Debates of June 16th, 1994

Young Offenders Act

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, this whole issue of young offenders is not an either/or. We are attempting to create a balance within the justice system, especially as it pertains to young offenders.

We are looking at some rehabilitative measures. We are not going to lock up young people and throw away the key. We know that the costs for incarceration are prohibitive.

I know that because in my riding, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River can attest to it, we had the highest rate of recidivism, of repeaters. We know what it costs to keep people incarcerated for long periods of time. The upkeep costs are prohibitive. The Minister of Justice and other members are attempting to create a balance to address the issues of violent

crimes committed by young offenders and still maintain a section for rehabilitation.

As I indicated, the Department of Justice is not the only department that has that responsibility. Communities, parents, regions, provinces as well as hon. members in the House have a responsibility to contribute in a positive way.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I may have the unanimous consent of the House to ask just one brief question of my colleague?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, can my colleague advise the House on behalf of the government if aboriginal young offenders need special attention for those likely to receive a custody sentence? Is the required denunciation of custody different for native young offenders?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I believe there is equal application of the law for young offenders. Because of the rate of recidivism and the higher rates of incarceration for aboriginal people generally, as I indicated, the rate of incarceration exceeds the population for men in particular. I am not sure that pertains to young offenders but I would venture it would be very close.

Having said that, I do not think there is any special treatment. If there is any special treatment it is to create equality not to create inequality. There are such inconsistencies and such marginalization right now that there is definitely a constitutional disadvantage applied to young aboriginal people.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-37 as to Opposition critic for Training and Youth. Two principles are set out in the first clause of this bill which are worth repeating first, crime prevention is essential to an orderly society and second, young persons should not be held accountable for their behaviour as adults, but must nonetheless bear responsibility for their actions. These principles go along the same lines as points made by other Official Opposition members.

Bill C-37 refers to crime prevention, yet it contains nothing but repressive measures. It would seem that rehabilitation for young offenders is dependent upon coercion and imprisonment. Transferring to adult court 16- and 17- year olds charged with serious crimes is not in keeping with the stated principle that young persons should not be held accountable as adults. Yet this transfer procedure is a major feature of Bill C-37.

Amendments are introduced in clauses 3 and 8, whereby 16- and 17- year olds charged with criminal offenses causing death or serious injuries would systematically be proceeded against in adult court. The onus is on the young person to apply to be tried before a youth court judge.

Also, 16- and 17- year olds charged with assault causing severe bodily harm will have to convince the court they should be proceeded against in youth court, or else they will be tried in adult court. It used to be up to the Crown to decide whether to transfer the young person or not. A transfer procedure is now in place for young people aged 14 and up, and it is up to the Court to demonstrate that adult court is the only court qualified to hear serious cases.

So different age groups are treated differently by the courts. Those between 12 and 15 will not be treated the same as 16- and 17-year-olds if they commit serious crimes. Some lawyers will undoubtedly argue that this violates the right to equality before the law as provided for in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now on to psychological and medical considerations. Clause 4 of Bill C-37 would allow the courts to direct that teenage repeat offenders undergo psychological or medical examinations. At the present time, such examinations are allowed only if the court has reasonable grounds to believe that a young person may be suffering from a psychological disorder. Young repeat offenders are regarded as mentally ill rather than as normal human beings damaged by their living conditions. This clause also has a legal dimension. Requiring a person to undergo a psychiatric assessment based on their criminal record may violate basic rights in the Charter.

This measure is troubling because some provinces like Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan do not have a system to look after young people in trouble. Youth custody conditions and their administration come under provincial jurisdiction. These young people may be the victims of some provinces' lack of supervision resources and end up spending more time in adult jails.

It is not normal for a court to bypass the reasonable grounds prescription to send a young person to a psychiatric institution for assessment. These psychological reports could be disclosed to third parties, which may violate the principle of confidentiality for teenagers' records.

This disclosure of records is expanded upon in Bill C-37, which calls for a better exchange of information on young offenders between the various police forces, school authorities and social workers involved. We must ensure that this exchange of information is restricted, because the public and the media are getting more and more interested in young offenders, so that

the principle of confidentiality may be seriously threatened by this openness. It is the Lieutenant Governor in Council who will rule on the clause concerning the disclosure of information.

The reaction of the Quebec Minister of Justice suggests that would not change, at least in Quebec, but what about the other provinces?

The last of the major changes proposed in Bill C-37 is unquestionably the harsher sentences provided for in the case of first- and second-degree murder. Pursuant to clause 13(3) of the bill, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder would rise from five to ten years. In the case of second-degree murder, the maximum sentence would increase from five to seven years.

This is a strange provision in that 16- and 17-year-olds can already be tried in adult courts. Therefore, the ones who stand to suffer the most as a result of this measure are 12- to 15-year-olds. Youth crime statistics do not justify such a harsh stance. Youth violence is generally on the decline. In the big cities, violence is either increasing or changing in nature with the upsurge in gangs. We are now seeing different kinds of violence than in the past. One can believe the government has been influenced by the families of victims of violent crimes who are motivated by a desire for vengeance. The Youth Protection Act was amended in 1992 to increase the sentences from three to five years. Why is the government taking this hard-line approach when the number of murders has declined? It is not even waiting to see the results of the initial changes and here it goes increasing the length of sentences again. Will it decide to lengthen the sentences again in two years' time?

It is obvious to the official opposition that the government is acting with undue haste in bringing in this legislation and that it is trying to please everyone.

Surely the rising popularity of the Reform Party in Ontario, a Liberal stronghold, has something to do with this decision. As far as the Quebec government is concerned, the bill should not have been introduced in the first place and the government should work within the parameters of the existing legislation and enforce its provisions.

It should be noted that the provinces are responsible for enforcing the provisions of the legislation and, in the opinion of the federal justice minister, they will enjoy considerably more latitude in this area. However, if ever a genuine legislative review process were to be undertaken, the provinces would have to be seriously involved.

