Jack Ramsay

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there is a real story here. As a member of a police force, my colleagues and I used to keep more young people out of court than we ever took in because we had the discretion to do so.

There was a time, in the history of the federal police force that I belonged to, where in order to get the budget it needed to give members of the force a day off or leave, it had to justify its demand for further revenue. Treasury Board would only accept one type of proof for needing more money or more men and that was through statistics. Instead of—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has hit the nail right on the head on this particular issue.

When Bill C-68, the firearms registration bill came in, we were promised that it would cost no more than $85 million to implement. Before a single firearm was registered last year, the cost was over $200 million, and the government cuts the budget of the RCMP. If we look at it carefully, it is cutting the RCMP budget by over $20 million, but in what area? It is not in the provincial area where there are provincial and municipal contracts but in the federal area. What is it cutting down on? It is cutting down on drug enforcement, organized crime and so on.

Let us take a look at drug enforcement, the main revenue source for organized crime which is responsible for bringing drugs into our schoolyards that affect our children and contribute to this terrible situation we see in many of our larger cities. The government is reducing that budget by an enormous amount.

When the minister stands up and says the government has cut some $20 million out of a $1.2 billion budget, that is not accurate. It is not cutting anything out of the provincial budgets. It is cutting out of the federal programs.

That $22 million is coming out of the federal programs where we have the special units covering white collar crime, organized crime, drug trafficking and so on. Yes, it is a matter of priorities, but the government is spending money on a useless firearms registration system that will not enhance the safety of our streets and homes. It could be spending that money on a host of other things, including making sure that we have enough uniformed policemen on the streets to help reduce crime. Let us get them into the schools talking with the children, like the DARE drug program that many of the police forces are running in western Canada. We should be focusing our money on those areas, not on a useless firearms registration system that has not proven to do anything to reduce crime or enhance safety on our streets or in our homes.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague thinks the juvenile crime rate is okay in Quebec I disagree with him. I disagree with the crime rate of juvenile offenders in Quebec. If the crime rate is going down that is wonderful, but for years it went up year after year after year. Now it is levelling off and coming down a bit, which is wonderful. If there are methods to account for that, let us emphasize those methods. Let us see what we can do.

As I said in my opening comments, we are very much in favour of the three pronged approach that is evident in Quebec to a greater extent perhaps than in any other province where provincial programs are set up. When a child is struggling in school with aggressiveness or whatever, where it is clearly indicated that the child and perhaps the parents need assistance, that is provided.

We recommended that all provinces adopt that approach and funding be set aside for it. At the second level we very much embrace community committees such as the Sparwood and Maple Ridge programs. I am sure there are programs like those in Quebec where on the first or second minor offence children are taken not into the court system but into the community system where they can receive the assistance they need.

If the acting out by these children is a sign or a signal to society that they need help, surely we should be giving them that help. We also wanted to encompass 10 and 11 year olds because we felt the federal government had abandoned them. In the province of Quebec perhaps there is a good program that looks after those young people who are signalling by their misbehaviour that they do need help.

We say the federal government, because it is the only authority that can legislate in the area of criminal law, has abandoned these young people who, by committing criminal offences, are signalling everyone within seeing or hearing distance that they need help. It has abandoned them.

That is why we urged the recommendation made by Professor Bala and others; that under certain circumstances the justice system have authority in this area to ensure that those young people receive the type of rehabilitative treatment that obviously their actions are signalling they need. We are very much in support of that.

I want to touch on the point that perhaps the juvenile crime rate is down. In so many areas, the offences committed by young people are not even reported because the police tell us that they cannot do anything about it.

If there is break and enter into a home, what answer is there when the police are called? They say “Send us a list of the items that have been stolen”. That is as far as it goes. At one time the police used to come to every break and enter with their fingerprint section and test for fingerprints. They do not do it anymore because they do not have the budget for it. The federal government has cut back in that particular area of law enforcement and crime prevention. It is unfortunate that it is doing that.

