Debates of May 12th, 1994

Supply

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on her fine speech. She brings up a number of very good points, but I think she is only looking at half of the equation.

What irritates my constituents and myself very much is that nobody apparently wants to speak out for the rights of society as a whole. We continually talk about the rights of the accused, the rights of the convicted, and we make beautiful speeches about the rights of the victim. But unfortunately and tragically, in the recent history of this country, the rights of the victim have been subjugated to the rights of the criminal.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, the time has expired. Do you wish the hon. member to make a very brief response?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the hon. member exactly what she and her party are going to do to guarantee that the rights of society will be protected over the rights of the criminal.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

In answer to that question, Madam Speaker, I am going to guarantee that the Young Offenders Act will look at the rehabilitation of children. When they come out at the end of the process they are going to be better citizens than when they went in. That is not just by punishment; it is by changing behaviour and behaviour modification. If we target our resources smartly we can achieve that and not just hold people in a pattern.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members who have contributed to this debate. I have some comments I would like to make on this subject. Of course I rise in support of this motion.

I grew up in a large family. Corporal punishment was used in our family. We knew the rules and we knew the consequences of breaking those rules. I know today what the consequences are of breaking those rules.

I do not use corporal punishment in my home. I have four children. They know if the rules are violated in our home there are consequences to be paid. The rules very seldom are broken in our home. Of course, the greatest weapon I use against that kind of behaviour on the part of my children is I show to my children the love and concern I have for them and I provide for their needs.

In 1984 the Young Offenders Act came into force repealing the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Since 1984 on average 46 homicides a year have been committed by children age 12 to 17 years. Figures reveal that in 1991, 22 per cent of the 679,000 federal statute charges laid were against youth. Of the more than 146,000 charges against young people, 13 per cent were violence related. These 18,000 violent offence charges marked an increase of 102 per cent from 1986. However, over the same period the size of the youth population decreased by 1.8 per cent.

I ask those people who advocate that the Young Offenders Act is working: Do 46 murders per year represent a victory? Does an increase of 102 per cent in violent attacks prove success? If the system is working of course there is no need to change it, but if it is not working, then we ought to be earnestly engaged in looking at ways to reform the system.

I do not think this represents a success. Anyone who believes it does has no idea of the anatomy of a murder. They do not know the fear, pain and anguish inflicted upon a murder victim by the criminal. They are unaware of the acts of desperation and the pleas for mercy by the victim in their futile attempt to survive.

Those figures I have just quoted represent a failure. It is a failure to respond to the criminal behaviour of our youth. Those figures represent the utter contempt and disregard held by the criminal for your right and my right to live. They represent a contempt for our laws and our justice system, a system that does not hold them accountable for their criminal conduct in any meaningful way.

These figures are why members on both sides of the House want action and they want it now. We do not want to wait a year because that means perhaps another 46 deaths. We do not want to wait six months for another 23 murders to occur. We want to move as speedily and as expediently as is possible. We want to start now to introduce reforms that will provide greater protection to the people of this country.

We are asking that the government amend the Young Offenders Act to ensure greater responsibility and accountability among our youth for their delinquent behaviour. We are recommending that the minister give kids a choice and a message: Behave or pay the price.

We all have the power to make choices. When we make the wrong choice there are consequences to pay. That is a fact of life, a fact that our justice system has failed to teach many of the youth of this nation.

The original intent of the Young Offenders Act was to balance society's demand for protection with the need to protect the rights of the young offender. What right does a young offender have? This is a question we must address before proceeding with any changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Convicted murderers, rapists and others regardless of their age who take it upon themselves to vandalize or to murder another human being throw their rights away the moment they launch their deadly attack upon the life of another. This is made clear by the fact that we as individuals have the right to administer death to an assailant in order to protect our lives. The assailant casts away all his rights including his right to life the moment he attacks, provoking the defendant to either retaliate or give up his own life.

The Young Offenders Act and other laws have improperly restored the rights to the murderer. That should be the guiding principle of the Young Offenders Act; that should be the guiding principle of our laws and our criminal justice system and for our legislators: that the rights of the individual are extinguished by their criminal act.

The balance that was to be struck by the Young Offenders Act has been tipped in favour of the local high school drug dealer and rapist and murderer. Lenient sentences, unpublished names and the belief that 10 and 11-year olds do not know right from wrong are the considerations that have skewered the justice system. The Young Offenders Act has allowed the rights of the offender to outweigh those of the victim.