No further details are given about the federal government's crime prevention policy mentioned in clause 1 of Bill C-37, despite the fact that it is an essential component of an effective juvenile crime prevention strategy. The bill is also silent on another problem, that of adults who use young people to commit their crimes and who get off scot-free.

The Official Opposition supports harsh penalties, but only in the case of premeditated, first-degree murder. With respect to other crimes, the existing provisions should remain in effect. It has also been said that the Youth Protection Act should not be mentioned too often because it only confuses matters.

Instead, I will quote statistics. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the average number of murders committed by teenagers in Canada fell from 55 between 1972 and 1982 to 46 between 1982 and 1992. In 1992, police laid charges against 140,000 teenagers for violating the Criminal Code and other federal laws. The number of charges laid has risen by 25 per cent in the last seven years. Two thirds of the 115,000 cases heard by youth courts led to a guilty verdict. About one third of teenagers found guilty by youth courts were committed to custody in correctional institutions or to open custody.

According to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star on June 6, it would cost between $70,000 and $100,000 a year to keep a young person in a detention centre. In 1992-93, the average number of teenagers in detention institutions was 4,734 a day, one third of whom were in secure custody. Fifty-three per cent of the teenagers convicted in 1992-93 were 16 or 17 years old.

According to the Canadian Department of Justice, in 1992, less than 15 per cent of violent crimes were committed by young people. According to an article published in a magazine called Canadian Social Trends in the fall of 1992, only 13 per cent of the charges laid against young people in 1991 involved violence.

According to a Statistics Canada survey, 70 per cent of all charges laid against teenagers in 1991 were related to crimes against property. However, the number of charges linked to crimes against property has increased by 17 per cent since 1986.

According to an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 19, 1993, one in three Canadians mistakenly believes that violence is as widespread here as in the United States.

In 1991, 753 homicides were reported in Canada, as compared to 24,000 in the United States. This means 32 times more homicides in a population 10 times larger that ours. There is just no comparison. The only detectable element of commonality between our two countries is the fact that repression does not make the crime rate go down, while media coverage of murders has a greater effect on public opinion.

A study carried out in Manitoba in 1992 showed that 90 per cent of young sex offenders had been assaulted in their childhood. Another study, which was carried out in London, Ontario,

in 1987, showed that 50 per cent of young persons charged with violent crimes had seen their father beat up their mother.

In its report on crime prevention, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Solicitor General noted that incarceration rates are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world and they currently spend $70 billion on law enforcement, judicial and correctional services. Nevertheless, in 1990, the United States ranked first in the world for the number of murders, rapes and robberies committed on their territory. In fact, U.S. figures in that area continue to rise.

The Minister of Justice did not include in Bill C-37 provision to toughen sentences for adults who solicit or hold young persons hostage to force them to commit crimes in their behalf.

Not only are these young persons forced by adults to commit crimes, but they will have to bear responsibility for the actions of adult criminals. The severity of this legislation should be directed toward these adults who often manage to evade the police, thus escaping prosecution, instead of the young people who get caught for such offenses.

The young people are taking the rap for adults. What is the idea? To brand young Canadians and Quebecers for the sake of making good a promise made in the red book? True enough, young people's inexperience often makes them easy game for police forces who are better at arresting young people than their adult counterparts.

The police make them spill the beans and take on full responsibility for the actions they are accused of, charges them and finally, have them convicted and sentenced in the place of adult criminals.

In Bill C-37, the Minister of Justice neither provides for nor supports any effective direct measure to eliminate juvenile delinquency. A proven direct alternative for eliminating juvenile delinquency is financial support for street workers.

At present, street workers are barely surviving on reduced subsidies. By the way, these subsidies, which most of the time called employment development programs and were subsequently cut could pay for a large part of youth services. This is an important point to note. Many communities in Quebec and in other regions of Canada used this employment program.

Resources are being cut back, resources which were used effectively but which could be even more effective if they were increased for this purpose. Organizations are already established, know their clientele, know their young people and are already up and running and what happens? Resources for them are cut.

Would the Department of Justice agree to give some of its budget to these street workers? Adult criminals who make use of young people's services do not have to pay the cost of their own defence since they are not charged and do not pay the cost of defending the young people charged in their place. In such a case, society now pays the costs involved in bringing them to justice.

Instead of punishing those who are really guilty, namely the adult instigators, Bill C-37 insists on punishing these young people who, I repeat, have been enlisted by adults.

I would like to conclude now with the impact of the message we are now giving our young people. Four hundred thousand young Canadians are unemployed-I am speaking broadly; I do not know how many are under 18-and the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata spoke of two million young people in Canada who are under 18. What message are we now giving these young people? It is this: "If you do wrong, you will be punished". It is a message declining responsibility, unlike the following: "We trust you. You may have done wrong, but we will try to give you a chance and rehabilitate you". Why do I say that? Because the provinces everywhere lack resources for rehabilitation and social reintegration.

I will not name him, but during an exchange, an hon. member told of his experience. This was actual testimony from his youth when he did something wrong at the age of 12. He was delighted that some adults took charge of him to help him straighten out, so much so that he is a member of this House today. This is an important position, unless the role of MP does not really amount to much.

The problem in this House now, as in Canada, is that people tell horror stories. Not enough success stories are mentioned, but there is a lot of experience. We need only talk to educators and to people who have been involved in community development, municipal recreation services or volunteer organizations. Every day they could tell us about the benefits of a prevention program based on the positive side of young people.

Right now, we talk about school drop-outs, delinquency rate, etc., but we forget to ask questions such as: What pushes young people to commit crimes? I remember one case in the Quebec City region. I will not give any names. Some young people had watched a violent movie which had led them to kill a taxi driver. They were influenced by the movie. Why not legislate at that level? Why let young and very young people watch violent acts?

I do not have exact figures, but a young person watching television all day can witness about 50 murders. And then people are surprised. I am not saying that there is more crime, but these are measures which we should think about.

