
saying absolutely, I fully agree.
There is an organization in my riding called the George Hull
Centre for children and families. It is a collection of
professionals, psychiatrists, counsellors and social workers who
direct their efforts intensively toward intervention with high
risk children and families in trouble.
I visited that centre a month or two ago to meet the people and
talk to them about their work. They made that very point very
persuasively, that unless we intervene effectively with children
at risk at the earliest stages then we are ignoring a problem
which will blossom into an expensive and tragic one with the
passage of time.
I know time is very short but let me just say to the hon.
member that I fully agree with the sentiment he has expressed
that when we create the crime prevention council we may not
have a lot of money for it immediately but the hon. member will
find in me a strong advocate for making it effective by funding it
properly and by using I hope at least in part the proceeds of
crime and if need be private funding from the corporate sector.
We must co-ordinate and refocus efforts across the country
toward prevention in the fashion that the hon. member has
described.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker,
last night I listened with interest to an address given by Justice
Lilles of the Territorial Court of Yukon to a conference
self-named Youth Justice in Crisis. Judge Lilles used the
opportunity to argue that in his view the present system is
working quite well and that tougher measures are not the answer.
Indeed, we have heard those sentiments expressed here today
in this House.
The only solution this judicial expert offered was that kids
should not be taken out of the home and that families in
communities ought to be empowered.
In her summation of his talk, the conference co-chairman
asked the participants the rhetorical question how do we combat
the let's get tough attitude.
Canadians need to realize that the current youth justice
system has energetic defenders within the system. Some of
these people are so strongly opposed to substantial change that
the word ``combat'' comes naturally into their discussions.
(1600)
The conference is named, Youth Justice in Crisis, but the word
crisis does not appear to be applied by participants, certainly not
by Judge Lilles, to describe the failures of the system. Rather the
crisis seems to be that some people want to change the existing
system.
The demand for change, it is stated, must be ``combated by
those within the system''. If the youth justice system itself
4288
really is in crisis, Judge Lilles defence of the present system did
not indicate that he felt any sense of crisis.
Unfortunately this is the view our political decision-makers
all too often appear to be influenced by. For too long we have
bought the line we heard yesterday in the House that, ``crime is
caused by poverty, dysfunctional families, abused children and
hopelessness''. Why do we persist in feeding this kind of
nonsense to rational human beings?
Members of the House have personally suffered from degrees
of poverty, dysfunctional families, abuse and have at some time
or other in their lives suffered from feelings of hopelessness.
What made us law makers rather than law breakers? On the other
hand how can we explain the fact that many offenders are from
homes where they are comfortably well off, loved and cherished
and have unlimited opportunity?
Simplistic rationales for lawless behaviour just do not help
the situation we find ourselves in today. Yes, we should work
energetically to combat poverty, family breakdown, abuse and
loss of spiritual stability. However these realities have never
been and will never be eradicated completely. We have to offer
help to members of our society who have been wounded by such
circumstances but make it abundantly clear that these factors
will not make us tolerant of violations of the rights, safety and
security of law-abiding citizens.
What is at the root of the current public concerns about the
justice system in our country is not the level of crime so much as
the lack of firm and unequivocal response to it.
When my home was broken into and thousands of dollars
worth of hard earned goods stolen, the police told me: ``It was
probably juveniles and even if we catch them it will do little to
solve the problem because we have seen third time convictions
for break and enter get off with probation''.
Canadians are concerned that the message keeps going out to
our youth that disrespect for the rights of others and resulting
crime is a low risk activity. Canadians are outraged and now
frustrated to hear our law makers and law enforcers say openly
and consistently to youth who threaten others' property and
safety: ``Do not worry. We are just here to help you, not make
things unpleasant for you. We really understand it is not your
fault. If you had a nicer home or parents or community we know
you would not do those things''.
What Canadians want to hear from our law makers and justice
system is this. ``We know life is tough sometimes and it hurts.
We want to help. But let us get something straight right off. You
do not hurt other people or their property. We do not allow that.
If you choose to violate that simple standard of our society the
personal consequences to you will be unpleasant. Harming
others' property or lives is a high risk activity in our society. It is
something we just do not tolerate''.
The present Young Offenders Act sends just the opposite
message to young offenders. It says: ``Whatever you do we will
pretty much excuse you and not hold you personally
responsible. Instead we will challenge your home, family and
community to meet all your real and perceived needs so you will
want to be a nice person. Providing of course that they do not
give you any physical discomfort or do anything to lower your
self-esteem or interfere with your freedom to act on your own
opinion and values''. Increasingly young people in our society
are expressing frustration at the lack of responsible and
appropriate societal values and limits. Fortunately many, even
the majority, continue to be given those needed societal
constraints by their homes and the larger community. Most
young Canadians are decent, responsible, law-abiding and a
credit to their families and to all of us.
(1605)
As they struggle to make good choices in the stress and
challenge of a rapidly changing world, we need to affirm our
approval and appreciation for their hard work and
self-discipline. An important way to do this is by demonstrating
the opposite response to unrestrained, disrespectful and
unlawful acts by their peers. Since they are most at risk from
youthful criminals, at the very least we owe them simple,
personal protection and safety.
These are the reasons I support the motion before the House
today. The chief of police for the city of Calgary, my own city,
Chief Borbridge, has confirmed that the Canadian Association
of Chiefs of Police supports lowering the age of operation of the
Young Offenders Act to those under age 16, as has been
proposed.
Over half of young people charged with violent offences are
aged 16 to 17 at the time of the offence and violent offences
involving youth have increased significantly since the Young
Offenders Act was passed into law.
I do not believe that the Canadian public is asking for an
unconsidered swing to harsh, punitive measures that are devoid
of compassion or uncaring about the need for rehabilitation.
However it is very clear that they want a great deal more
accountability in the youth justice system. They want young
offenders held accountable to society. They want the rights of
law-abiding citizens protected. They want to take the fun and
thrill and ease out of threatening the property and safety of
others. They want the consequences for deliberate lawless
choices to be strong and unpleasant enough to inject a healthy
dose of caution and disincentive into the minds of youths
considering offending the rights of others.