If there is one area in which we would like to see greater spending it is in the area of helping our young children. We say, save the ones we can, help the ones we can, but for those who create a threat to our lives, we must not shrink from the use of incarceration. However, if we do incarcerate them we must make sure they get the help they need while they are there. I hope that answers my colleague's question.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, the youth criminal justice act.

Before I proceed, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague from Surrey North for his prompt and critical review of this long awaited piece of legislation. As stated in an earlier speech, my Reform colleague lends credibility to this debate based on a personal tragedy that hopefully none of us here will ever endure. That was the murder of his son.

In December 1995, more than four years ago, I undertook a preliminary review of the youth justice system. My initial findings were circulated among my colleagues in the Reform Party. I would like to share with the House some of the content of the opening paragraphs of this paper which began with a historical overview of our youth justice system.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act enacted in 1908 created a juvenile justice system separate from the adult system. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was distinctively child welfare oriented with a guiding philosophy behind the act defining “a child having committed delinquency not as an offender but as a person in the condition of delinquency”.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act created an informal system of justice with little emphasis on legal rights. A range of justice officials, including judges, probation officers and correction officials, had very significant discretion in dealing with young offenders. With this treatment rather than punishment orientation, sentences were indeterminate to be served until rehabilitation was effected.

The discretionary nature of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the rehabilitation objective caused very substantial interprovincial variations in the implementation of the act.

Recognizing that the exclusively welfare oriented focus of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was not appropriate and to reduce judicial discretion, the process of reforming the Juvenile Delinquents Act began in the 1960s. It was not however until the early 1980s with the introduction of the charter of rights and freedoms that major juvenile justice reform became inevitable.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act was inconsistent with the emphasis on due process in the charter. According to a 1994 Ottawa Law Review, the provincial disparities in treatment of juveniles permitted under the Juvenile Delinquents Act was considered to be contrary to section 15 of the charter that came into effect in 1985 which guaranteed equality before the law.

The Young Offenders Act enacted in 1984 gave youth very significant legal rights and established a uniform age jurisdiction of 12 to 18 years. The Young Offenders Act also provided determinate sentencing and formal alternative measure programs to divert less serious cases from youth court.

The new youth criminal justice act will effectively re-enact that contentious portion of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the portion that wrongfully promoted an inequitable application of the criminal law. This new act provides far too much discretion to the courts in the sentencing of young offenders. The only real direction provided to the courts is to order the less restrictive sentence.

I turn now to lines 22 to 25 of the preamble of the youth criminal justice act which read “take reasonable steps to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, to respond to the needs of young persons”.

The justice system cannot address the root causes of crime, causes that cannot and should not be used as excuses for committing crime. The justice system must deal and deal effectively with an offender after a crime has been committed to provide the necessary public protection regardless of the offender's background.

Forces outside the justice system must deal with the causes of crime through the design and implementation of crime prevention policies and programs, programs such as the headstart program sponsored by my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The justice system was not designed to deal with dysfunctional families, nor was it designed to address the economic hardships that often led to family breakdowns and to juvenile crime. The current and past governments' failure to recognize this simple fact has diluted the purpose and strength of our justice system, particularly in the area of youth crime to the point where young criminals are somehow not responsible and therefore not accountable for their delinquent behaviour.

This fact is reflected in many of the lenient sentences that have been and will continue to be handed out to young offenders.

Two years ago this April, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled a comprehensive report containing 14 recommendations for amending the Young Offenders Act.

The report was a result of six months of extensive consultation and travel throughout the country at an expense of almost half a million dollars. Over 300 people representing various sectors of the youth justice system and society in general testified before the committee. That testimony was incorporated into the committee's report.

On April 22, 1997, on behalf of the Reform Party I published a minority report containing 17 recommendations and proposing a comprehensive three pronged approach to deal with the complexities of youth crime and the contributing factors, including early detection and intervention as an effective means of crime prevention, community based resolution and sentences in cases of minor offences, and strengthening the Young Offenders Act through significant amendments.

