Debates of May 12th, 1994

Supply

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are saying that at all. I said that when we take 16 and 17 year olds out of the young offenders system we are taking them not only for violent crimes. We are taking them out of the system for theft and vandalism. We are taking them out of the system for everything.

For purposes of murder and other serious crimes that is something we have to deal with in the legislation the minister brings forward. Hopefully there will be changes. If not, there will be the ability of the committee to determine any changes.

Sending 16 and 17 year olds to prison and having them sexually and physically abused will not help society when those young people get back on the streets. Punishment has to happen. When we talk about parents who have lost their children because of murder by a young offender, there is no one in the House who has a lock on sympathy and downright remorse for what happened. Anybody in the House, particularly myself, would love to do something that would be helpful to those parents.

This is why I say crime prevention to stop it from happening to somebody else has to be something that we have first and foremost in our minds. Eighteen is an internationally recognized age. Sixteen, eighteen or whatever will be before the justice committee. Every member on the committee will have a chance to examine that aspect of the legislation.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, a reactionary roar full of sound and fury has risen up from the Reform Party benches. This motion tabled by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby is one more skirmish in a hysterical and perverse crusade by the Social Panic Party.

Who are these Prairie crusaders ganging up on now? Young people who are not eligible to vote and who are represented in this Parliament by adults, adults who are running scared and who want young offenders to be punished like adults-who are their role models-for the same crimes. It is clear from all the statistics that juvenile delinquency is marginal in proportion to the general crime rate. However, it takes only a few isolated and unfortunate cases for a pack mentality to develop and demands to rise for exemplary punishments for young offenders. The focus is on punishment.

Reactionaries are swept up in an irrational thirst for retribution. Why? To appease their own adult consciences because they realize these crimes are committed by young people who imitate them. They tell us: These young people have committed adult crimes, so they are adults and should be punished as adults. They tell us: Forget 30 years of research on the treatment of juvenile delinquency. They say: The statistics on the genuine and positive rehabilitation of the vast majority of young people supervised by youth protection agencies are so much garbage. Forget social clemency for children whose criminal tendencies are usually the result of disintegration for which adults are largely responsible.

Echoing this hysteria, the Panic Party is now calling for exemplary punishment under the Criminal Code for young people over 16, for penitentiary terms and even life sentences.

I am shocked and appalled by this motion, a motion that was communicated to us on very short notice, although its tone and substance is what we have come to expect.

I spoke previously on a motion by the Reform Party which stated that criminals enjoyed privileged treatment before the courts and that victims were ignored by the judicial system. At the time, I said that this statement was not supported by any verifiable statistics and reflected a complete ignorance of the facts.

On the same occasion, I reproached the mover of the motion for lending her voice to reactionary groups and for playing along with the media. I also remember how the Reform Party responded to my statements in this House on gun control and the provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Act that discriminate against married women. I must conclude that the Reform Party is entirely consistent in its ideology.

The motion before the House this morning is part of a disturbing trend. I hope that all Canadians will see what Reform Party members perhaps do not see in their political positions. I see all the signs of a nostalgic fascism still unaware of its implications. I see a desire for reverting to a society that our democracy rejects. I hear a call for "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But if it were ideological-

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the word or the joining of the words "nostalgic fascism", particularly "fascism", with respect to the Reform Party is not unparliamentary language.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In reply to the point of order raised by the member for Kootenay East regarding words used in debate, first let me make a comment that when remarks are made of a general nature and not specific to any one member, that being one criterion, I would say no, it would not be deemed unparliamentary.

However, I will seize the occasion to remind all members that of course when language and tones sometimes cause disorder the Chair is apprised of that and I would ask all members to keep that in mind in the selection of their words or their statements or their tones.

In conclusion to the point of order raised by the member for Kootenay East, at this time this is not deemed unparliamentary.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some people's sensitivities must certainly be spared. So I will continue talking about the Reform Party's motion.

I said that I thought it was calling for the law of retaliation.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the time you took to think it over will be given to me to continue after?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Let us say that I will use a rule from the game of soccer. I will take that time and charge it to my account, so I will not take it from you.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit my ignorance of soccer, so I will have to trust you.