The whole issue of firearms comes to mind when I read that young people still have access to such weapons. This morning again, there was a story involving military firearms. There are so many firearms.

This is another aspect, but I want to go back to the main issue. What is needed is some positive action to convince young people to get involved in the community, on a volunteer basis or otherwise. But, first, the message conveyed by our leaders must be a positive one. It must be a message of hope telling young people that they have an interesting future ahead, instead of being about harsher sentences and incarceration.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Human Rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to my colleague. Does he believe that the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act in this bill go in the right direction? If he does not, what legislative provisions would he propose in addition to the usual request for more social programming and counselling services?

If the bill says the wrong things-and I believe he is taking that tack-what does he propose other than throwing more money at the problem with increased social services?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking this question. I thought I had said it rather clearly in my speech. We in the Official Opposition feel that this act already provides sufficient punitive measures and that we should instead-and this is really the crux of today's debate-be considering the need for additional resources to rehabilitate young people and reintegrate them into society-in short, preventive measures.

A parallel can be drawn with the health field, where money spent on prevention may seem like a lot initially, but pays long-term dividends. This is particularly true for young people. If we are harder on a young offender and send him to an adult prison, which is a highly criminalized environment, what will happen? In all likelihood-and I am tempted to use the word guarantee here-that young person will turn to a life of crime. Instead, we should tell the young offender: "You have done something wrong and you must acknowledge that fact, but we are giving you a chance to start over again". That is very important.

My colleague's question also indicates, quite obviously, that there are two countries within this country. I can understand the Reform Party members, they represent the views of their constituents; and I will admit that the newspapers clearly show that this is a major public concern, and I can understand that. But in Quebec-I must say this because it is the role of a member of Parliament to advocate the interests and demands of his constituents-there is no such collective reaction against young offenders. Yes, the issue remains a concern, but not on the same order of magnitude.

In the present federal system, the Criminal Code must be enforced the same way in every province, and I find that unfortunate. Clearly, some people, particularly in Western Canada, are not happy with the act in its present form. In Quebec, we are satisfied with the act as it now stands. It is often said that this is a big country. Now, that is all well and good, but when you try to dress everyone in the same clothes-tall, short, fat, thin-you find that "one size fits all" sometimes does not apply. I am drawing this parallel simply to illustrate my point, but I do feel that it is the essence of what I wanted to say. I see a difference of opinion, and we in the Bloc, obviously, say that the status quo is better in this case.

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

Madam Speaker, for the information of the House and also because my fellow Bloc member mentioned a case in Quebec where a taxi driver was killed by a young offender, I just want to say that the act was correctly applied to this person by the courts in Quebec, in that there was a request for transfer to adult court, and in fact, this young person was transferred to adult court. He will be treated as an adult and will be sentenced as an adult, if he is found guilty. So in the present legislation, we have all the instruments we need to do this. The problem is one of enforcement, and I think the Bloc Quebecois tends to emphasize this because the problem is really how the law is enforced.

And this week, I was very surprised to see the crime statistics. If we look at the figures, and all the newspapers reported the Statistics Canada survey which tells us that the crime rate has not increased since 1988, even in the case of young offenders, and I must say this is even more encouraging, and it seems the number of all types of crimes went down during the same period.

I have a question for the hon. member, if he would care to answer. I realize this bill did not come from the Bloc Quebecois, because it would never have made it to the House, but I would appreciate it if the hon. member would explain to the House why we have a bill that is so repressive-we have always had a problem with young offenders, and as long as murders are committed by young offenders, the problem will exist -when the statistics clearly show the problem is not as serious as one would have us believe in this House. There has been no shocking increase in the youth crime rate, so why introduce a bill at the

last minute with stricter sentencing for young people, a bill that will be even more repressive?

Why was it absolutely necessary to table a bill like this in the House? And why reverse the onus of proof so that it will be up to the defence to prove that young offenders should not be tried in adult court where they may get more severe sentences instead of being tried under the Young Offenders Act? Could the hon. member explain why we have this bill, although the statistics show that no further legislation is necessary and that legal circles in Quebec and Ontario are very clear about not tinkering with the Young Offenders Act because it is good legislation, and so perhaps the problem is one of enforcement?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, clearly I agree with my colleague on some points. As to his question: Why? I think it is obvious, it is that public pressure seems to influence the Liberal government. In my opinion, we have to be wary of contradictions and inconsistencies.

For example, we are telling young people that they cannot vote before 18, that they cannot drive before 16, but if they commit a crime they can be treated as adults. I think we have to be consistent, we cannot have more than one standard. I believe this should be corrected.

As to the weight of public opinion, I would imagine that members of the committee will hear witnesses, and I hope they make them change their minds on the general direction of this bill. A good start would be for the people satisfied with the present legislation to be more active in order to balance the influence of those who request dramatic changes.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, two months ago, almost 10 years to the day after the passage of the Young Offenders Act, Nicholas Battersby was shot down in cold blood on an Ottawa sidewalk. Because the person who shot him was a young offender, we know very little about him. All we know is that he shot a man for a lark, for fun.

There was a big public outcry, lots of calls for tougher law enforcement, and the media and the usual brown shirted brigades of gun control lobbyists were braying that we should stop crime by getting tough on honest citizens.

This is something like a man who has two dogs, one vicious and one gentle. The vicious dog bites the postman and so to appease the postman the man shoots the gentle dog and then takes the vicious dog and tries to sweeten his temperament by overfeeding him.