We can legitimately debate the nature and quality of such
consequences. However there is no doubt whatever that the vast
majority of people we all represent, the people who sent us here,
4289
the people who are footing the bill, want changes in that
direction.
I suggest we do our job as law makers in responding to the
demand for greater protection. This motion is a small step in the
right direction. I urge members to give it their support.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Madam
Speaker, I quite appreciated the remarks of my hon. colleague.
However I must ask her a question.
The hon. member said she did not feel that poverty or social
circumstances were the cause of youth crime and illustrated this
by saying that there are many people who come from similar
circumstances, poverty and dysfunctional environments, who
are honest, and even cited members of the House.
I am curious to know if she could explain whether she feels
that all people are essentially the same. Does she not feel that we
are all individuals and that as individuals we might react
differently to the circumstances of poverty, and consequently
some people might be prone to crime whereas other people
might be prone to honesty given the same circumstances.
Further, I might ask the hon. member if she would explain that
bit of logic but if she might go further and define what she thinks
is the cause of young people turning to crime?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of my hon. colleague.
It is clear that poverty, family dysfunction, abuse are factors
in crime. That is not something I would dispute. What I am
disputing is that it is an excuse for crime. I do not believe that we
should excuse choices to violate the rights of others based on the
fact that these elements are present in the life and background of
a citizen. That is not a legitimate excuse.
(1610)
We have to recognize that it is difficult to make good
decisions when these factors are present but we should still
demand that those decisions be made. We can point to the fact
that many people who struggle with those very same
circumstances still are able and can make good decisions.
As for the causes of crime, I would probably be elevated to
sainthood if I could outline those in a short answer. Rather than
looking at the causes, we have to look back at a little thing called
personal responsibility. In some ways, we can all find reasons
for doing what we are doing but what we have to do as a society
is say: ``I do not care what the reasons are. Those choices are not
acceptable'' and that is the focus we have to put on those kinds
of activities.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member talked about having her house broken into, probably by
youths.
I have had my house broken into and the person was not
brought to court. I do not know who did it. It is very important
when we have these discussions that we not generalize, passing
the blame on to youth. It could very easily have been an adult. I
know the member qualified her remarks by saying that it was the
police but it is important that we these generalizations.
We can deal in fact in this instance. We do not know who
broke into my house, we do not know who broke into the
member's house. I would like the member to have an
opportunity to say that, talking about reality and perception.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I was not intending to cast
aspersions on youth. I was simply reporting what the police told
me. They told me that based on the goods that were taken, on the
modus operandi of the break-in, they believed it was juveniles
involved.
Based on that belief they went on to tell me that there was
essentially nothing they could do, even if by some good fortune
they found the people involved. If they were juveniles, the
message to me was to accept it, that nothing was going to happen
that would deter or stop this kind of activity if it has been
committed by juveniles.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. 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 Bourassa, Refugees; the hon.
member Vancouver Quadra, Pacific Salmon Treaty; and the hon.
member for Davenport, Rwanda.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Madam Speaker,
in speaking to this motion on the Young Offenders Act I note that
there is a difference between the public perception of what the
problem is and a difference in perception on the government
side.
I think the public perceives that something is wrong and that
something should be done about it. The government
acknowledges this to a fair degree. When I listen to the Minister
of Justice, I get an acknowledgement: ``Yes, something is
wrong, we will do something about it'' but perhaps not with the
urgency that some of us would put on it.
Between these perceptions, what is the reality? When I look at
the news media coverage of young offenders and what is going
on there, I have to wonder if there is not some exaggeration.
(1615 )
To try to answer the question of what is the problem I have
gone back in my life and asked how were things when I was a
kid. As a child or a young person in Vancouver things were
different. We did not have many privileges in those days and I
surely did not see the police very often. If you saw the police,
wow, that was something to be very apprehensive about. To be
4290
sure we had a few bad kids in the neighbourhood who tended to
get into trouble.
That is my recollection of what actually was going on. There
must have been offenders, young offenders, in those days as well
as there are today.
I say fine, now project ahead, Bob. Are the children or the
youth of today any different from what they were in my day? My
answer to that has to be no, how could they be that different.
Surely we depend on evolution for differences of any major
nature so my basic conclusion is the kids must be the same
essentially, so what is different? The answer to that I reckon has
to be society. The whole society around the children of today has
changed and that means all of us. We have changed. We are the
society that surrounds our children. What are we doing that is
different?
One of the changes of course is with parents. Parents today
both tend to be working, they are out. Children at home do not
have the same parental guidance and care.
The other big change that I perceive is the view of
responsibility versus rights. Today it is all my rights, my rights,
my rights. I do not hear my responsibility is so and so. That I
presume is partly a question of law, of the charter of rights and
such like. It is also a perception of society and society has put
the emphasis on individual rights rather than individual
responsibilities. I think therein lies part of the problem.
In trying to address this whole thing we should not put the
blame just on government, just on the law, just on the
predisposing causes in society for young offenders. I think we
have to look generally at society and ask where the problems
are, what are the faults that we individually must accept part of
the responsibility for.
Certainly philosophy I put at the top of the list. I do perceive
that maybe the pendulum of change has swung quite far enough
and that society generally is ready to see it go back again. I
dislike extremes and I would not like to see it go one way too far
any more than the other.
The other thing that really came to mind when I looked back
over my life are the good number of years that I put in the army.
We had a thing in the army called service detention barracks.
There used to be a number of them across the country. I think
there is probably one left today in Edmonton. The SDB was
quite an institution and is today. Here is the experience that I
have had with SDBs.
(1620 )
I have never fortunately been an inmate but if any of my
young soldiers broke the law to a sufficient degree that they
would be put on summary trial, not a court martial, the
commanding officer could award them 30 days in the service
detention barracks.
I am witness to the fact that any young lad who came back
from 30 days in the digger, in the glass house, in the SDB, was
changed for life. He never wanted to go back to the detention
barracks. He would behave. He would change his character if he
had to to avoid getting that 30 days in the digger.
What did they do in the digger? Did they beat him? No, they
did not. There was no corporal punishment even for privates.