Two years after the Reform Party proposed such a plan the Liberal government introduced a youth criminal justice act. We are obviously pleased the minister incorporated some of our proposals, and of course not all, into the new act. In particular we fully support, as we recommended years ago, the use of early detection and intervention and the diversion of non-violent and minor offenders to community formed justice groups such as the very successful programs in Sparwood and Maple Ridge, British Columbia.

We also support providing police officers with the necessary discretion and power to deal with non-violent offenders informally. I recommend however that this discretion not be taken away from parents, teachers or any other person in a position of authority.

Currently there is a movement under way spearheaded by a Liberal senator to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code which protects those in a position of authority if they use reasonable force in the correction of a child. We do not however accept the minister's checkerboard approach to justice that appears to be the crux of the new youth criminal justice act.

This act, as stated earlier, provides far too much discretion to the youth courts. This will result in an inequitable application of youth criminal law across the country, which was a major motivation for changing the old juvenile delinquents act in the first place.

We also do not accept the minister's outright rejection of what I consider to be the two most important recommendations of the standing committee. The minister has refused to accept the committee's recommendation to lower the age of criminality to encompass 10 and 11 year olds in limited circumstances, and she has rejected publishing the names of all violent offenders.

The first and guiding principle of the new youth criminal justice act should be the protection of society. The only way to ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren is to provide parents with the names of all violent and dangerous offenders, which in my opinion include drug traffickers. This category of offender has wrongly been missed in the new legislation.

With regard to lowering the age of criminality to 10 years, Professor Nicholas Bala of Queen's University summarized the work of a 1992 Statistics Canada survey of 27 police forces in Canada. The data indicated that offending behaviour by children under 12 was a significant problem. The study further indicated children under the age of 12 committed about 5% of all youth crime. Despite this fact, authorities are powerless to hold these children legally responsible for their crimes. Although a number of provinces do have a child welfare system that can and does deal with these children adequately, many provinces do not.

Repeatedly witnesses told the standing committee on justice that in the case of violent offences a welfare response is inappropriate. Lowering the age to 10 years does not mean there would be a large influx of 10 and 11 year old children being drawn into the court system. The system can divert most children of this age away from any formal response, in particular with support for alternative measures and community based justice committees.

By amending the age we will have in those very few cases of violent offences the means to provide these young children with the rehabilitation they need. As it stands now the minister has abandoned 10 and 11 year olds who by committing criminal acts signal they are in need of help. The minister has abandoned these children to the provinces that do not have the constitutional authority to legislate against criminal acts.

I want to sum up my concerns about the bill by pointing out the most unacceptable portion of it. The minister has attempted to create the impression that she has listened to the people and mandated in law the changes they have been asking for in the Young Offenders Act. This is not the case.

All the minister has done is provide the courts with the discretion to do so. Many courts may not share the same concerns as the majority of Canadians and, through the exercise of their discretion provided for in the bill, refuse to mandate what the people have asked for. It is the people through their elected representatives who should determine the law, not the courts.

For years Canadians have asked the government to make specific changes to the Young Offenders Act. These changes include the publication of names of all violent offenders, and particularly repeat violent offenders. They wanted the mandatory attendance of parents in court with their children. They wanted the lowering of the age of criminality to include 10 and 11 year olds, as I mentioned earlier, and the application of adult sentences for all serious crime. In each and every case the courts should be mandated to impose the sentences for which the people have asked and with which the minister has indicated she has complied.

Under the new act the courts have not been mandated. Instead the minister has given the courts the discretion to implement these changes or ignore them. This is wrong. Canadians should make the law through their elected representatives. The courts should interpret and impose that law so that the will of the people of the country is reflected through the decisions made within our courts and by the sentences imposed by our courts.

The bill falls far short of this simple democratic principle. It leads to the very serious concern in some groups in the country that there is a great deal of judicial activism which, if I could just touch on it for a moment, I believe is unfortunate.