Let us examine the question of rights. When individuals burst into your home and attack you or your family, you have the inherent right and responsibility to defend yourself and your children. If that requires using deadly force, then you have that right within our society.

The delinquents who shot and killed defenceless Nicholas Battersby did not consider his rights. They did not consider his right to life, his right to live in peace in his own home, his right to experience the joys of his future. The state failed to protect these rights of Nicholas Battersby and they were extinguished by his assailants. We cannot say Nicholas Battersby's murderers have been denied the same rights. Under the current Young Offenders Act they will continue to enjoy the rights they have so brutally denied their victim.

The question we must ask is: What more must individuals do to forfeit their rights and freedoms? If taking the life of another does not extinguish all their rights except to a fair hearing through our courts of law, then it destroys the meaning of individual rights and it extinguishes the meaning of life itself within our society.

I say with respect, the bleeding hearts in this country who have restored the rights of the offender after he has taken the rights from his victim do not comprehend, I believe, the rights associated with human life. They have erroneously made the criminal the victim by suggesting that the criminals are not responsible for the choices they make that lead to their criminal acts. They read into the circumstances of the criminal's life justification for the brutal and sadistic acts committed by them.

Regardless of our upbringing, no matter now deplorable the conditions of our life, we all have the power to make choices. We all know the difference between right and wrong and we are all responsible when we make the wrong decision. We cannot blame anyone else. We must be accountable for our own actions.

Millions of Canadians every day make decisions to be honest, to be fair and to respect the property and the lives of others. Therefore there is no justification in saying that one's past experiences or environment is the cause of one's criminal behaviour.

However our justice system particularly in regard to the Young Offenders Act says that young people are not responsible for their choices and their actions. This has been a major blunder in the creation of the laws protecting the property and lives of the people of this nation, that somehow someone else is responsible for the choice made by the criminal.

What these legislators are saying is that we do not reap what we sow. I find this unreasonable and unacceptable. The injustice in this country, the major flaw within our justice system is that we have legislated to restore the rights of criminals, rights which were lost at the time the depraved person launched their deadly attack upon the rights and the property of another human being.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, there can be no doubt that many Canadians are concerned about youth crime and more specifically about how the Young Offenders Act deals with youth who commit these crimes. Recent horrifying events in Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and elsewhere have understandably increased the national attention focused on this issue.

I wish to state clearly that individual events even if there are a number of them do not necessarily amount to an epidemic. The vast majority of Canada's young people are ambitious and hard working young citizens who respect their fellow Canadians. The vast majority are maturing into productive and law-abiding members of our society. We do a disservice to all young people if we cast them in the same light as the minority who turn to crime.

Over the last few years youth crime in Canada in fact has not increased in a significant way statistically. Adults, not youth, still commit most of the crimes in Canada. In addition, it should be remembered that most of the crimes committed by youth are non-violent. They are crimes against property, not against people. Nevertheless it is true that some youths do indeed commit crimes. It undoubtedly is an issue that is important to the fabric of our society and it must be addressed squarely by this government.

Last fall a major national public consultation paper was released by the Department of Justice on the Young Offenders Act. This paper was distributed to about 40,000 groups and individuals in Canada. It asked for their opinions on several issues relating to the act.

These issues included: whether the minimum age under the act ought to be lowered; whether the maximum age under the act ought to be lowered; and whether there ought to be more transfers of youth to adult court. The issues also included: whether the identities of young offenders ought to be published and if so, at what stage of the proceedings; whether judges ought to be encouraged to sentence only violent young offenders to

custody; and whether the Young Offenders Act ought to allow greater flexibility for youths to get access to treatment.

Finally, the consultation paper included a series of questions on what changes ought to be made at the community level and elsewhere in our society to prevent youth crime. It also asked what additional steps ought to be taken to ensure that young offenders are rehabilitated and therefore do not become reoffenders and go on to a life of adult crime.

I have taken some care to explain the content of the consultation paper in order to make the following points. This paper directly sought the opinions of Canadians on most if not all of the key and pressing issues that currently relate to the Young Offenders Act, including the subject of today's motion which is whether to change the upper and lower age brackets in the act.