What they did in the SDB was disciplined the young fellow
within an inch of his life. When he entered the detention
barracks his hair was cut to the standards of the provost corps
that ran the barracks. He was not asked how long he would like
it.
If we do the comparison today of young offenders going in
they might get six months or whatever, they are allowed to do
what they want to do. They are allowed to wear their hair long,
wear their own clothes, speak when they want to, watch colour
TV. It is a great old thing.
Thirty days in the slammer was not like today's six months.
Thirty days they went in, they got their hair cut, they were told
when they could speak. They were not mouthing off because
they were not allowed to. They were told precisely what they
would do in shining their shoes, including the sole. They were
told precisely how to shine their brass, how to make their bed.
Every detail of their existence for 30 days was under a
microscope and under a sergeant who knew his business in
administering discipline. They were not beaten, but they were
made to do everything precisely for that period of time.
As I said earlier it changed them for life. They said: ``No more
of that for me. I will behave''.
I suggest to this House, I suggest to society, that if a
punishment works, and that is what it is, surely we can invoke it
again. What is to prevent us as a society from saying even if we
run a test case on it, let us get a platoon of old provost corps
types and say: ``Boys, run at it''. I bet we would get results.
To conclude, in supporting this amendment I would call the
attention of the House and even of the nation to a referendum
trial that is going to go on in North Vancouver, British Columbia
in June. Watch it. It will be a referendum available on official-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry the hon.
member's time has expired. The hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth on questions and comments.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Very briefly
through you, Madam Speaker, I believe Amnesty International
defines solitary confinement as a form of torture. I wonder if the
member would comment on that.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, it is not solitary confinement
when they are put through this routine in the detention barracks.
They are there with other inmates. They are made to go out and
do the drills and such like. This is just a severe form of
discipline.
4291
(1625 )
If you disagree with it that is fine. I suggest that it really
worked. I would like us to have a trial and just see if it would not
work with the young fellows. I bet it would.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Madam Speaker,
while the hon. member on the other side suggested that this was
not a form of physical abuse, I would suggest that there are many
forms of abuse such as psychological abuse. It does sound very
severe.
The member also suggested that these individuals were
changed for life. I would suggest that people who are subjected
to severe forms of psychological abuse would be changed for
life. We all know what happens when we beat a dog regularly
and the kinds of things that can happen with that.
There is very strong evidence that is well substantiated that
many of these young children who get in trouble with the law
had trauma at birth, are suffering from severe learning
disabilities, and I am not entirely sure what this kind of
treatment would do to help these children who are not loved and
not healthy.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I would have to agree with the
last comment of the hon. member. Indeed, if there is illness then
special account has to be taken of that. Nevertheless, there is
probably some middle ground that could be found to say: ``We
excuse you for your illness, we will help you with that. In the
meantime here are the rules we are going to establish that you in
your turn must obey''.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River):
Madam Speaker, just a quick comment. There probably are some
distinctions that could be drawn with the situation when people
are put in army detention and regular detention. One certainly
being that there would be the desire on the part of those put in
army detention to get back and to continue serving in the
military. They have something to lose if they do not obey.
I think what has to be recognized is that many of our young
people do not have anything to lose and would not be helped by
this type of treatment.
Members of the Reform Party are talking about fiscal
restraint. We are talking about reducing the age to which the
Young Offenders Act would apply. We are talking about
reducing the minimum age and we are also talking about
reducing the maximum age. This is going to put a much greater
burden on both the adult prison system and the young offender
incarceration system.
I would suggest that if we go across this country we would see
that the jails are already overburdened. When we talk about
fiscal restraint how are we going to build many more jails and
prisons in a society that has difficulty affording what we have
now? How are we going to afford to staff them? As usual it is a
case of proposing solutions but forgetting about the cost on the
other hand. How does the member answer that?
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I answer the question of the
hon. member with a great deal of pleasure. If you institute a
system in which there is a form of punishment as I am
suggesting you reduce the number of inmates. They do not want
to go back. You can accomplish in 30 days in the digger what six
months or a year would not accomplish in today's modern
facility where they are given all the amenities of life. Make it
undesirable for them to do 30 days time and they will not be
back. You will reduce the number of people in that facility and
thereby exercise fiscal restraint. There will be less need for a
facility in the long run. Give it a try. I am quite sincere in the
proposal.
_____________________________________________
4291
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1630)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
it seems an auspicious moment to move this very important
motion. I move that the 21st report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier
this day, be concurred in.
I believe Your Honour will now find unanimous consent for
the motion.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
4291
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Madam Speaker, dealing
effectively with youth crime is a priority of the government.
Canadians including young people are very concerned about
their safety. Violence in our nation's schools is of particular
significance. I have three children attending elementary
schools, and I am certainly not indifferent to the issue.
What is the answer to the problem of young people who
commit crimes? Is the Young Offenders Act the problem? Does
a single age change correct the problem as the motion suggests?
Clearly there is a need to improve the way in which the act
responds to youth crime, especially serious violent crime. As we
consider changes to the law, however, it is critical we begin with
a sound understanding of the law and of the nature and extent of
the crime. As I stated earlier this week in the House, we must
divorce perception from reality.
4292
Many Canadians believe that the Young Offenders Act has no
teeth, that there are no consequences for a young offender
convicted of a criminal offence. The reality is actually quite
different. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, its
circumstances and the youth before the court-we must
remember it is the individual before the court-the
consequences may range from fines, community service orders
or probation to the deprivation of liberty through incarceration
for a young person. Roughly one-third of the cases before the
courts receive a custodial disposition.
Transfer to adult court is also a possibility under the act. If
convicted of murder in adult court after a transfer today, a youth
could spend his or her life in custody. An example is useful. A
16-year-old who was convicted of murder in adult court and
lives until he or she is 75 years of age could spend 59 years in
jail. Yes, parole is a possibility but it is only a possibility.
People including youth do not understand that convictions in
youth court means a record will remain with the youth for many
years with implications for both education and employment
opportunities.