The blame should not be placed at the feet of our judges but rather on our legislators for providing open ended legislation which allows the courts to make decisions that are not supported by the majority of Canadians. Over the last number of years and certainly since I have been in the House, the people of Canada have asked for changes within the Young Offenders Act.

I do not know if it has been deliberately done or not, but the minister through this bill has created the unfortunate perception that the wishes and the cries of Canadians for the last number of years have been adhered to and that those demands for changes have been implemented in the bill. They have not been mandated at all. They are there, but we will see the status quo maintained because in too many cases the courts will not embrace the same concern for some of these offences as reflected by the Canadian people. Therefore the courts have the discretion either to implement an adult penalty for some of these offences or simply impose the penalty under the Young Offenders Act or this new act.

Very few if any of the changes the people of Canada have been asking for are mandated. In other words we have not told the courts what we want. We have not instructed the courts about the kind of sentence we want for a offence such as murder, serious assault, manslaughter and so on. Even those offences must be tried in the youth court system. Then the crown must apply for an adult sentence to be imposed. The defence can speak against it, but it is left to the discretion of the judge as to whether or not an adult sentence is imposed. The bill is deficient in that way.

Inasmuch as it may have fooled the people, it is a very serious matter that the government may have brought forward a bill which has led people to believe the government has listened to their cries for reasonable changes such as the publication of the names of all young offenders who commit a violent offence or have a series of violent offences on their records. That again is left to the discretion of the courts. It is not mandated that the names be publicized.

My final point is on the appearance of parents or legal guardians in court with their children. That is not mandated. Again it is left to the discretion of the courts.

What do we have in the bill? We have the perception of change where there may be no change at all. We will have to wait and see. Some of the attorneys general of the provinces have already expressed dismay over the principle contained in the bill, that is the enormous discretion which will allow judges to make varying decisions across the country. We think that is wrong.

We should not be going back to the checkerboard type of legislation we had under the old juvenile delinquents act where there was a varying of sentencing and adjudication from province to province. We have gone back to that. There is not a standardized form of sentencing implied within this statute.

It is deficient in that way, which I think is very unfortunate. When the bill reaches committee stage and the clause by clause amendments come forward, we hope the government will take a serious look at the amendments we will be bringing forward to close some of the loopholes we think the people will be dismayed to see exist within the bill.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the intervention by my hon. colleague across the way. I always appreciated his voice in the justice committee. It always had a logical and sound ring to it. I do not know what if anything has happened to change that since I left the justice committee.

I would like to ask him this brief question. This new act is being heralded as getting tougher on violent youth crime. This is as a result of the cry across the country from concerned people. The government has responded to that, yet it has not mandated that the courts must apply the tough measures. Throughout the bill the discretion has not been left to the legislators but to the courts. Does the member have any concern about that?

For instance, the publication of names, particularly of repeat violent offenders, is subject to the discretion of the courts. Attendance of the parents with their children in court is not mandated by this legislation. It is also at the discretion the courts.

Does my hon. colleague have any concern about the status quo remaining because the bill is not mandating these actions? In so many cases this procedure has been left to the discretion of the courts.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question.

It is very clear where authority lies for health care. It is under section 92. It falls within the realm of the provincial governments. I would like the hon. member to tell the House where she sees within the BNA act, the Constitution of this country, authority of the federal government over health care. If she could tell the House that I would be pleased.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP officers at the Montreal forum expressed their dismay over the lack of funding. Their budgets are being cut, particularly in this area.

What we have to do is focus on this very broad question. What my hon. colleague has brought up with regard to the drug issue and immigration is there. It has to be looked at. It has to be dealt with. Otherwise the east side situation in Vancouver will get worse and will spread to other parts of the country.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have time to get to all the member's questions because each one requires an indepth analysis. I do not know if I will have the time to do justice to these questions.

As far as serving one-sixth of a sentence, I simply go back to what we have been crying out for, truth in sentencing. We do not have it in this country. I think my hon. colleague has brought this very important matter up and it is on the record. We emphasize again that we do not have truth in sentencing.