What will happen to this young man? Because of the date of the crime I presume he will be tried under the old Young Offenders Act; but for the sake of this discussion let us say that he would be tried under the new one. It is less likely under the new act than under the old that he will be tried in an adult court for the simple reason that the new law will lead to interminable court delays with the new process of reverse onus that has been written into it. If he is convicted he will face a maximum of 10 years in custody, no minimum, of which perhaps 6 years could be in closed custody. Judging on the way the laws have been enforced to date that is all rather hypothetical and somewhat unlikel

What should be done with a person like that? I respectfully suggest that murder by a 16-year-old is no less harmful to the victim than murder by an 18-year-old. Therefore the penalty should be essentially the same. I am not suggesting immediate incarceration with older prisoners where the young fellow would be the plaything of sexual predators. That constitutes cruel and usual punishment by any standards and is unworthy of a civilized society.

We should have institutions designed to serve specific age groups. We used to have them. They were called reform schools. Some hon. members may say that is too expensive and we cannot afford it. If we could rehabilitate some of these young hoodlums perhaps it would be money well spent. It should not be expensive anyway; it need not be expensive. Young people incarcerated in a reform school could do useful work, including growing their own food which adult prisoners in the penitentiaries used to do and which we have done away with in most cases. Why do we not go back to that? When the young offender is not working to earn his keep he could be educated. Go easy on the pool tables and TV.

A 14-year old young offender in open custody was recently quoted as saying: "It is easy time; it is kind of like a playground: Disneyland or something". What is that young fellow learning about the justice system?

The proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act are in our opinion purely cosmetic, a transparent attempt to pacify a public clamouring for meaningful change. The government's response to almost everyone's principal demand that the maximum of age of application be lowered from 17 years to 15 years is to be sloughed off with a silly and meaningless compromise requiring 16 and 17-year olds to establish, through a tedious and expensive court process, that they should not be tried in adult court for the most serious crimes: murder, attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault and so on. The cost and confusion will be enormous: a bonanza for lawyers.

Since both reverse onus and judicial selectivity are involved some lawyers will probably be able to seek the spotlight and beef up their incomes by mounting a charter challenge. This is

an act written by lawyers for lawyers. I think of the constituent who asked rather plaintively: "Can't you pass a law down there forbidding lawyers to run for Parliament?"

In the House on June 6 the hon. member for Saint Hubert said: "These motions will be similar to extradition proceedings. It is going to be a waste of energy and public funds and through it all young persons will learn how to foil the system and scoff at the law". I rarely agree with anything the hon. member says but I certainly agree with that. She was spot on.

Of course her proposed solution differs from mine. She would continue to treat these louts like poor little misguided children, subject to the same rules as 13 and 14-year olds. People of16 and 17 are not children, for heaven's sake. They hold down jobs. They drive cars. They have babies with or without the benefit of matrimony. If they are unhappy in the parental home generous social welfare will in most provinces provide reasonably comfortable independence.

Bill C-37, rather than ensuring that these older young offenders will end up in adult court, makes it less likely than ever because of the reasons I have cited. I do not want to sound like a nagging parent saying "when I was your age-", but at the age of 17 I was working in a bush camp swinging an axe to raise money so I could enter university. If anyone had dared to suggest to me that I was a child I would have been outraged. We do young people no favours by relieving them of responsibility.

One of the hon. members opposite probably will not believe this, but I can actually remember when I was 10 to 13-years old. My companions and I fought regularly but never dreamed of using the knives which as farm boys we all carried. We did not try to maim each other. We had an archaic code of conduct which might seem terribly quaint to the lawyers and social workers who have been trying to redesign our society.

You did not kick somebody who was down. You did not pick on little kids or gang up on anyone and you never, never hit girls. In other words, we knew the difference between right and wrong; so did my kids as recently as 20 years ago.

I venture to say to the young savages who terrorize their weaker classmates, vandalize property and give the finger to their powerless teachers, to exempt 10 and 11-year olds from the rules of civilized conduct is socially destructive madness. A child who gets away with it at 10 or 11 and whose parents are not held legally accountable for his or her actions learns a lesson which all the prattling counsellors and dreamy eyed social workers in the world cannot erase.

Now the minister tells us that section 43 of the Criminal Code which protects parents who do care about their kids and use reasonable force to discipline them is up for review. What strange world does the Liberal Party inhabit?

The road from uncorrected naughtiness to mean destructiveness to full blown delinquency is short and straight. The government owes it to the children of Canada and to the future of our society to re-enter the world of every day Canadians. Bill C-37 is a start, but only a start. Let us get on with it.

Madam Speaker, I neglected to inform you that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Red Deer. I hope I can put that in now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I agree to accept it. You have already gone over. We had better get to questions and comments.

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

I listened to the member, and he sounds as if he no longer belongs to the Reform Party, but rather to the nostalgia party. These problems are today's problems, and I think that they cannot be solved the way the member suggested. I think that the problem of young offenders is much deeper than it appears at first glance. When young people turn the TV on, what do they see? Violence. In today's papers, we can read that a father seems to have left his firearms unattended since a 10-year old brought army revolvers to school. I think that there is a problem with educating parents and making them aware of potential problems with their children. I believe it to be a much deeper problem.

I would like to hear from the member who comes from western Canada if in his province they have a mechanism to deal with these young offenders.

Is there some mechanism to decriminalize their cases, to steer them towards rehabilitation and social reintegration or is it an area, in this great and beautiful country, where they put young offenders in block A, and the adults in block B? Do they send them to the best crime school to turn them into real outlaws later on?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. He must be aware that reform schools or youth wings, as he calls them, do not exist anywhere in Canada any more.

I am advocating, and I am advocating strongly, that doing away with them was a mistake because there is now no real mechanism to deal with these young people. We have the open custody situation or we have jails for adults. We really do not have much in between. We have youngsters in remand centres interminably.

They get into more trouble there; they get educated. That is why we should have reform schools where they get proper education. Yes, I am nostalgic. I do yearn for a period of our history when society was orderly, when there was a discipline of

children, when the police and the courts had power and exercised it.