At present for less serious offences the record is held for five
years from the date of the conviction. For indictable offences it
is a time period of five years after the completion of the sentence
as long as there is no other intervening indictable offence.
Many people also believe that the hands of the police are tied
when it comes to youth because of the Young Offenders Act.
That belief goes hand in hand with the belief that youth have too
many rights. In fact police have all the same powers regarding
investigation and arrest where youth are concerned as they have
for adults.
The Young Offenders Act actually strengthen police powers
by making it clear that fingerprints and photographs could be
taken and criminal records kept. Conviction rates in youth
courts are considerably higher than those in adult court across a
range of offences.
In terms of the nature of youth crime, it is critical that we keep
violent youth crime in Canada in perspective. Eight-six per cent
of violent crime is committed by adult Canadians. Fourteen per
cent of violent crime is committed by young people under the
age of 18 years. About half the youth crime that is termed
violent in our national statistics is for common assault, for
example a slap, a shove, a push or a punch often in the school
yard. The average number of youths, though, charged with
homicide under the Young Offenders Act from 1986 to 1992 was
46 annually.
In the 1970s, when the majority of provinces treated 16 and 17
year olds as adults, there were 60 cases of young people under
the age of 18 years charged with homicides. In short, fewer
charges of homicide have occurred under the Young Offenders
Act, on average.
(1635)
We must realize that many murder charges do not result in
murder convictions. In 1992-93 youth court heard 40 murder
cases. There were 16 convictions in youth court for murder and
six cases transferred. Eighteen cases were stayed, withdrawn or
dismissed.
These comments are not to minimize the importance of
violent crimes. Any violence is too much violence. Neither are
these comments to suggest that we cannot improve the act. We
can and we must do so. We must ensure, however, that changes
to the law will be meaningful ones in terms of better protecting
our communities in both the short and long term and in better
rehabilitating our young offenders.
No single change such as is suggested by the motion in
question will improve our youth justice system. Although I am
prepared to evaluate all the evidence when the justice committee
reviews this legislation-and I sit as government vice-chair of
the justice committee-I am not predisposed to changing the
ages under this legislation.
In my riding of London West, the London Family Court Clinic
has a 1993 report stating emphatically that the current ages of 12
to 17 are adequate and appropriate. Dr. Lescheid from the
London Family Court Clinic advised me that in fact they could
find no research or clinical support indicating that criminalizing
10-year-olds through the justice system would ensure
community safety. Rather, it is the insurance of programs that
can take place outside the justice system that can promote
community safety.
Canada's youth justice system is at a critical juncture. While
legislative change is important, it is not enough. We must
improve our crime prevention efforts. We must improve the way
our youth justice system operates in conjunction with child
protection, health and education. We will need provincial
co-operation to do so.
We must carefully study how parents could play a stronger
role in preventing both their children's involvement in crime
and in assisting the youth with rehabilitation after a criminal
offence has come to their household. A multi-disciplinary
approach rather than surface solutions will be a more
responsible and responsive reaction to this issue.
We must listen carefully to the professionals in Canada who
are meeting with success. We must pay attention to research
findings that demonstrate to us that success can be achieved.
These same professionals are also able to reveal to us patterns
for youth who engage in violent crime.
While there will always be cases that could not have been
predicted, a great many are predictable and many of these are
preventable. We must not close our eyes to the facts of these
patterns of behaviour as they reveal vital insights as to how
4293
certain problem behaviour could be checked earlier and why
such behaviour should and must be checked earlier.
The signs of unacceptably aggressive behaviour often
emerges early as preschool and certainly by five, six, seven and
eight years of age. The most effective way to help children who
show aggressive behaviour is to respond as soon as it appears.
Otherwise aggressive behaviour will become established and
very resistant to change. Aggressive behaviour in childhood, if
unchecked, will be more difficult to counter once the child has
reached adolescence. Clearly collaboration by parents,
educators and, where required, clinicians is key.
Core messages must be delivered consistently to Canada's
children and adolescents. There must be a value basis to these
messages which promotes racial and gender equality and
fundamental respect for the integrity of all people regardless of
age.
Our children and our young people are getting the wrong
messages from family violence and the violence and efforts at
ownership, control and abuse of authority some adults engage
in. I look forward to amending the Young Offenders Act. I look
forward to evaluating the legislation that our justice minister
will place before us shortly.
I also look forward to the thoughtful and broad based review
of our youth justice system by the parliamentary committee. I
am very optimistic that one product of this review will be a
cohesive plan to engage Canadians to collectively work together
in the interest of our youth, in the interest of our children, which
will result in safer Canadian communities.
(1640 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, I
appreciated everything the hon. member said to us this
afternoon.
I was at the criminal justice rally in Calgary last weekend and
had an opportunity to spend time with the families of victims. I
spoke to several of them. One in particular was a new Canadian.
Her son had just died of a gunshot wound 10 days before, a crime
committed by a young offender. Her son is no longer with her.
She has no husband here. There was just herself and her
daughter.
I have a question for this mother in Calgary about some of the
content of the hon. member's presentation. The member
mentioned that we needed a multi-disciplinary approach. This
afternoon the Minister of Justice talked about a two-track
approach. It seems to me there is some confusion either in the
semantics or in understanding exactly where the government's
intentions lie.
We have a mother who is asking for action. She is looking for
answers. She no longer has her son. And we have a government
response that somehow is not saying the same thing to me.
I wish the hon. member would respond to those comments and
tell us exactly what is the difference between the
multi-disciplinary approach that she spoke of and the two-track
approach the Minister of Justice mentioned in his remarks
earlier this afternoon.
Mrs. Barnes: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to respond to
the question of the hon. member opposite. The
multi-disciplinary approach is the integration of all
departments of the government and all levels of government. An
interdisciplinary approach could be health.
When I was visiting Vancouver recently I made a trip to a core
city public school. That school not only served breakfast; it also
served lunch. I venture to say that was most of the nutritional
value those children received. It was a very difficult teaching
environment. It brought home to me the multi-disciplinary
approaches that were required in the classroom, literacy training
being one. I saw a divergence of cultural backgrounds. That
school was very different from many schools in my riding.
