House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Sexual Offenders June 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, last year the Parole Board detained 200 prisoners because they were too great a risk to let out. Some of these violent prisoners will complete their sentences and once again be out on our streets.
My private member's bill before the House would prevent these dangerous offenders from unsupervised release into our communities.
Is the House not the place where laws should be amended to address the problem of violent offenders that threaten our citizens?
Sexual Offenders June 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
On Monday, in response to a question about the release of Larry Fisher, the Minister of Justice stated that he had identified the matter as one requiring action. However he went on to say that he was talking to the provinces about having them amend the Mental Health Act to permit assessment if necessary for continued confinement.
Does the minister not believe that since these individuals are incarcerated for committing violent crimes they should be treated as criminals and not mental health patients?
Child Sex Offenders May 25th, 1994
A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister advise us that in establishing such a registry if the rights of children and the rights of child abusers conflict it will be the rights and protection of the children that will take priority in Canadian law?
Child Sex Offenders May 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
As today is National Missing Children's Day it would have been appropriate for the government to announce its plan to introduce a national registry of all convicted child sex offenders.
On April 26 the minister assured this House that an options paper on a national child abuse registry would be available in the month of May. Yet yesterday the Solicitor General announced that plans for such a registry may have to wait until after the summer recess.
Can the minister advise this House when such an options paper will be made available? More important, when can Canadians expect a national child abuse registry?
Supply May 12th, 1994
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.
Supply May 12th, 1994
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Supply May 12th, 1994
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?
Supply May 12th, 1994
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.
Gun Control May 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the minister appreciates the problem. If he is going in this direction and if they are looking at increasing the sentences for the illegal use of guns in the commission of crimes, when does the minister plan on introducing legislation that would provide a real deterrent? When can we expect it to be introduced into this House?
Gun Control May 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday the Ontario Association of Police Services Board said the one-year minimum sentence for using a firearm during the commission of an offence was no deterrent, describing the penalty as laughable.
Is the minister prepared to increase the minimum penalty under section 85 of the Criminal Code or will he continue to deal with the illegal use of firearms by going after the legitimate gun owners who have never broken the law in their lives?