Debates of May 12th, 1994

Supply

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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.

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.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

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?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. Minister of Justice as briefly as possible, please.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

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.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

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?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

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.

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.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

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.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

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.

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

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.

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.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

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.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

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.

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.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

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.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

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".

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

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?

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

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.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, 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.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

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.

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.