We must not manage all our problems with individual lines
where departments do not talk to each other. Health must talk to
education and education must talk to employment. We have to
understand that poverty is the link to a lot of crime. Violence
begets violence. With family destruction and its changing nature
it is impossible to have the same family picture as a ``Leave it to
Beaver'' commercial for a TV program when I grew up. It does
not exist.
There are many poor families in the country in which children
are not properly cared for and are left unattended. There are
many single parent families where the wife leaves an abusive
situation and takes her family with her into a poverty situation.
That is what is happening.
It does not matter whether we are talking about guns because
there are multi-disciplinary aspects to justice. Maybe it is time
to re-evaluate gun control legislation so that they are not around
to create devastation for families and victims.
I must say no one party in the House has ownership of
concern. We are all concerned as parliamentarians about the
victims in society. They are regarded with respect by this side of
the House.
(1645 )
It is important to remember we must deal with all the facets of
this problem, and there are many. We will have time to deal with
that in this Parliament. I certainly will be making it one of my
aims to work very actively in this area.
4294
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate the member on her fine speech. She
brings up a number of very good points, but I think she is only
looking at half of the equation.
What irritates my constituents and myself very much is that
nobody apparently wants to speak out for the rights of society as
a whole. We continually talk about the rights of the accused, the
rights of the convicted, and we make beautiful speeches about
the rights of the victim. But unfortunately and tragically, in the
recent history of this country, the rights of the victim have been
subjugated to the rights of the criminal.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the time has
expired. Do you wish the hon. member to make a very brief
response?
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I
would like to know from the hon. member exactly what she and
her party are going to do to guarantee that the rights of society
will be protected over the rights of the criminal.
Mrs. Barnes: In answer to that question, Madam Speaker, I
am going to guarantee that the Young Offenders Act will look at
the rehabilitation of children. When they come out at the end of
the process they are going to be better citizens than when they
went in. That is not just by punishment; it is by changing
behaviour and behaviour modification. If we target our
resources smartly we can achieve that and not just hold people in
a pattern.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, I want to
thank all hon. members who have contributed to this debate. I
have some comments I would like to make on this subject. Of
course I rise in support of this motion.
I grew up in a large family. Corporal punishment was used in
our family. We knew the rules and we knew the consequences of
breaking those rules. I know today what the consequences are of
breaking those rules.
I do not use corporal punishment in my home. I have four
children. They know if the rules are violated in our home there
are consequences to be paid. The rules very seldom are broken in
our home. Of course, the greatest weapon I use against that kind
of behaviour on the part of my children is I show to my children
the love and concern I have for them and I provide for their
needs.
In 1984 the Young Offenders Act came into force repealing
the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Since 1984 on average 46
homicides a year have been committed by children age 12 to 17
years. Figures reveal that in 1991, 22 per cent of the 679,000
federal statute charges laid were against youth. Of the more than
146,000 charges against young people, 13 per cent were
violence related. These 18,000 violent offence charges marked
an increase of 102 per cent from 1986. However, over the same
period the size of the youth population decreased by 1.8 per
cent.
I ask those people who advocate that the Young Offenders Act
is working: Do 46 murders per year represent a victory? Does an
increase of 102 per cent in violent attacks prove success? If the
system is working of course there is no need to change it, but if it
is not working, then we ought to be earnestly engaged in looking
at ways to reform the system.
I do not think this represents a success. Anyone who believes
it does has no idea of the anatomy of a murder. They do not know
the fear, pain and anguish inflicted upon a murder victim by the
criminal. They are unaware of the acts of desperation and the
pleas for mercy by the victim in their futile attempt to survive.
Those figures I have just quoted represent a failure. It is a
failure to respond to the criminal behaviour of our youth. Those
figures represent the utter contempt and disregard held by the
criminal for your right and my right to live. They represent a
contempt for our laws and our justice system, a system that does
not hold them accountable for their criminal conduct in any
meaningful way.
(1650)
These figures are why members on both sides of the House
want action and they want it now. We do not want to wait a year
because that means perhaps another 46 deaths. We do not want
to wait six months for another 23 murders to occur. We want to
move as speedily and as expediently as is possible. We want to
start now to introduce reforms that will provide greater
protection to the people of this country.
We are asking that the government amend the Young
Offenders Act to ensure greater responsibility and
accountability among our youth for their delinquent behaviour.
We are recommending that the minister give kids a choice and a
message: Behave or pay the price.
We all have the power to make choices. When we make the
wrong choice there are consequences to pay. That is a fact of
life, a fact that our justice system has failed to teach many of the
youth of this nation.
The original intent of the Young Offenders Act was to balance
society's demand for protection with the need to protect the
rights of the young offender. What right does a young offender
have? This is a question we must address before proceeding with
any changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Convicted murderers, rapists and others regardless of their
age who take it upon themselves to vandalize or to murder
another human being throw their rights away the moment they
launch their deadly attack upon the life of another. This is made
clear by the fact that we as individuals have the right to
administer death to an assailant in order to protect our lives. The
assailant casts away all his rights including his right to life the
moment he attacks, provoking the defendant to either retaliate
or give up his own life.
4295
The Young Offenders Act and other laws have improperly
restored the rights to the murderer. That should be the guiding
principle of the Young Offenders Act; that should be the guiding
principle of our laws and our criminal justice system and for our
legislators: that the rights of the individual are extinguished by
their criminal act.
The balance that was to be struck by the Young Offenders Act
has been tipped in favour of the local high school drug dealer
and rapist and murderer. Lenient sentences, unpublished names
and the belief that 10 and 11-year olds do not know right from
wrong are the considerations that have skewered the justice
system. The Young Offenders Act has allowed the rights of the
offender to outweigh those of the victim.
Let us examine the question of rights. When individuals burst
into your home and attack you or your family, you have the
inherent right and responsibility to defend yourself and your
children. If that requires using deadly force, then you have that
right within our society.