We were talking about the law of retaliation. If it was ideological, I would say that such positions are disturbing because they arise from convictions that might one day result in laws that could not be enforced. I do not believe that it is ideological. The Reform Party's motion has much more to do with electioneering than with philosophy.

Anyway, just saying that the Reform Party's positions might be philosophically motivated would shock them, I am sure. They are not philosophers but politicians. The basis of this motion is nothing but public sentiment that the Reform Party is trying to use to its advantage. That is very easy.

Riding the wave of public feeling, the Reform Party is declaiming that young people are not charged for the crimes they commit, that young people commit more crimes than adults do, that the sentences imposed on young people are ridiculous and that most violent crimes are committed by young people. That is the rumour. Even if the hon. member does not say so openly, his whole argument is based on these propositions.

One can present such a motion without believing that juvenile delinquents are a large enough criminal group in society to really threaten public safety.

On the contrary, all the statistics available so far show that young people are charged more often than adults for their offences.

According to the 1991 report of the federal Department of Justice, the charge rate for young people was 61 per cent compared with 25 per cent for adults, and the data shows that 16- and 17-year-olds are treated more severely than adults.

On the other hand, according to the same figures, the conviction rate on charges laid against young people is still much higher than for adults. Finally, since it is the most serious offence, young people who commit murders may be tried in adult court.

A young person convicted of murder in a superior court of criminal jurisdiction is liable to life in prison. It is only when the individual is not tried in adult court that the maximum sentence for murder is five years.

If the Crown does not ask that he or she be referred to adult court, he or she will be tried in juvenile court. And even if the Crown makes that request, it will be up to the judge to decide depending on the circumstances of the case. This system works, Mr. Speaker. Unless we systematically challenge the judicial system, we must admit that the judges are in the best position to assess the objective and subjective circumstances of an offence.

I think the law is quite adequate in letting judges decide whether or not the case should be referred to adult court. That is why I think the law should not be amended in any way in this regard. All the parties concerned with juvenile delinquency say that the current system works well. Not perfectly, of course, but well.

That is not good news to the Reform Party, which urges us to focus on isolated cases. Canadian figures are generally consistent from one province to another. I therefore can say without a doubt that juvenile crime is not more prevalent in Western Canada than in Quebec or the Maritimes.

At this point in time, nothing can reasonably justify the hysteria of those who blame young people in their fight against crime. On the contrary, everything shows that crime is a reality of adult society. The proportion of teenagers guilty of Criminal Code offences is quite marginal compared with adults.

I have before me the latest figures from the Quebec public security department, and the same ratios can be applied to the Canadian population as a whole. In 1993, only one out of 51 qualified murders may have been committed by a young person.

The ratio is 6 out of 25 for second-degree murder and 0 out of 4 for manslaughter.

On a grand total of 90 murders committed in Quebec in 1993, young people may have committed 7, or less than 10 per cent. Of 241 attempted murders, 25 or about 10 per cent may have been committed by young people. As far as crime against property is concerned, young people committed 644 out of 3,177 robberies or about 20 per cent and 2,244 out of 21,592 offences against persons or a little over 10 per cent.

With respect to drugs, the facts are overwhelming. The vast majority of drug offenders are adults. Less than 5 per cent of offences for heroin possession, trafficking or smuggling are committed by young people. For cocaine offences, the rate is 8 per cent. Who can argue that the crime rate is higher among young people? Or that the proportion of criminals is about the same among young people as it is in the adult population? Let us face it: While adults represent 75 per cent of Canada's population, they commit over 90 per cent of crimes. Mr. Speaker, the reality is clear. Young people are not criminals. In their teens, that short period from 12 to 18 years of age, a very small proportion of them, less than four per cent in fact, will commit an offence, and that includes any incident, from the most ordinary to the most serious one. The majority of these offences will be assaults following arguments, as well as acts of vandalism and statutory offences.

The current Young Offenders Act is based on a long study of juvenile delinquency. We cannot talk about juvenile crime, because the reality does not support that false perception. The overwhelming majority of young people will reach adulthood without any problem, while two adults out of three could one day become part of the statistics on criminality.