We hear some criticism even from our party about the way judges handle things. How in the world can judges do their job when their sentencing is overruled by a parole system that puts the lie to their original assessment of the seriousness of the offence by way of the sentence they imposed?

There is no question that our government should take a serious look at increasing the penalty for the top flight traffickers in this country. They should pay a very serious price. What we heard over and over again at the Montreal forum was that these people do not care what they do to the young people, to the addicts, to the people who get hooked on drugs. They are only worried about profits. That is what we should be looking at. That is what the RCMP was talking about when it said a full meal deal.

Let us take a full, broad, balanced approach to this where we go after the traffickers and start to treat those who have addictions as they are being treated through the drug court in Toronto where there are options for them to receive the treatment and care they need. We must also put in the effort required in order to rehabilitate them.

There is no question the head start program, this kind of education at the earliest age, is extremely important in preventing our young people from getting involved in drugs. There are drugs within the schools throughout the country. What we must do is encourage the government, which we are doing in this debate today, to take a serious look at this and help those young people through a broad and balanced approach to this drug situation in Canada.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my comments in this debate today on our supply day motion to the whole issue of the proliferation of drugs, what it means to organized crime and what it means to our young people.

I attended a conference last weekend in Montreal. The conference title was “Injection Drug Use and Societal Changes”. The primary focus of this convention was on implementing more effective measures to reduce the harm associated with injection drug use, in particular the spread of HIV and AIDS.

A number of speakers recommended the continuation of the needle exchange program. Some recommended allowing for and establishing safe injection houses or sites. Some recommended the medically controlled injection of heroine addicts and some even recommended legalization of drugs.

The conference focused primarily on harm reduction. Therefore, presentations did not provide recommendations or solutions to prevent our youth from becoming addicts in the first place. There were absolutely no statistics based on comparative studies or experiences such as those in Switzerland demonstrating how, if at all, harm reduction ultimately results in fewer drug addicts.

I did not recognize any other members of this House in attendance at this very worthwhile conference which gathered together many experts in the field of harm reduction.

The most important revelation that emerged from this conference was that we need a balanced approach or what the RCMP spokesperson termed “a whole meal deal in dealing with illegal drugs in this country”.

To date, the war on drugs by this government and previous governments has not been successful as evidenced by the growing number of drug addicts living and using drugs on Canadian streets, particularly in downtown east side Vancouver.

Inspector Richard Barszczewski, the RCMP officer in charge of operations of the drug section and the drug awareness program, began his address at the conference by stating “Canada has no war on drugs”. There is no war on drugs because successive governments have failed to introduce a balanced approach to deal with the issue of illicit drugs.

Inspector Barszczewski revealed that the illicit drug trade remains the principal source of revenue for most organized crime groups. The combined annual supply estimates for all drug types has the potential to generate criminal proceeds in excess of $4 billion at the wholesale level and $18 billion at the street level. It is estimated that 15 tonnes of cocaine are smuggled into Canada each year. Additionally, one to two tonnes of heroine are required annually to meet the needs of Canadian heroine users.

One presenter at the conference, Eric Single, a professor with the University of Toronto, estimated that the total cost for illicit drug use for 1992 was $1.4 billion. This cost included but is not limited to police, courts, corrections, customs and excise and health care.

The RCMP revealed that in B.C. alone there were 310 drug overdose deaths in 1996 and again in 1997. Eighty per cent of all property crimes committed by individuals were directly or indirectly related to substance abuse. I am referring to the province of Alberta now. Fifty per cent of those accused of homicide and thirty-eight per cent of homicide victims were intoxicated or under the influence of illegal drugs or both. Forty per cent of all motor vehicle accident victims were under the influence of drugs.

What are we to do? What would be the ingredients of a balanced approach to the problem we have within Canadian society? There are a number of points I would like to touch on.

First, we should strengthen social policies and programs as a means of prevention.