It is encouraging to note that over 1,000 people took the time and trouble to send in written responses to the consultation paper, all of which were read and are being considered. It is also encouraging that the majority of respondents were thoughtful and many offered interesting and helpful suggestions for change.

At the same time there is no doubt that the responses indicate that Canadians who responded are concerned about the Young Offenders Act in general, about how well and evenly it is enforced and about whether it is effective against youth crime.

More specifically, they are concerned about the age brackets in the act, publication of names of young offenders, transfers to adult court, length and types of sentences, treatment and rehabilitation and about how to prevent youth crime.

This government has already made it clear that it intends to address the issues relating to the Young Offenders Act. In fact, it was just over a year ago in April 1993 that the crime and justice package was released. Therein it stated that this government's proposed changes in the act include increased sentence lengths for young offenders convicted of murder to ensure full treatment, improved access to rehabilitation programs for young offenders, and increased release of information on the identity of young offenders.

Not all the changes that may be needed can be made quickly and easily. The issues surrounding the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system are difficult and important. Furthermore the responses to the public consultation process on the act indicated clearly that regrettably on several issues there is no consensus among Canadians on what changes should be made to the Young Offenders Act.

Nevertheless I know my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, agrees that the amendments to the Young Offenders Act that are most pressing and can successfully be made at this time must be made as soon as possible, indeed before the House rises for the summer.

Accordingly, I gather that the Minister of Justice intends to present this House with a bill in the near future. It will be obvious to members that this will leave some issues relating to the Young Offenders Act unresolved. To deal with these issues the Minister of Justice has already stated publicly that he intends to initiate a broad and all encompassing review of the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system.

It is expected that this review will be undertaken by a parliamentary committee and that the review process will include consultations with interested groups and individuals from across Canada. In this way Canadians will be able to tell Parliament what form they ultimately wish the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system to take.

I believe that this is of crucial importance because in the final analysis it is those who feel well served and protected by the act, those who will be dealt with by the Young Offenders Act and those who will help them who must be satisfied with it and with the youth justice system.

In closing, I cannot stress enough that we must create a Young Offenders Act and youth justice system supported by Canadians. Otherwise we will fail in our attempt to address the social problem of youth crime which is a blot on our society. We cannot afford to abandon this small minority of our young people who for whatever reasons commit crime. If we do abandon them we can be sure that the cost to society will in the end be far greater than the cost of helping them while they are still young.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her fine speech. It was very eloquent and does in fact address some of the issues of why people become young offenders in the first place.

However, I will submit to the hon. member that one of her statements in the initial part of her presentation was false, the statement that crimes committed by youth are in fact not statistically increasing at all. Crimes committed by youth are in fact increasing at a greater rate than those by other people and in fact crimes that are of a violent nature committed by youth are increasing at a far greater rate.

Many years ago in putting myself through school I was a correctional officer in a maximum security detention centre and have worked as a doctor in jails. One of the most tragic things in working with youth as well as adults is that they find when they get out of the system there is nothing there for them.

I remember last summer a youth who was 15 pleading with me and saying: "Please, Dr. Martin, do not let me get out of this institute. This is the third time I have been in here. When I go out I know I am going to come back in here again".

It broke my heart to tell that kid, that poor individual, that I had nothing to offer. As a constructive suggestion for members, I would ask members to please look at some kind of system for these individuals, particularly the youth in the detention centres, for some way in which they do not regress into the lives that they had before. Tragically, as has been pointed out in this House, many of them come from environments that are profoundly tragic. They find themselves going back into those situations.

I would like to ask the member what specifically-please, I do not want any rhetoric-is she or her party going to do in order to rectify the problems that we have in young offenders today?

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

First, I should clear up that I was talking about statistically significant; that there has been no statistically significant increase in violent crime for youth. I would not like to leave the member's impression as what he sees as fact to be true.

I am quite encouraged to hear of the background of the hon. member. I too have spent time with young offenders as a member of our Edmonton police services and as a member of our city council which developed over a two-year period of time the safer cities initiatives which dealt extensively with crime prevention.

We have always believed in Edmonton that there needs to be that balance. Yes, there need to be consequences for the acts of violence and offences against people and property. That is what we have made very clear here that we are willing to do by increasing the length of sentencing in the bill that members will see coming forward.

When we talk about what we can do for youth, we can be sure that they have the kinds of rehabilitative programs that will erase the fear that the member has talked about. That is quite a heart-rending story about a young person who is in essence afraid to leave a jail because he is in fear of reoffending.