Faced with such evidence, what is the relevance of a motion such as the one which is before us and which we will vote on? If the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby looked at the issue carefully, he knows that amending the Young Offenders Act as proposed in his motion would have the immediate effect of making that act almost useless. Since juvenile courts almost always hear cases involving young people aged 16 to 18, why does the hon. member not simply suggest repealing the act? It would be simpler, more honest and more direct. Such a measure would not be hidden behind a pretence of good intentions.

On what philosophical view of human nature is this notion of criminal responsibility based in the case of ten-year-old children? I agree that a ten-year-old child knows the difference between good and evil, but does the hon. member truly believe that a ten-year-old understands the nature of what is evil? Does he think that a child of that age is already corrupted and bad to the point of purposely doing something wrong and drawing from it a gratuitous satisfaction related to the fact that he is copying adults?

Who does the member represent? Does he speak on behalf of these paranoiac groups who have nothing better to do than throw the population into a panic? Or those individuals who flood us with hysterical correspondence reeking of hate? Or those new right-wing extremists who think that a jail sentence is still the best solution for young offenders?

In 1984, the new Young Offenders Act was based on a humane approach to juvenile delinquency. Realizing that young people were not criminals and that the dependency on their parents had the effect of reducing the risks, the legislator, after countless consultations, passed a law which favours a helping relationship between the various officials and the young person guilty of an offence.

The purpose of the law-and I repeat it again in case the member for New Westminster-Burnaby did not catch all the subtleties and nuances-is to help the young offender become a responsible person, by ensuring an effective intervention by all the professionals involved.

Instead of imposing a judicial sentence which would immediately turn the young offender into a criminal with a record, the law favours the effective rehabilitation of that young person through a series of actions. And if you read the act carefully, you will see how generous its provisions are in that respect. If that law helps only one young offender stay away from a life of crimes, it will have achieved its goal. The Criminal Code, on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to punish those who are guilty of an offence. If you make a guilty offender out of a young person, he will remain guilty for the rest of his life. However, if you give that person a chance to see what his options are, you will probably save him.

I realize that such a solution is not acceptable for someone who is bent on revenge, but if adults seek revenge, let them first use that solution on themselves. Let them build social, family and political structures adapted to the young before avenging an isolated offence committed by a young person to whom they were unable to teach honesty. This motion is simply deplorable. It might have afforded me the opportunity to discuss the amendments that the Minister of Justice gave us notice of some months ago, if it had had the merit of proposing something substantial in the administration of the Act. I know that there is a strong temptation among the Liberals to yield to certain pressures to make the Act more severe. I know that some day we will have to examine certain situations that the Act did not make provision for when it was adopted because the social reality at the time did not demand it.

I am prepared to admit that the system should be adjusted to new realities, particularly regarding organized crime. I am aware of the danger from bands of young people in certain urban areas. I believe that this is a phenomenon with which we must come to terms specifically, but we will certainly not do so by changing the focus of the Act, by stripping it of all its impact on the practical level and by lowering the age of criminal responsibility. I do not believe that bands of young people have many members between the ages of 10 and 12.

The problem of bands of young people is related to that of adult organized crime. In this regard, we will take a position at the proper time. For the present, I ask this House to reject the motion of the member for New Westminster-Burnaby.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully.

I want to make this very clear. By our motion today we are not asking for increased penalties particularly. We are not discarding the social help side for those offenders who can take it up. We are asking that the Young Offenders Act, under the concept of diminished capacity for handling young offenders somewhat differently than adults, simply apply to the right group.

Why does the member misrepresent what I have said? Why does she feel it necessary to misrepresent our motion today? I ask what philosophy she has that in view of obvious national concern of what is not working she would essentially defend the status quo.

The big debate in the House the last time when the Young Offenders Act was passed was largely about the upper age, whether it should be 16, 17 or 18 and what the cut-off age should be. The House was essentially divided 50-50 at the time. A decision was made and for the last 10 years we have lived with the consequences of that decision.