Second, there should be more education and drug awareness in schools. My province of Alberta has the DARE program, a very effective program administered by the police forces which operates with schoolchildren. I have been privileged to attend some of the graduation exercises of those groups of young people. It is heartening and hopeful to see this occurring and what it means for the future.

We need stricter law enforcement of trafficking charges and penalties.

We need to extend such programs as the Toronto drug court to divert addicts and street level drug traffickers away from the traditional judicial system, allowing for treatment rather than imprisonment.

We need to increase penalties for high level drug trafficking.

We need better organized crime legislation, including proceeds of crime legislation which would allow the authorities in this country to seize the proceeds of drug crimes and turn them over to the state.

We need to increase substantially the RCMP's budget to allow for the hiring of additional officers to be utilized both domestically and abroad.

There is a need to stop the flow or supply of drugs through better interdiction.

Last, effectively implement means to stop the flow of drugs in prisons in Canada. The hon. Justice William Vancise of the court of appeal for Saskatchewan stated during his presentation at the Montreal conference: “It is easier to get drugs in prison than on the streets. They are only more expensive within prison”.

There are numerous flaws in the federal prison service program and for detecting illegal drugs. An 80 page report released by the Quebec provincial ombudsman estimated that between $40 million and $60 million in drugs flow through the prisons of that province annually. There is a commercial enterprise of drug dealing within our prisons.

Justice Vancise revealed an appalling fact that many offenders go into prison without a drug problem and come out as drug addicts. That is unacceptable. The government has failed dismally to introduce the whole meal deal or a balanced approach to dealing with illicit drugs and it is our children and grandchildren who will pay the price.

I will touch on the whole business of the government's attitude toward the use of illegal drugs, particularly hard drugs within our prisons and society. If we want to determine the attitude of the government over the last six years toward the drug problem in Canada, that attitude is best displayed when we examine what is happening within our prisons.

If there is any place that we should be able to reduce if not eliminate the use of drugs, it ought to be within our prisons and yet, as Judge Vancise told us at the Montreal conference, it is as easy to get drugs inside our prisons as it is on the streets. The only difference is that it costs more in our prisons.

The Government of Canada's attitude toward this whole problem is reflected in what is happening within our prisons. It is in complete control of who and what goes into the prison and yet we have this type of unacceptable, reprehensible situation within our prisons where people who are arrested and sent into prison without any type of drug habit are coming out as drug addicts, as the judge said.

We have seen where inmates of our correctional centres have sued the government for various reasons. I predict the day when we will see some inmate suing the government for placing them in an environment that is unsafe because of the uncontrolled trafficking of drugs that occurs within the prison system. It is unacceptable and the government's attitude toward not just the drug situation but crime in general is most vividly reflected in what is happening within our prisons today. It is unacceptable.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. It was a very statesman-like speech and he addressed the issues, I thought, in a commendable way.

He mentioned there are too many young offenders who are incarcerated and who ought not to be, non-violent offenders. It is his government that has been here for six years and it is his government that has the power to change that.

At least a year and a half ago I introduced a private member's bill that would address that very issue as well as a number of others. The contents of that private member's bill which is still sitting to be drawn yet, flow directly from the testimony placed before the standing committee as we went about this country on the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act.

I wonder if the member has read that private member's bill. I am sure he must have, showing his interest as he has today on that topic, as the majority of his speech was based on the young offenders situation, which I find commendable. If he has, he can see there is support for those principles, certainly within the official opposition.

It is quite clear the hon. member has no greater power than we in moving the government forward in a timely fashion to rectify some of the weaknesses within the justice system that he has recognized place young people in custody who ought not to be there. There are better ways of dealing with them.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment as to whether he is aware of the expression of support for those very principles by the official opposition as contained within my private member's bill still sitting to be drawn. I wonder if he recognizes that awareness, that there is support for these kinds of initiatives. Yet it is his government that has taken six years and we still have not seen the type of legislative initiative that would correct these matters.

It is an anomaly I would certainly like the hon. member to touch on because, as I said earlier, he seems to have a sincere interest in this area.