I do not have a yearning for a police state, but I do have a yearning for a state where people are safe and where there is a social contract which involves decency and mutual respect among people. We have lost that. A lot of it is due to the same frame of mind that framed the original Young Offenders Act and which did not have the courage to come forward and do a full job with Bill C-37.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have waited a long time for this day. For years they have been demanding substantial changes to the Young Offenders Act. Canadians say they do not feel protected. They have asked the government to put society first instead of the criminal.

Canadians have demanded changes and Canadians have waited. In the meantime there have been costs. The public confidence has been eroded. Young offenders who have been released for violent crimes have reoffended. All the while Canadians have appealed to the government to protect society and ensure offenders are rehabilitated before being released.

The government has tabled before us amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which it says will address these concerns. The amendments would change the declaration of the Young Offenders Act so that its primary objective is to protect society. On the surface this looks good. The protection of society should always be the objective of our criminal justice system. We as parliamentarians must ensure the protection of Canadians is paramount.

Bill C-37 falls far short of this goal. We as Reformers will be supporting the bill because it does do something about toughening up the system. Something is better than nothing. However there are problems. The government's proposed changes are merely cosmetic. They appear to give the act a smooth finish, but when we look beneath the surface we can see serious structural flaws.

Here are some of the flaws. Bill C-37 does not lower the age limit. Those young offenders who commit serious crimes and who are under age 12 are still not held criminally responsible, even though criminal acts are committed by children under age 12.

All we need to do is look at the newspapers today. They tell a harrowing tale about an Aylmer boy who held his classmates at gunpoint. The boy had a .357 magnum and 9-millimetre pistol. He was 10 years old and apparently threatening the lives of his classmates. Yet he has not been charged because he is too young.

In 1993 Regina police were paralysed to act after a nine-year-old and an eleven-year-old attacked two young boys. The victims were forcibly confined, beaten and sexually abused. Police could do nothing. Parliament has not given them any power to act. The stories could go on. We have heard many of them repeated in the House.

Young offenders like these ones should be included in our youth criminal justice so they can receive treatment, so they can learn that their crimes are not acceptable to society, so we can be assured they do not reoffend and, finally, so they can eventually become productive members of the community. We have the chance to reform the violent actions of these young children but we are missing this window of opportunity.

Bill C-37 also fails in another area. It softens the law for violent offenders under age 16. The amendments we are considering today will allow youth courts to deal more harshly with murders. Canadians across the country have demanded that the current five-year maximum sentence is a slap on the wrist.

The proposed changes will increase first degree murder sentences to 10 years. In reality this translates to six years of custody and four years of community supervision. Second degree murder sentences will be increased to a seven-year maximum. This translates into four years in custody and three years of supervision.

I would argue that these changes would work to soften the law in its treatment of murderers. The slightly higher sentences will mean fewer violent offenders under 16 will be transferred to adult court. The changes before us today will ensure that many murderers will remain under the Young Offenders Act.

The government argues that its amendments are sufficient. It says most of the murder related cases heard in youth court are committed by 16 and 17 year olds. In 1992 and 1993, 60 per cent of the cases heard in youth court involved this age group.

These statistics like the amendments before us today look good at first glance, but once we look a little deeper we see the blemishes. The numbers completely ignore an important fact. Offenders under age 16 committed 40 per cent of the murder cases heard in youth court at this time. I would argue this is a significant proportion.

There is yet another flaw in these amendments. The general public is kept in the dark about violent repeat offenders. The proposed changes will provide information on young offenders to the police, to school officials and to child welfare workers. Certain members of society whose safety is in jeopardy will also receive information on the young offender.

These seem like valid changes but in reality they are superficial. The general public does not have access to the information. If certain members of the public can receive information about a young offender because their safety is at risk, why is the general public not also informed? If there is a chance a young offender will reoffend then all society is at risk. It is impossible for anyone to know for certain that only a targeted few will be in danger. If the government were truly interested in protecting all

society then all society would be informed about dangerous young offenders. This is not the case.

An additional flaw is that violent young offenders' records are not kept on file permanently. The proposals also claim to protect society by allowing police to keep the record of young offenders on file for ten years instead of five. According to the justice department this change will ensure that the length of time a young offender's record is kept is in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. Keeping the young offender's murder record on file for 10 years does not begin to mirror the seriousness of the offence. Murder is permanent; it demands a permanent record. The victims' names and ordeals will be forever etched in the minds of their loved ones long after the murder record has been wiped clean. Society has the right to know. If the government were truly interested in protecting society it would keep all murder records and violent crime records on file permanently.

Bill C-37 also raises some questions about serving sentences in the community. Will the community sentences be adequate? Under the changes set before us today more non-violent offenders will serve their sentences in the community instead of in custody. This change has many attributes. Young offenders will not be influenced by harder violent offenders. Often jail is considered a training ground for crime. It will save government money. It costs approximately $75,000 to incarcerate an individual. However, the government in saving this money must be committed to redirecting some of it into the communities.

If these offenders are to live in our communities we must ensure that they do not become repeat offenders. We must protect society. To do this, some of these offenders may need treatment and we must ensure that they receive it. I am not talking about spending more money. I am talking about saving money and spending some of it more wisely.

In conclusion, when we make changes to our criminal justice system we must ensure that the system is predictable to society. In order for a judicial system to act as an effective deterrent, citizens must be able to anticipate the outcome of their actions.

It is therefore important that the Young Offenders Act mirror the adult system as accurately as possible. We still have a long way to go, especially in the area of criminal records and publication bans. I believe these changes before us today are a small step toward this goal. Bill C-37 is far from perfect but it will improve the current system somewhat.

Amendments to Bill C-37 are essential. I would urge my fellow members of Parliament to ensure that these are enacted.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Madam Speaker, mention has been made of the negative effect of increasing the sentencing, that this will result in fewer individuals being transferred to adult court.

I remind the member that the onus is reversed. A person such as that is automatically in adult court and must be transferred down to youth court or the young offenders court in the case of serious offences such as murder.