I say to the member that she should ask her constituents what they want rather than telling them what they should want. The data is in from the national mood, from what we have been living with. The people have asked for our motion today.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have in no way distorted the motion put forward by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby. I commented on his motion. I did not say anything about extending sentences, contrary to what he says. I mentioned the fact that he wants to lower the age from 12 to 10 and from 18 to 16. That is what I talked about.

When he asks me to talk to my constituents about what they think about his motion, I can tell him that right now. We know as a result of many surveys that have been conducted throughout Quebec, and I imagine throughout Canada, that people are reasonably satisfied with this legislation. As I said, it is not perfect, and there is room for improvement. However, Quebeckers are not currently in a panic over the Young Offenders Act.

You hear a great deal about it, as I understand, in the West and in the English-language press. Why exactly are they panicking so? Is the press exaggerating? Or is it the work of a few paranoid people? I am not sure, but people are not paranoid in Quebec. The Member must be aware of what is happening elsewhere, and not just in his area, where he claims there is a general sense of panic.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member but with great respect I caution that it is not helpful to a reasoned debate to have inflammatory rhetoric.

I represent a riding in the metropolitan Toronto area, not in the west. As recently as May 2 of this year I held a public forum as I do every month. The issue was public safety. I want to tell the hon. member that in the five and a half years that I have had the privilege of representing the people of Scarborough West I have discussed many issues with them and in particular crime issues.

I want to refer specifically to the actual wording of the opposition motion, not what various people think it says. The opposition motion urges a response to the "evident lack of confidence that has arisen from Canadians over the Young Offenders Act".

As far as I am concerned that is a fact in Scarborough West. I believe that the majority of my constituents have an evident lack of confidence in the Young Offenders Act. As recently as May 2 they asked me, in no uncertain terms and in nothing less than a clear majority what the government was preparing to do about it.

The government is quite aware that there is a problem with the Young Offenders Act. That is why in the red book the government proposed amendments and that is why the Minister of Justice is going to be bringing forward amendments and is going to be putting the entire act to the justice committee for a complete review.

I am satisfied with that action by the government. In fact I applaud it. I have told the people of Scarborough West what we are doing and they are prepared to wait because there is no panic. But make no mistake about it, there is an evident lack of confidence. We have seen motions not from alleged fascists out west but from people on my side of the House bringing forward private member's bills co-sponsored by Liberals dealing with the age restrictions.

I want to ask the hon. member, are the good people of Saint-Hubert so different from the good people of Scarborough West? Is the hon. member telling me in good conscience that everything is okay as far as they are concerned with respect to the Young Offenders Act? If so, does she still support the justice minister's suggestion that the act be reviewed by the justice committee?

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that when I mentioned panic earlier, I did say in the West. I also mentioned the English-speaking press. What I mean is that this panic does not exist in Quebec. It just does not. This is a fact. Again, it may be due to our distinctiveness.

I also wanted to say there is no point causing people to panic, even in regions where, as you indicated, lack of confidence is already evident over the Young Offenders Act. You said lack of confidence had arisen over this legislation. It may be the case, but I do not think that proclaiming it from the rooftops will solve anything. I think a better way may be, as I said earlier in my speech, to open up the act. I said that it needed improvement, not that everybody was telling us all was well with the world. I said changes were required.

For one thing-I did not mention this earlier and this is a very personal point of view-I think the Young Offenders Act should be amended to provide that offenders between the ages of 16 and 18 have to go before adult court when they are charged with murder and only then. That is my own position, and I want to make that clear.

So, I did not say there was general jubilation over the Young Offenders Act, but I did say that it did not produce the same panic reaction as it did in your region.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and I agree with most of what she said.

Since we in Quebec have a definite position on the amendments that could be made to the Young Offenders Act, could she tell us in this House what the consequences would be if Parliament adopted the motion now before us concerning age? What would be the consequences for the whole system that we in Quebec spent years putting in place and which now gives very good results? What would be the consequences of adopting the Reform Party motion on the whole system as far as young offenders in Quebec are concerned?

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, in Quebec at the present time all the parties involved favour the status quo.

So if we change the whole system by modifying the definition of "young person" to mean a person between 10 and 16 years of age instead of 12 and 18, we will certainly clog the courts and the already overcrowded jails. Furthermore, we will not rehabilitate young people by turning them into hardened criminals, as we know very well that prisons are not schools.