I would think that with someone who felt that way with a good rehabilitative program there would be little risk of reoffending because he sounded like he cared and wanted to take advantage of a program like that.

We need a balanced approach. I am heartened to hear the interest of the hon. member in rehabilitative programs and in dealing with preventing crime.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity today to be positive.

We can show the youth of our country that we do care and that we are willing to make the decisions necessary to benefit them in the long run. At the same time, we can show Canadians that we are listening, that we not only hear but also care about their anguish and anger.

We have an opportunity today to take all the pain, all the frustration and all the hopes and expectations and act substantively. What Canadians want from their members of Parliament is action and this motion from my side of the House responds to the expectations of Canadians.

The members opposite can also show today that they have heard and that they do care. I know that they do. They can support our motion. It appears that it will take further effort to get the members opposite to come to understand the problem of youth crime in the same way that we do.

Given this, I intend today to make an argument for change. My colleagues have provided many constructive arguments for ways to change the Young Offenders Act. We are simply proposing more vigorously to reform the criminal justice system and, most especially, bring change to the Young Offenders Act.

Despite contrary voices there has been an increase in youth crime and there are a myriad of contributing factors to this increase. We have heard about those today. It is clear that the lack of effectiveness of the YOA is one of those contributing factors, but I also want to point out that the Canadian perception of an increase in youth crime is not a false perception. Some of the members across the floor are quick to dismiss any talk of rising crime statistics as fearmongering or some kind of knee-jerk response and a reaction perhaps to isolated instances.

I will provide information a little later showing just how wrong minded so many of the members across the floor are. I ask them to raise their heads, to listen to Canadians and then they too will appreciate the magnitude of this problem.

The members of my party are attempting to substantively address the problem. During the election campaign, on the doorsteps, at town hall meetings, during public debates and in the coffee shops people were talking about the Young Offenders Act and victims' rights. We heard them and we promised we would bring those concerns, the concerns of Canadians, with us to Ottawa. And we are living up to that promise. Unfortunately, the government has done nothing to date but we hear good things in the offing. To date it has done nothing about the Young Offenders Act and criminal justice reform. Promises are made. Yes, indeed. Soon, we are told and we continue to wait.

I know how concerned Canadians have become because on Mothers Day I attended the rally in Calgary that was held simultaneously with Edmonton and between those two rallies over 4,000 people came together to voice their concerns about the increase in violent crime by youths and the commensurate

lack of judicial action to deter criminal activity. Believe me, it was painful to hear their stories.

When the Young Offenders Act was introduced it may have been well intended but it has failed miserably. After the act came into force young offenders quickly came to understand that they could commit crimes and that if they were caught the punishment they would get would no worse than a slap on the wrist.

Unfortunately young offenders have become very clever. They know that when committing a crime their chances of being caught are very slim. Worse than that even if they are caught they know that their names will not be published, they know their records will be expunged five years after their sentence is finished. They know that the maximum sentence they can receive in youth court is three years. They know that the courts do not even like to try young offenders in adult court. In fact, in 1990-91 less than 1 per cent of violent cases were even transferred to adult court. They know that they can return to the community without undergoing any treatment whatsoever. Simply put, they know they can continue to get away with it.

Those of us who herald this debate have been called alarmists by many people in this House today and I wish to dispel that misunderstanding. I want to bring the debate even a little closer to home with some chilling statistics and we have had a lot of those thrown out today.

According to the MacKenzie Institute in Calgary, between 1988 and 1991 the violent crime rate among youth increased by 179 per cent. When those people rallied on Mothers Day they were not reacting in an alarmist fashion to a make believe problem. They were reacting to their heartfelt knowledge that the instances of violent crimes committed in Calgary and elsewhere by youth are increasing at an alarming rate. As well, not only is there a statistical increase in youth crimes but a Mount Royal criminologist, John Winterdyk, is also concerned that the nature of the crimes committed by young people seem to be more random, more violent and more senseless.