As well there was mention made of the Aylmer incident yesterday but no mention whatsoever was made about the parents. What about those guns? How did they get into the hands? Were they in the hands of law abiding individuals? Were they in the hands of neighbours? How did they get into the hands of the children? Perhaps we should stop blaming the 10-year old and start blaming the adults who allow these guns to get into the hands of young people.

There is a lot of rhetoric about rehabilitation and productivity to society but no substance. Therefore, my question to the hon. member is what would he do? How would he change it? What specific items would he put into the act to deal with rehabilitation and to make this young person productive to society?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things we could say that we would change. We could certainly take a look at things like boot camps and those sorts of things. However, more important to the question, we must include victim's impact statements. We must include parents in the actual criminal justice system. The parents have to be forced to be there to hear what the victim went through and what their little darling did to that person. If they are found in any way to be responsible, they have to be part of that restitution; that money that is paid back, that fence that is fixed, whatever that damage has been.

I agree with the member fully. We must involve the parents in this. We must involve the victims in this. I do not see that in Bill C-37. I see a wishy-washy bill that really just satisfies the red book claim that we are going to make some changes but will do nothing to improve the actual situation we have.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to rectify what the member said regarding the case in Aylmer. I do not know if he read the same papers as I did, but this young person did not threaten anyone, he was going to practice shooting in a field with some friends. That is no excuse for the parents, though, but it is quite different from what the member said. It is misinformation of that kind that needlessly scares people.

This being said, I know now-I already knew it, but it was confirmed by a member from western Canada-that there is no mechanism in Western Canada to deal with young offenders and their problems.

Now that it has been confirmed, could the member tell me what his province will do the day young offenders are released, following the amendments to the Young Offenders Act, after spending seven to ten years in jail? What is the province going to do with them, if during all that time, there were no specialists to work with and treat them? If during their time in jail, nobody helped them, what is the province going to do with them once they are released after seven or ten years?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly what the member is referring to but we are saying that we do not abandon those children. In fact, we have to do something about that rehabilitation.

We are already spending millions of dollars on social programs, on various types of retraining programs and it is not working. It is just not working. We have a bunch of academics who have this idealistic world where they think they have solutions but it is not working. We have to look at other things and that is the point. The money we are putting in there now is being wasted.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, it is rather significant that on the one hand, we have the Reform Party telling us that the justice minister's proposal is nothing more than a cosmetic measure, while on the other hand, we have the Bloc telling us that the bill is far too repressive. Perhaps it is the happy medium.

I have listened closely to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, answer countless questions in the House about his views on young offenders and crime. He has said that his philosophy consists of cleaning up some of the outdated provisions in legislation, and at the same time focussing on the issue of crime prevention.

In our red book, we promised to take a look at provisions in the legislation as they pertain to certain violent youth crimes and to strengthen the act which is now ten years old. At the same time, however, we made it very clear that we would try to find ways to curb crime, and this is where prevention comes into play.

Just the other day after the Stanley Cup riots, all of us expected the riots to take place in New York City which is a city where crime has become a way of life. Yet New York City was quiet. It was lawful. The riots happened in Vancouver, a quiet peaceful city in normal times.

Last year it happened in Montreal, my own city, which is again extremely quiet and peaceful. We have to ask ourselves what the reasons are for lawlessness, violence and crime. We have to go back to the hopelessness in which youth sees itself.

I heard my colleague from Reform say that 17 years ago when he was 17 he went to bush camp and 20 years ago he knew what right and wrong were, as if today we do not have youth going to bush camps and other ways of work, as if today the youth does not know what is right and wrong. The great majority of youth in Canada are outstanding citizens, highly qualified, desirous of working. There is crime because there is hopelessness. We do not give them a chance.

A few years ago I had the sad privilege to serve on a committee with some other people about an ethnic group in Montreal who did not have the French language skills. They had very few educational skills and no work training skills. They could not find work.

The elders were saying because of that those people would resort to crime. They would rely on drugs and crime because there was no other open way for them. This is why in our electoral commitment we call it creating opportunity. Unless we create opportunity we are going to have to resort to more and more laws which will solve nothing. The more hopelessness there will be, the more crime there is going to be and then the more repressive laws we are going to be looking for.

What we need to do is to look at an integrated approach to society that looks at crime in its very sources. They say that an adult is born when a child is born. This is why we have addressed the question of day care for all the poor, single mothers that have to go to work leaving their children at home without adequate day care. So we have tackled day care. There is a correlation between day care and eventual crime.

Today we have a rate of drop out rate in our schools of something like 40 per cent. Sixty per cent of young Canadians have no vocational skills or no post-secondary skills. How can they approach the workplace in a competitive economy where work has to be more skilled than ever?

We graduate 24,000 apprentices a year compared to 600,000 in Germany. In proportion to our population we should graduate 275,000. How can we hope for these young people to find work, to find a dignity of life if we do not give them the chance?

This is why our program addresses itself to all the various causes of hopelessness.

Literacy, youth programs, the Youth Service Corps, apprenticeship programs and the reform proposals which my colleague the human resources development minister is now working on: this is the integrated reform which will affect all sectors of society and foster a climate in which job training will be a much more positive experience.

We have to restructure our industries toward the new industries of tomorrow; environmental technologies, broadcast technologies, information technologies, health technologies in which we can shine so that added to our thrusts to train young people into apprenticeships, into post-secondary education that is geared to these new areas of excellence, we can find them work, we can find them an opportunity, a chance.

We have wonderful young people in Canada, some of them highly qualified. Most of our youth are wonderful people. Those that resort to crime and hopelessness are those that do not find a chance.

We talk about prevention and we say that we have not addressed prevention. Yet our Minister of Justice pointed out that we are going to create very soon a national council for prevention of crime. I know some will say another council.

We intend to consult with Canadians, provincial and municipal governments, police forces and communities with a view to developing, not a short-term, hastily conceived strategy, but a comprehensive, long-term strategy, one that addresses all aspects of crime prevention, including long-term rehabilitation.