So, to give my colleague a quick answer, I think this would not be a solution for us in Quebec, as all the parties involved really favour the status quo.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

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.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the term "hypocrisy" is unparliamentary.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The term "hypocrisy" in general is not in itself unparliamentary. If an hon. member is unhappy because another hon. member called him or her a hypocrite, I would certainly take the opportunity to remind that hon. member that it is unparliamentary.

Resuming the question, the hon. member had the floor.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

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?

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I did not say directly that the Reform Party was paranoid or everything that she says. I just said that they may have such tendencies, which is quite different.

Besides, when people say now that society is really disturbed about the Young Offenders Act, I do not think that using forums like this, the House of Commons, the media and so on and emphasizing what some say is the weakness or laxity of the Young Offenders Act will help the debate; I do not believe that

saying everything is wrong in society and in our legal system will help us and move the debate forward, not at all.

I think that we must look at the law, as I said earlier, because basically it satisfies those concerned and the public, but in some cases perhaps it can be improved. I do not think we have to panic.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whip of the Reform Party I would like to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) our speakers on this motion will be dividing their time.

When I came to Parliament I came with the belief that as a member of Parliament I should be reflecting my constituents' wishes to Ottawa, not the reverse. For far too long the people of Canada have had the impression, much of it correct, that when they elect politicians in their constituency somehow they come down here and take on a particular aura, that somehow Ottawa ends up engulfing them.

I am committed to representing the views of my people in my constituency and they are starting to know that and believe that.

I believe the future of Canada resides in our young people. The young people of Canada truly are the future of Canada because as great and as magnificent as this country is physically with all of the assets that we have from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic, we are still no more than the spirit of the people of Canada.

I have been going out and making presentations to schools throughout my entire constituency as a first priority. Every day that I have been in my constituency since January I have made it a priority to be in a school because this is where the future citizens of Canada are and our young people are our country's future greatness.

At Fernie Senior Secondary School, Mr. Randy Rae teaches Law 12. In addition to being a teacher he is a rancher and also a director on the regional district of East Kootenay. Randy understands democracy and believes in democracy. Coming to a consensus with his class that the Young Offenders Act is flawed, he directed them to construct a process to try and make some changes to the act. He also told them that it would not be a waste of time because he believes that he has a member of Parliament who will go into the House of Commons and represent his and his students' wishes to Ottawa. He is right.

The assignment identified the present Young Offenders Act, explained what it is and how it works. They got copies of various changes that have been proposed to the act and finally conducted interviews, had discussions and surveyed at least 10 different people each and then summarized their views.

It is interesting that the survey results reflect much of what the Reform Party has been proposing in terms of changes to the Young Offenders Act: stiffer penalties for young offenders, lowering the age at which a youth is considered to be a young offender, holding parents financially responsible for the actions of their children in some cases, and allowing the media to release the names of repeat young offenders.

Within the survey we came across two people who were talking about the inclusion of corporal punishment in the penalties of the Young Offenders Act. This is indicative of the responses that I have been getting on the street.

However, understand clearly this is not the Reform Party position nor is it necessarily my position. All I am saying is that because the present system of justice for young offenders is not working, my personal opinion is that we should be prepared to take a look at corporal punishment after a thorough objective review of all pertinent information gathered from around the world.

As I pointed out before, it was interesting to see that some of the points brought up in the survey were reflective of what the Reform Party has been promoting. This reminded me of something that took place in last year's federal election. The editor of one of our local newspapers slammed our belief that the Young Offenders Act should be amended so that parents and guardians of young criminals should have the legal responsibility to exercise parental control over youth. In fact a great deal of our media attacked the party for this view.

However, this survey conducted by the students supports this line of thinking.

I believe that society has responsibilities, responsibilities to the young people of our community and to their parents. Clearly there has been a fork in the path. The politicians who have come to Ottawa have been going down the fork of permissiveness, whereas society as reflected in the comments gathered by the young people in this survey and comments made by people I come across daily, whether it is at trade fairs I attend or clubs or organizations or in our schools, as people come up to me and communicate to me it is very clear that people who come to this House historically have been co-opted by the system. They have been co-opted by Ottawa and they have ended switching from the path that people in the constituency wanted to the path that was established by the Liberal Solicitor General, Jean-Pierre Goyer, 23 years ago in 1971.