On that unhappy topic I have further statistics to corroborate Mr. Winterdyk's concerns. Of the 135,348 youths charged in criminal code incidents in 1992, 15 per cent were charged with violent crimes. This proportion was up 10.5 per cent from 1988. We should be very concerned that there was a 5 per cent increase in only four years. As well, the number of youths charged in violent incidents increased at a faster rate than the number of adults charged with crimes of violence. From 1988 to 1992 the average increase in adult violent crimes was 85 per cent whereas the average annual increase in youth violent crimes was 14 per cent. This demonstrates that as a society not only are we becoming more violent but that in particular more youths are becoming more violent more quickly.

Madam Speaker, I do thank you for the time allotted me today. I have appreciated very much, along with other members, the opportunity to speak on this matter.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(16).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the motion until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday May 24, 1994, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, might I suggest that the sitting be suspended either until 5.30 p.m. when Private Members' Business would normally commence or until the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrives at the door of the House, which I understand may transpire at any moment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House stands suspended until 5.30 p.m.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.18 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5.31 p.m.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion.

Product Packaging

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this motion. I support it in principle, but I do have some concerns about the intent and the interpretation of the dates.

The motion talks about a best-before date in consumption of food products and beverages and also an expiry date. This is an excellent approach because consumers should have a better understanding of the quality both in freshness and nutrition of the product that they are getting.

However I wonder about the actual interpretation of the dates. In the presentation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North on April 12, reference was made to the expiry date being the date of the shelf life of the product in the shop. Further in the same presentation a reference was made to products that have or are considered to have a shelf life of 90 days or less having a best-before date on them. As there is one date on the package this could be confusing to consumers, are they actually looking at an expiry date or best-before or a "what is the difference" kind of thing, as the situation stands now.

Food and beverages are perishable products and there definitely is a time factor involved as to the quality of the item. We need to identify that time factor in much more explicit terms through our dates, because there really is not any other way of establishing it that I can see.

If we were to think of the expiry date as it is now as the shelf life date, we would be indicating to the proprietors of shops that the product must be sold prior to that date, and if not it comes off the shelf. On the other hand, if we think of the expiry date as the date on which the food product must be consumed, then we are setting up a situation concerning the date on which that product may get purchased. What happens to it when we get it home? Unless we request the manufacturer to start putting things on such as "must be refrigerated when open" or various other kinds of instructions for us, we need to have some sort of sense of what that date means.

Does the expiry date mean shelf life in a shop, does the expiry date mean as long as the product stays in the package that it was originally packaged in but once opened the situation is different, or does the expiry date mean the date the product is actually consumed?

Following that same kind of argument, if you look at the time of deterioration of a product being from the time it is packaged to the time it is consumed, then you can run into standards or criteria. Probably debates will arise out of what would constitute a valid expiry date.

If we see a product that has the two dates on it and the expiry date indicates the shelf life date then the owner of a shop must sell it before that date or take it off the shelf. Then the best-before date would be slotted in there as an earlier time.

Are we actually looking at two different situations now which could create a marketing system? For example, fresh bread and day old bread would be sold at a certain price to the best-before date and then at a different price from that date to the expiry date. The other thing that would happen from a marketing point of view would be to get into debates again as to what really is the best-before date and what is the criteria.

The other thing that comes to mind on these dates is this. If the expiry date is not the shelf life date but the actual consumption date, then we are getting into a situation where there would be different criteria applicable to different types of food products. All these would have to be listed on the packaging to tell us how to store it once it is opened.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North made reference to a tin of tomato sauce, I believe it was, that was put into the frig. Once it was opened the expiry date on that tin of tomato sauce was irrelevant. The sauce would be no good within three or four days. I believe the expiry date was longer, a year and a half or something like that.

We are dealing with two different sorts of things here that have to be clearly addressed in this bill. What does the expiry date actually mean? Is it the shelf life in the shop, or is it the time that the product must be consumed? RIf it is the shelf life in the shop and we slot it in between packaging and the expiry date on the shelf life of best-before we may be running the possibility of setting up a marketing situation.

The other possible ramification that comes to mind in relation to this approach to the dates would be the guarantee. I would think by having the expiry date, the shelf life and the best-before date spotted somewhere in between, we are actually asking manufacturers to guarantee that their product, if the packaging remains unchanged, will be the quality on the best-before day that it was on the packaging day. After that there would be a gradual deterioration occurring. It is still safe to consume between best-before and expiry and can be sold.

Those are some of the concerns I have in relation to the actual dates. I think we have to clarify them very specifically for the public. As it is now, I can go and look at a date on a particular product-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.