There is a saying that if we cherish the child and give him or her hope then we do not have to punish the man or the woman in later life. I believe in this fundamentally. What we need in our society is to give our young people, whether they be 12-year olds, 15-year olds, 17-year olds or 20-year olds a chance. To believe that the world has not changed since the 1960s or the 1950s is to delude ourselves. It is a new world today with instant communications. The world is very different.

Sure, there is more crime. There is more crime in Canada as there is more crime in France or England, in places which heretofore were very peaceful. That is the way of today's world. In all of these countries there is one common link, lack of opportunity for young people and for adults. When despair and hopelessness set in, people resort to any way to earn a living, to acquire dignity of life. That is what we must attack.

To say that 20 years ago all was sweetness and light when we all went to bush camps and everybody was nice is illusory. Today I find we have more frank young people than in my generation. We have young people who are far more committed to society, to truth, to integrity, to the environmental cause than we ever were in my time. We believed that you had to cane children and use law and order in our families. Today it is a more enlightened world where we rule by consensus and work together to try to form partnerships within our families, within our communities. It is a far more challenging world.

We have to resolve to effectively create opportunities so that our young people get back to work, find hope and dignity and then they will not have to resort to crime and violence.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in this House to participate in the debate on Bill C-217, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

Madam Speaker, I am against this bill. As you well know, criminologists have long argued that there is a wide gap between the public's perception of crime rates and the actual levels. Many believe that violent crime is a plague, in particular among young people, when the proportion of crimes committed by youths is very small. In fact, less than 15 per cent of all crimes committed by young people in 1992 involved violence. Despite the increase in the number of violent crimes committed by young people, most of this increase is due to minor assaults between peers, which, according to legal analysts, would not have involved the criminal justice system 10 years ago.

In April 1988, a study was conducted on the rehabilitation and social reintegration of 24 teenage murderers sent to Boscoville between 1968 and 1983. This study supports previous local and North American data on the typology, prospects and reintegration of young murderers.

It reminded decision-makers that, under certain conditions, these teenagers can be helped and become responsible and productive citizens.

Like other studies, the one I mentioned found that these teenagers have good prospects, that they do not commit subsequent offences and that their crime were due to circumstances and neurosis.

Young people charged with crimes have the right to be treated equitably under the law and enjoy special protection in this regard. Given their ages and maturity levels, young offenders have special needs that cannot be met in the adult system.

In fact, the bill attempts to reconcile the need to protect the public against teenage criminals by requiring them to assume responsibility for their actions with the need to protect young offenders' rights and help them become productive and law-abiding adults.

The media are often accused of contributing to the climate of fear. They tend to dwell upon spectacular and sensational crimes and to dramatize the vilest acts of violence reported on television, which apparently distorts reality, creating the impression

that crime has become rampant and exaggerating public fear. Fear is also fostered and intensified by rising crime statistics.

Some analysts are of the opinion that the intensity of the fear presently experienced by Canadians results in part from economic uncertainty. High unemployment has contributed to the climate of insecurity and vulnerability and is causing social and economic problems that reinforce the feeling of social disintegration.

The Liberal Party platform includes proposals to increase the length of maximum sentences imposed by the courts for first and second degree murders committed by young offenders; to relax the requirement to systematically dispose of police files on young offenders after a certain time; to allow the identification of some young offenders who have been convicted of violent crimes; and to create a "dangerous young offender" category for dangerous and habitual young offenders. We, Bloc members, cannot support the bill before us.

It has been established that through positive, early intervention in their lives, young persons struggling with social, psychological and emotional problems can be prevented from straying into crime and becoming dangerous repeat offenders.

There are a number of examples in support of the view held that young people commit offenses because they figure the gains derived from their unlawful activities will outweigh the price they will have to pay if caught. Criminologists and young offenders support workers have observed however that in many cases, young people commit offenses for reasons totally unrelated to the law. In their view, most young offenders commit property offenses which are not particularly clever and are more indicative of their lack of maturity and irresponsibility than of their maliciousness.

The overwhelming majority of young Canadians and Quebecers are ambitious, hard-working and respectful of their peers. Most of them become productive and law-abiding citizens. To put all young people on the same level as the minority who commit crimes is to do them a disservice.

Suing someone who committed a crime may provide some comfort to the victim and reassure the public, but it cannot be as satisfying as preventing the crime as such. It is often harder to implement crime prevention programs than to merely sue an offender after the fact. Preventing crime requires a review of on the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions which generate crime as well as an and it requires effort to change these conditions. The co-operation of many departments from all levels of government, as well as of the private sector and the public in general is needed. Making crime prevention programs effective is a major challenge. However, the results obtained with such programs, namely a reduction in crime, are much more beneficial for young people, and also for Canadians who, otherwise, might have become victims.

In conclusion, as parents, MPs and responsible adults, we simply cannot support this bill. We must take our responsibilities towards our children and teenagers. It is a lot harder to promote prevention, but it is also a lot more effective and rewarding. All those involved, including parents, educators and social workers, must work with young people to prevent crime.

I simply cannot believe that a ten-year-old child is mature enough to realize that he has committed a first or second degree murder. I have a ten-year-old daughter myself and I simply cannot believe that she has that comprehension. These children obviously know what is good and what is bad, but I doubt very much that they would understand that they committed a first or second degree murder. These children need protection. Yes, they must be punished. Yes, we must teach them, but how far must we go?

We must also do more in terms of promoting rehabilitation which, according to statistics, gives very good results.

It goes without saying that this approach will require additional efforts from all those involved in the process, but I am convinced that the results will be much better than if we hastily pass harsher laws.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this debate on the Young Offenders Act and on a much-needed new bill to improve that act.

First of all let me congratulate the Minister of Justice for this bill. It offers to Canadians, as part of a two-step plan, some interim improvements to the youth justice system. It is important as members that we recognize and acknowledge this will be a two-step process. This is not the final and finished product if you will. If it were I would simply say to the minister that it does not go far enough in the ultimate sense but for now it is very good and major step in the right direction.