The delinquents who shot and killed defenceless Nicholas
Battersby did not consider his rights. They did not consider his
right to life, his right to live in peace in his own home, his right
to experience the joys of his future. The state failed to protect
these rights of Nicholas Battersby and they were extinguished
by his assailants. We cannot say Nicholas Battersby's murderers
have been denied the same rights. Under the current Young
Offenders Act they will continue to enjoy the rights they have so
brutally denied their victim.
The question we must ask is: What more must individuals do
to forfeit their rights and freedoms? If taking the life of another
does not extinguish all their rights except to a fair hearing
through our courts of law, then it destroys the meaning of
individual rights and it extinguishes the meaning of life itself
within our society.
I say with respect, the bleeding hearts in this country who
have restored the rights of the offender after he has taken the
rights from his victim do not comprehend, I believe, the rights
associated with human life. They have erroneously made the
criminal the victim by suggesting that the criminals are not
responsible for the choices they make that lead to their criminal
acts. They read into the circumstances of the criminal's life
justification for the brutal and sadistic acts committed by them.
Regardless of our upbringing, no matter now deplorable the
conditions of our life, we all have the power to make choices.
We all know the difference between right and wrong and we are
all responsible when we make the wrong decision. We cannot
blame anyone else. We must be accountable for our own actions.
(1655)
Millions of Canadians every day make decisions to be honest,
to be fair and to respect the property and the lives of others.
Therefore there is no justification in saying that one's past
experiences or environment is the cause of one's criminal
behaviour.
However our justice system particularly in regard to the
Young Offenders Act says that young people are not responsible
for their choices and their actions. This has been a major blunder
in the creation of the laws protecting the property and lives of
the people of this nation, that somehow someone else is
responsible for the choice made by the criminal.
What these legislators are saying is that we do not reap what
we sow. I find this unreasonable and unacceptable. The injustice
in this country, the major flaw within our justice system is that
we have legislated to restore the rights of criminals, rights
which were lost at the time the depraved person launched their
deadly attack upon the rights and the property of another human
being.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Madam Speaker, there
can be no doubt that many Canadians are concerned about youth
crime and more specifically about how the Young Offenders Act
deals with youth who commit these crimes. Recent horrifying
events in Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and elsewhere have
understandably increased the national attention focused on this
issue.
I wish to state clearly that individual events even if there are a
number of them do not necessarily amount to an epidemic. The
vast majority of Canada's young people are ambitious and hard
working young citizens who respect their fellow Canadians. The
vast majority are maturing into productive and law-abiding
members of our society. We do a disservice to all young people
if we cast them in the same light as the minority who turn to
crime.
Over the last few years youth crime in Canada in fact has not
increased in a significant way statistically. Adults, not youth,
still commit most of the crimes in Canada. In addition, it should
be remembered that most of the crimes committed by youth are
non-violent. They are crimes against property, not against
people. Nevertheless it is true that some youths do indeed
commit crimes. It undoubtedly is an issue that is important to
the fabric of our society and it must be addressed squarely by
this government.
Last fall a major national public consultation paper was
released by the Department of Justice on the Young Offenders
Act. This paper was distributed to about 40,000 groups and
individuals in Canada. It asked for their opinions on several
issues relating to the act.
These issues included: whether the minimum age under the
act ought to be lowered; whether the maximum age under the act
ought to be lowered; and whether there ought to be more
transfers of youth to adult court. The issues also included:
whether the identities of young offenders ought to be published
and if so, at what stage of the proceedings; whether judges ought
to be encouraged to sentence only violent young offenders to
4296
custody; and whether the Young Offenders Act ought to allow
greater flexibility for youths to get access to treatment.
Finally, the consultation paper included a series of questions
on what changes ought to be made at the community level and
elsewhere in our society to prevent youth crime. It also asked
what additional steps ought to be taken to ensure that young
offenders are rehabilitated and therefore do not become
reoffenders and go on to a life of adult crime.
I have taken some care to explain the content of the
consultation paper in order to make the following points. This
paper directly sought the opinions of Canadians on most if not
all of the key and pressing issues that currently relate to the
Young Offenders Act, including the subject of today's motion
which is whether to change the upper and lower age brackets in
the act.
It is encouraging to note that over 1,000 people took the time
and trouble to send in written responses to the consultation
paper, all of which were read and are being considered. It is also
encouraging that the majority of respondents were thoughtful
and many offered interesting and helpful suggestions for
change.
(1700 )
At the same time there is no doubt that the responses indicate
that Canadians who responded are concerned about the Young
Offenders Act in general, about how well and evenly it is
enforced and about whether it is effective against youth crime.
More specifically, they are concerned about the age brackets
in the act, publication of names of young offenders, transfers to
adult court, length and types of sentences, treatment and
rehabilitation and about how to prevent youth crime.
This government has already made it clear that it intends to
address the issues relating to the Young Offenders Act. In fact, it
was just over a year ago in April 1993 that the crime and justice
package was released. Therein it stated that this government's
proposed changes in the act include increased sentence lengths
for young offenders convicted of murder to ensure full
treatment, improved access to rehabilitation programs for
young offenders, and increased release of information on the
identity of young offenders.
Not all the changes that may be needed can be made quickly
and easily. The issues surrounding the Young Offenders Act and
the youth justice system are difficult and important.
Furthermore the responses to the public consultation process on
the act indicated clearly that regrettably on several issues there
is no consensus among Canadians on what changes should be
made to the Young Offenders Act.
Nevertheless I know my colleague, the hon. Minister of
Justice, agrees that the amendments to the Young Offenders Act
that are most pressing and can successfully be made at this time
must be made as soon as possible, indeed before the House rises
for the summer.
Accordingly, I gather that the Minister of Justice intends to
present this House with a bill in the near future. It will be
obvious to members that this will leave some issues relating to
the Young Offenders Act unresolved. To deal with these issues
the Minister of Justice has already stated publicly that he
intends to initiate a broad and all encompassing review of the
Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system.
It is expected that this review will be undertaken by a
parliamentary committee and that the review process will
include consultations with interested groups and individuals
from across Canada. In this way Canadians will be able to tell
Parliament what form they ultimately wish the Young Offenders
Act and the youth justice system to take.