My only question is will this government listen? It has promised and promised, but will it listen? Will it actually turn around and start to bring in what needs to happen or will it get engaged in a review of the justice system that is going to take

another 18 to 24 months? Will it meet the demand of the people of Kootenay East and indeed all Canadians?

No one can argue there is not a need for change to the Young Offenders Act. It is clear there is something wrong when we consider statistics from recent years as reported by Statistics Canada in January this year. In 1992 youths accounted for 13.7 per cent of all persons charged with violent crimes, up from 10.5 per cent in 1986. That is a jump of 3 per cent in just six years.

Of the 135,348 youths charged in Criminal Code incidents in 1992, 15 per cent were charged with violent crimes and that figure was up from 10.5 per cent also in 1986.

Even more shocking is the rate of increase in violent youth crime compared with that of adults. Since 1986 violent crime among our youth has risen at an average annual increase of 14 per cent compared with an adult increase of only 8 per cent over the same period of time.

Recently the Liberal member for London West who is also vice-chairman of the committee for justice and legal affairs told this House that when it comes to youth crime we should divorce perception from reality. She went on to say that Canadians would be able to tell their concerns to a committee when the legislation undergoes a thorough 10-year review. If that is going to take another 18 to 24 months that is not soon enough and that is what our motion is all about.

With respect to the vice-chairman of the justice committee and her attempts to dilute my party's thrust and concern about the Young Offenders Act there are many victims and families of victims hurting because of this inept legislation and quite frankly they are not interested in a 10-year review. There are problems we have to confront now.

I would like to read the following incident as was reported by Canadian press news wire this week. The vicious assault which I am about to relate took place in Oyama, a small community of about 500 homes located 30 kilometres north of Kelowna in the Okanagan:

A man whose head was caved in with an axe after he scolded a teenage driver for running a stop sign was in critical condition today and might be permanently paralysed.

Rodney Bell was hit in the head with the blunt edge of an axe in front of his horrified wife and children. Eight teenagers showed up to confront Bell at his secluded lakefront home on Friday just before midnight, a day after he chased them when they sped through an intersection, narrowly missing his car. Bell tried to reason with the teens, one of them grabbed an axe from a nearby woodpile and swung it full force at Bell's head. The gang then fled.

Police have arrested two 16-year olds in connection with the assault but they cannot be named under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.

As Mr. Bell lies in a hospital clinging to life, and if he does survive with the possibility of some form of paralysis ahead of him, the greatest injustice is probably the last line of the story:

One teen was charged with aggravated assault and remains in custody while the other was charged with assault and released-

He has gone back to school:

-but of course they are too young to be named under the protection of the Young Offenders Act.

I am committed to the concept that the youth are the future of Canada, that they are Canada. The minimum they should expect is protection by law for themselves, their persons, their property and protection for their parents.

I commend the students in my constituency. I commend Randy Rae and the Fernie Senior Secondary School and I thank them for their diligence, for their project and for the effort they made to communicate with me. It is this kind of communication from my constituents that gives me confidence that I am speaking for them when I speak about the Young Offenders Act. It is this kind of communication that I want from people in my constituency. Your Reform MP truly is different, I am listening.

I want to represent the views of the people of my constituency in this House. I hope the Liberal government gets it through its head that is what we are doing and that is what we are here for. We might not be using the correct political words. We might even be doing things that are politically incorrect. We do not care about political correctness; we want results. Above all we care about representing the views of the people of Canada. In this particular case we demand that the government move immediately so that we protect our youth and our parents by force of law.

I implore all members of the House to support the motion to start the momentum toward changing the Young Offenders Act. Our young people, the future of Canada, demand our support and our protection.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate this morning. I do not normally agree with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, but I want to stress the point that the member for Saint-Hubert stressed.