It is important to note that the second phase will be a thorough review by a parliamentary committee and by a federal-provincial task force on the whole youth justice system. There will be considerable public input in that review process, as there has been so far to this point. Obviously it is very important to involve provincial legislatures and provincial justice officials because the legal system is administered at both the federal and provincial levels.

The bill offers some very badly needed improvements. The original Young Offenders Act had an excellent rationale in my view. It was simply to recognize that society ought to deal with the young offender in a way different from a more mature offender, that the penalties ought to be different, and where incarceration is required that there ought to be different facilities. Canadians generally recognized and accepted that rationale.

Unfortunately as we know on all sides of the House and as Canadians from coast to coast to coast know, the Young Offenders Act has been, in at least a minority of cases, somewhat badly abused.

You see young offenders on national television telling Canadians that they consider the Young Offenders Act to be something of a joke and that they feel when they are incarcerated it is kind of like going to camp. When you hear that on national TV from repeat young offenders, there is no doubt in my mind that Canadians feel, and rightly so, that there are some problems with the current legislation. Obviously that is why the minister is seeking to put forward these improvements as step one of the ultimate act we will have in place.

If I might briefly consider the improvements that are offered in the proposed legislation, one of the major improvements is the provision that would put the onus on a 16 or 17-year old offender convicted of a violent crime, especially murder. The onus will now be on that individual to convince the court why he or she should not be dealt with as an adult criminal in adult court and subject to the tougher penalties of law.

That is an important change because under the current legislation we seek to amend, the reverse is true. A 16 or 17-year old convicted even of murder is dealt with on a much more lenient basis and is not tried in adult court. This legislation will correct what most Canadians consider to be a gross inequity in that area.

The provision or penalty for murder, I would remind hon. members and Canadians generally, started out at a mere three years for first degree murder. In my riding of London-Middlesex we had a sad situation a few years ago when one young offender murdered I believe three people-it was certainly more than one person-yet was subject to a maximum total penalty of three years. That was clearly not just and clearly not adequate for a serious crime like murder.

The penalty went from three years within the last short period of time to five years but this legislation would allow a doubling of that maximum penalty up to 10 years.

Some might still say that for first degree murder 10 years is inadequate and I suppose that is a debatable point, but it certainly is far more just than the five-year penalty that it will replace.

The under 16 and 17-year old offenders in that age category will not be eligible for parole as early if convicted of murder. In other words, a young offender convicted of murder will now find it much more difficult to earn parole than he or she has under the current legislation. Again, I think that is just common sense and simple justice.

As I say, Canadians know that there have been problems with the Young Offenders Act. They are crying out for improvements. I think the minister has offered major improvements as the first step of a two-step process.

As our red book stated during the election campaign and as the minister, the Prime Minister and members on this side of the House have continued to say since the election of last October, public safety must be the top priority as we address this issue.

Let me be completely fair and say that I have heard that statement from all parts of the House. I agree that public safety must be the first consideration when we are considering the justice system, in any part of the justice system, and that includes those offenders who are young Canadians. It seems to make that as its first priority.

Where perhaps I differ as a Liberal from some hon. members in the House is this. This party, this minister and this legislation seeks to find a balanced approach to this serious problem of youth crime. It is not enough to just simply say: "Let's throw them in jail for as long as we would any other adult, throw away the key and let them rot in jail". That is not the answer. We have not heard that attitude too much in the House, but I have detected that kind of approach by certain hon. members. I would find it shortsighted because it is not a balanced approach.

Legislation alone will not solve this problem. It is certainly a key component of addressing this issue but it is not enough in and of itself. I think that we are very shortsighted as a nation if we do not seek to treat the root causes of youth crime, the poverty that many if not most young offenders experience, the very real poverty that most Canadians do not experience but which a high percentage of young offenders have experienced in their lifetime. They have experienced repeated family violence, themselves often the victims of this violence both sexual and non-sexual.

Racism is unfortunately a real problem. There are young offenders who are from a minority group. When you analyse their background and why they committed crime, racism is a repeated theme in young offenders from minority groups.

The whole question of illiteracy and dropping out of school is another problem. As an educator for 21 years, the first signs to show that you may have a potential young offender on your

hands, and teachers will tell you this, are exhibited in classrooms at the youngest ages and the lowest grades. Obviously, as with criminals of all ages, substance abuse by young offenders is a major factor in their reasons for being involved in criminal activity.

If one were to summarize these root causes in a brief phrase, I think we could do no better than describe the dysfunctional family or the breakdown in the family and of good family values in this country, I hope in a minority of families. An analysis of young offenders will show that an overwhelming percentage of them come from dysfunctional families where there is not proper parental supervision and where there is not proper inculcation of values with these young people. In effect, as a society we reap what we sow. This party seeks to find a balanced approach.

I applaud the minister and the legislation, and I applaud the fact that he says time and again when he speaks to the House that we have to treat the root causes of crime otherwise we are not ultimately going to come up with an improvement in this important area. Sure we will lock away young offenders for a longer time at great cost to the nation, but that will not solve the problem which we ultimately hope to improve upon.

What we ought to do as a country and what the legislation seeks to do in my view is, while improving the legislation and coming up with more realistic penalties, not only be reactive to young offenders but to put preventive action into place.

The sharing of information among professionals such as police officials and school authorities will be an important part of preventive action. As a teacher, I say that any teacher in this country knows there are young offenders and in some cases violent young offenders walking around the halls of a particular school.

It is important that educators know that in the interests of the safety of the other students in that facility and indeed staff in that school. It is a fact that there has been an increase in violent crime in schools in this country. It concerns all of us.

I am pleased to join in the debate today. I applaud the minister for the legislation. It is a major first step in the right direction and we will await as all Canadians do the ultimate improvements in the Young Offenders Act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.05 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.