I believe that this is of crucial importance because in the final
analysis it is those who feel well served and protected by the act,
those who will be dealt with by the Young Offenders Act and
those who will help them who must be satisfied with it and with
the youth justice system.
In closing, I cannot stress enough that we must create a Young
Offenders Act and youth justice system supported by Canadians.
Otherwise we will fail in our attempt to address the social
problem of youth crime which is a blot on our society. We cannot
afford to abandon this small minority of our young people who
for whatever reasons commit crime. If we do abandon them we
can be sure that the cost to society will in the end be far greater
than the cost of helping them while they are still young.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her fine speech. It was very
eloquent and does in fact address some of the issues of why
people become young offenders in the first place.
However, I will submit to the hon. member that one of her
statements in the initial part of her presentation was false, the
statement that crimes committed by youth are in fact not
statistically increasing at all. Crimes committed by youth are in
fact increasing at a greater rate than those by other people and in
fact crimes that are of a violent nature committed by youth are
increasing at a far greater rate.
Many years ago in putting myself through school I was a
correctional officer in a maximum security detention centre and
have worked as a doctor in jails. One of the most tragic things in
working with youth as well as adults is that they find when they
get out of the system there is nothing there for them.
4297
I remember last summer a youth who was 15 pleading with me
and saying: ``Please, Dr. Martin, do not let me get out of this
institute. This is the third time I have been in here. When I go out
I know I am going to come back in here again''.
(1705 )
It broke my heart to tell that kid, that poor individual, that I
had nothing to offer. As a constructive suggestion for members,
I would ask members to please look at some kind of system for
these individuals, particularly the youth in the detention centres,
for some way in which they do not regress into the lives that they
had before. Tragically, as has been pointed out in this House,
many of them come from environments that are profoundly
tragic. They find themselves going back into those situations.
I would like to ask the member what specifically-please, I do
not want any rhetoric-is she or her party going to do in order to
rectify the problems that we have in young offenders today?
Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
First, I should clear up that I was talking about statistically
significant; that there has been no statistically significant
increase in violent crime for youth. I would not like to leave the
member's impression as what he sees as fact to be true.
I am quite encouraged to hear of the background of the hon.
member. I too have spent time with young offenders as a
member of our Edmonton police services and as a member of our
city council which developed over a two-year period of time the
safer cities initiatives which dealt extensively with crime
prevention.
We have always believed in Edmonton that there needs to be
that balance. Yes, there need to be consequences for the acts of
violence and offences against people and property. That is what
we have made very clear here that we are willing to do by
increasing the length of sentencing in the bill that members will
see coming forward.
When we talk about what we can do for youth, we can be sure
that they have the kinds of rehabilitative programs that will
erase the fear that the member has talked about. That is quite a
heart-rending story about a young person who is in essence
afraid to leave a jail because he is in fear of reoffending.
I would think that with someone who felt that way with a good
rehabilitative program there would be little risk of reoffending
because he sounded like he cared and wanted to take advantage
of a program like that.
We need a balanced approach. I am heartened to hear the
interest of the hon. member in rehabilitative programs and in
dealing with preventing crime.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Madam Speaker, we
have an opportunity today to be positive.
We can show the youth of our country that we do care and that
we are willing to make the decisions necessary to benefit them
in the long run. At the same time, we can show Canadians that
we are listening, that we not only hear but also care about their
anguish and anger.
We have an opportunity today to take all the pain, all the
frustration and all the hopes and expectations and act
substantively. What Canadians want from their members of
Parliament is action and this motion from my side of the House
responds to the expectations of Canadians.
The members opposite can also show today that they have
heard and that they do care. I know that they do. They can
support our motion. It appears that it will take further effort to
get the members opposite to come to understand the problem of
youth crime in the same way that we do.
Given this, I intend today to make an argument for change.
My colleagues have provided many constructive arguments for
ways to change the Young Offenders Act. We are simply
proposing more vigorously to reform the criminal justice system
and, most especially, bring change to the Young Offenders Act.
Despite contrary voices there has been an increase in youth
crime and there are a myriad of contributing factors to this
increase. We have heard about those today. It is clear that the
lack of effectiveness of the YOA is one of those contributing
factors, but I also want to point out that the Canadian perception
of an increase in youth crime is not a false perception. Some of
the members across the floor are quick to dismiss any talk of
rising crime statistics as fearmongering or some kind of
knee-jerk response and a reaction perhaps to isolated instances.
(1710)
I will provide information a little later showing just how
wrong minded so many of the members across the floor are. I ask
them to raise their heads, to listen to Canadians and then they too
will appreciate the magnitude of this problem.
The members of my party are attempting to substantively
address the problem. During the election campaign, on the
doorsteps, at town hall meetings, during public debates and in
the coffee shops people were talking about the Young Offenders
Act and victims' rights. We heard them and we promised we
would bring those concerns, the concerns of Canadians, with us
to Ottawa. And we are living up to that promise. Unfortunately,
the government has done nothing to date but we hear good things
in the offing. To date it has done nothing about the Young
Offenders Act and criminal justice reform. Promises are made.
Yes, indeed. Soon, we are told and we continue to wait.
I know how concerned Canadians have become because on
Mothers Day I attended the rally in Calgary that was held
simultaneously with Edmonton and between those two rallies
over 4,000 people came together to voice their concerns about
the increase in violent crime by youths and the commensurate
4298
lack of judicial action to deter criminal activity. Believe me, it
was painful to hear their stories.
When the Young Offenders Act was introduced it may have
been well intended but it has failed miserably. After the act came
into force young offenders quickly came to understand that they
could commit crimes and that if they were caught the
punishment they would get would no worse than a slap on the
wrist.
Unfortunately young offenders have become very clever.
They know that when committing a crime their chances of being
caught are very slim. Worse than that even if they are caught
they know that their names will not be published, they know
their records will be expunged five years after their sentence is
finished. They know that the maximum sentence they can
receive in youth court is three years. They know that the courts
do not even like to try young offenders in adult court. In fact, in
1990-91 less than 1 per cent of violent cases were even
transferred to adult court. They know that they can return to the
community without undergoing any treatment whatsoever.