If we listened to the questioning in the House during question period over the past several weeks we would almost get the impression that we are in a panic situation in Canada and that crime was escalating. That is generally not the case throughout the area. That is why I agree with the member for Saint-Hubert. In Quebec we are taking a calmer approach. I caution Reform

members opposite. I find some of the questioning very judgmental and causing a bit of panic where there is no cause for panic.

Let us take a look at what our party is committed to. On the government side we are committed to reviewing the Young Offenders Act. Since the beginning of Parliament the opposition side has requested that it wants to be more participatory in the drafting of legislation. We are going to refer the matter to committee for its recommendation.

I find the motion a bit premature. I am having a hard time understanding how reducing the age to 10 years old or preventing the disclosure of the names of some young offenders will improve the statistics the member opposite quoted. How are we going to improve the 15 per cent or the 135,000 by reducing the age? Is the brunt of the motion to reduce the age to a lower level so that we have more people involved in the statistics? Are there not other ways of addressing the problem?

It is going to committee stage so why do we not wait for the committee to report? Members opposite are part of the committee. What is the panic?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a consciousness on our part when 3,000 people turn up in Alberta on a sunny afternoon. I believe it was the member for Mississauga West who indicated that this was an issue. It is not a panic issue. It is just that Canadians are demanding changes.

The specific change we are proposing is an indicator that in fact there will be some momentum. With the greatest of respect to the member, to the Solicitor General and to the justice minister, I suggest when we get into this review we all know that Parliament moves at glacial age speed. We are going to be in a 12, 18 or 24 month process. The people who are talking to me are demanding change now. We are simply requesting that members of the House of Commons recognize that people are demanding change quickly, are demanding change now.

I am speaking on behalf of the students whose report I presented in the House of Commons today. In my judgement it is the young people in society who are the most severely inconvenienced and put under pressure by an inefficient, incompetent Young Offenders Act.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question but first I want to make a brief comment. This morning, I have the impression that Reform Party members have, in their press clippings, a lot of articles taken from Photo Police . I do not know if this kind of weekly exists in Western Canada, but this is the impression I get when I hear these descriptions of the terrible things that are happening.

I cannot agree with them. The Bloc's position was presented earlier and will later be explained in further detail by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. As far as I am concerned, making criminals of younger children will not solve the problem. Does the member agree that we should have a proactive approach and provide support to young people, so that they do not end up doing things like that?

The question raised earlier by the hon. member was a call for the Liberal government to provide assistance and create direct employment programs to keep our young people busy and give them jobs. Again, I do not think that we will solve the problem by making criminals of younger children. I would like to see the two opposition parties work together and convince the Liberal government to take proactive measures instead of sending young people to jail.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the original presentation of the motion my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby came up with some excellent examples of how young people under 12 years of age had fallen through the cracks when they could have been helped by the process. A whole group of people are currently abusing that end of it. They are involving young children because they cannot be charged.

There has been a change in our society. Looking at the upper end, at the 16-year old end, on behalf of the people in high school I say the problem is that the straight kids need protection and the Young Offenders Act is not doing it.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

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.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of comments on the hon. member's speech.

I know about the concerns she has with respect to the children in school. I believe we have all encountered them and we have all heard about them, sometimes from our own children.

The problem is that what she is saying is not going to, even if we agreed with her, make any difference as far as the Young Offenders Act is concerned because we cannot incarcerate those children for threatening and intimidating other children. What we have to do is work in the community.

There is a lot of hypocrisy by the provinces on this. They want changes to the Young Offenders Act but what they do not mention is that they are responsible for children under the age of 12. They would like to have people believe that there is nothing they can do to help those children through the Children's Aid and other means such as education through the school system. They would like to blame the fact that these children are at risk and not being helped because the federal government will not lower the age. It is the provinces who refuse to do what they should be doing for these children under 12.

I want to ask the hon. member one question. I ask her in good faith because I really want to know and it would be helpful. When we talk about 16 and 17-year olds the examples used are always with regard to murder and violent offences. Does the hon. member feel that is where the changes should be made while keeping 16 and 17-year olds who commit offences that are non-violent within the Young Offenders Act? Is that a possibility? Is she saying that is something that could be done?