Simply put, they know they can continue to get away with it.
Those of us who herald this debate have been called alarmists
by many people in this House today and I wish to dispel that
misunderstanding. I want to bring the debate even a little closer
to home with some chilling statistics and we have had a lot of
those thrown out today.
According to the MacKenzie Institute in Calgary, between
1988 and 1991 the violent crime rate among youth increased by
179 per cent. When those people rallied on Mothers Day they
were not reacting in an alarmist fashion to a make believe
problem. They were reacting to their heartfelt knowledge that
the instances of violent crimes committed in Calgary and
elsewhere by youth are increasing at an alarming rate. As well,
not only is there a statistical increase in youth crimes but a
Mount Royal criminologist, John Winterdyk, is also concerned
that the nature of the crimes committed by young people seem to
be more random, more violent and more senseless.
On that unhappy topic I have further statistics to corroborate
Mr. Winterdyk's concerns. Of the 135,348 youths charged in
criminal code incidents in 1992, 15 per cent were charged with
violent crimes. This proportion was up 10.5 per cent from 1988.
We should be very concerned that there was a 5 per cent increase
in only four years. As well, the number of youths charged in
violent incidents increased at a faster rate than the number of
adults charged with crimes of violence. From 1988 to 1992 the
average increase in adult violent crimes was 85 per cent whereas
the average annual increase in youth violent crimes was 14 per
cent. This demonstrates that as a society not only are we
becoming more violent but that in particular more youths are
becoming more violent more quickly.
Madam Speaker, I do thank you for the time allotted me today.
I have appreciated very much, along with other members, the
opportunity to speak on this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m. it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant
to Standing Order 81(16).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the chief government
whip to defer the motion until a later time.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday May 24, 1994, at which time the bells to
call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, might I suggest that the
sitting be suspended either until 5.30 p.m. when Private
Members' Business would normally commence or until the
Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrives at the door of the
House, which I understand may transpire at any moment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The House stands
suspended until 5.30 p.m.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.18 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 5.31 p.m.
4299
4299
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the
motion.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to address this motion. I support it in
principle, but I do have some concerns about the intent and the
interpretation of the dates.
The motion talks about a best-before date in consumption of
food products and beverages and also an expiry date. This is an
excellent approach because consumers should have a better
understanding of the quality both in freshness and nutrition of
the product that they are getting.
However I wonder about the actual interpretation of the dates.
In the presentation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North on
April 12, reference was made to the expiry date being the date of
the shelf life of the product in the shop. Further in the same
presentation a reference was made to products that have or are
considered to have a shelf life of 90 days or less having a
best-before date on them. As there is one date on the package
this could be confusing to consumers, are they actually looking
at an expiry date or best-before or a ``what is the difference''
kind of thing, as the situation stands now.
(1735)
Food and beverages are perishable products and there
definitely is a time factor involved as to the quality of the item.
We need to identify that time factor in much more explicit terms
through our dates, because there really is not any other way of
establishing it that I can see.
If we were to think of the expiry date as it is now as the shelf
life date, we would be indicating to the proprietors of shops that
the product must be sold prior to that date, and if not it comes off
the shelf. On the other hand, if we think of the expiry date as the
date on which the food product must be consumed, then we are
setting up a situation concerning the date on which that product
may get purchased. What happens to it when we get it home?
Unless we request the manufacturer to start putting things on
such as ``must be refrigerated when open'' or various other
kinds of instructions for us, we need to have some sort of sense
of what that date means.
Does the expiry date mean shelf life in a shop, does the expiry
date mean as long as the product stays in the package that it was
originally packaged in but once opened the situation is different,
or does the expiry date mean the date the product is actually
consumed?
Following that same kind of argument, if you look at the time
of deterioration of a product being from the time it is packaged
to the time it is consumed, then you can run into standards or
criteria. Probably debates will arise out of what would constitute
a valid expiry date.
If we see a product that has the two dates on it and the expiry
date indicates the shelf life date then the owner of a shop must
sell it before that date or take it off the shelf. Then the
best-before date would be slotted in there as an earlier time.
Are we actually looking at two different situations now which
could create a marketing system? For example, fresh bread and
day old bread would be sold at a certain price to the best-before
date and then at a different price from that date to the expiry
date. The other thing that would happen from a marketing point
of view would be to get into debates again as to what really is the
best-before date and what is the criteria.
The other thing that comes to mind on these dates is this. If the
expiry date is not the shelf life date but the actual consumption
date, then we are getting into a situation where there would be
different criteria applicable to different types of food products.
All these would have to be listed on the packaging to tell us how
to store it once it is opened.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North made reference to a tin
of tomato sauce, I believe it was, that was put into the frig. Once
it was opened the expiry date on that tin of tomato sauce was
irrelevant. The sauce would be no good within three or four
days. I believe the expiry date was longer, a year and a half or
something like that.
We are dealing with two different sorts of things here that
have to be clearly addressed in this bill. What does the expiry
date actually mean? Is it the shelf life in the shop, or is it the time
that the product must be consumed? RIf it is the shelf life in the
shop and we slot it in between packaging and the expiry date on
the shelf life of best-before we may be running the possibility of
setting up a marketing situation.
(1740)
The other possible ramification that comes to mind in relation
to this approach to the dates would be the guarantee. I would
think by having the expiry date, the shelf life and the
best-before date spotted somewhere in between, we are actually
asking manufacturers to guarantee that their product, if the
packaging remains unchanged, will be the quality on the
best-before day that it was on the packaging day. After that there
would be a gradual deterioration occurring. It is still safe to
consume between best-before and expiry and can be sold.
4300
Those are some of the concerns I have in relation to the actual
dates. I think we have to clarify them very specifically for the
public. As it is now, I can go and look at a date on a particular
product-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the
following bills: Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability
and Proceedings Act; Bill C-8, an act to amend the Criminal
Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force); Bill C-2,
an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and
other acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-29, an act to amend the
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act; Bill C-21, an act to amend the
Railway Safety Act; and Bill C-212, an act to recognize hockey
and lacrosse as the national sports in Canada.
_____________________________________________