House of Commons Hansard #87 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, order.

The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

moved that the bill be concurred in.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the bill concurred in at report stage.

When shall the bill be read the third time? Later this day?

Canada Student Financial Assistance ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the deputy government House leader to tell us the business for the coming days.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Fernand Robichaud LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will continue the debate on Bill C-37, to amend the Young Offenders Act. Tomorrow, the House will consider the motion from the Minister of Industry to refer Bill C-43, on lobbyists, to committee before second reading.

Since much of the business for next week depends on bills coming back from committees, scheduling of votes and other ad hoc arrangements will be arranged on an ongoing basis of interparty consultation.

We will want to complete Bill C-28 regarding assistance to students, Bill C-30 regarding fisheries workers, Bill C-32 regarding taxes on tobacco, Bill C-40 the miscellaneous statute amendments and Bill C-37 the young offenders bill.

We would also like to complete consideration of the two bills affecting the Yukon, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 if they come out of committee on time. We will also have to deal with anything else left over from this week.

Of course, we would also like to discuss completing any other bills that my be reported from committee in sufficient time.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, last week we had a question of privilege raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am prepared to give my ruling on this. Following that, I will give my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now ready to rule on the matter raised last Monday, June 13, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In his submission, the hon. parliamentary secretary sought to clarify a number of issues related to allegations made against him by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre during Question Period on June 2 and 3, 1994.

The parliamentary secretary claimed that, by bringing into question his compliance with the federal conflict of interest code, the allegations had damaged his credibility and had thus impeded his ability to function as a member of this House. The parliamentary secretary then informed the House that he had complied fully with the conflict of interest code and had formally resigned as a director and officer of the company in question. The parliamentary secretary also refuted other allegations made by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

From the information provided during the exchange and from my review of the Debates of June 2 and 3, it would appear to the Chair that this is clearly a disagreement as to the facts. I refer the hon. members to citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's 6th Edition: ``A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege''.

May I also quote from the Journals of June 4, 1975, at page 600. In a ruling on a case of allegations made by one member against another in respect of his conduct, Speaker Jerome indicated that ``a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege''.

The government House leader pointed out that there have been many occasions when members have risen to make statements under the guise of a statement of personal privilege in order to put on record their understanding of a situation involving themselves. As your Speaker, I take these matters very seriously and understand the need for members to express themselves in these cases. When I intervened during the parliamentary secretary's presentation, I felt that he had made his point.

Not every matter raised as personal privilege necessarily constitutes a basis for a question of privilege. It is incumbent upon the Chair to ensure that the time of the House is used judiciously, and Members can assist the Chair by being succinct in their presentations when bringing such matters to the attention of the House.

I would like to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Simcoe Centre for their contributions.

My colleagues, I am now prepared to rule on a point of order.

Point Of OrderGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

On June 1, 1994, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona raised a point of order concerning the designation of party status for members of the New Democratic Party. I would like to thank the hon. member for his detailed and well researched presentation, and the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands, Laurier-Sainte-Marie and Kindersley-Lloydminster for their contributions to the discussions.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona asked that I consider and rule upon the request of the members of the New Democratic Party caucus: One, to be designated as New Democrats; Two, to be seated together; and three, to be treated as a recognized party for certain procedural purposes.

I am now ready to rule on that point of order. First, let me deal with the question of what constitutes a party for procedural purposes, a question which has long preoccupied the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona argued at length that the definition of "recognized party" in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Board of Internal Economy bylaws applies only to certain matters of money and allowances. He maintained that the definition should not be used to define the meaning of "party" or "recognized party" in our standing orders or our practice.

He noted, for example, that Section 50(3) of the Act which sets the composition of the Board of Internal Economy makes specific reference to a caucus which ``does not have a recognized membership of 12 or more''. That reference, he claimed, implies the possibility of a caucus without 12 members, yet identified as such.

The hon. member presented detailed accounts of the situations which existed in the House of Commons in 1963, 1966 and 1979 when smaller parties were recognized in various ways for purposes of procedure and practice. He also argued that the same rights should be extended to members of the New Democratic Party today.

Having studied the circumstances of each of these cases and having reviewed the rulings referred to by the hon. member as well as others touching on this matter, the conclusions I draw are quite different.

The status granted to minor parties for procedural purposes in certain of these cases was the result of the political exigencies of the time. In none of these instances did the Chair act unilaterally.

In his ruling of September 30, 1963, at page 386 of the Journals , Speaker Macnaughton, while dealing with the status of a New Democratic Party in the House, pointed out that the status of a party in the House was for the House itself to decide.

Speaker Macnaughton also made two comments which I feel are very important and which I would like to quote to the House. He said:

It is in consequence among the duties of the Speaker to see that the Standing Orders of the House are followed in the course of its procedures and that the privileges of the House, once they have been defined and recognized, are protected. It is also the duty of the Speaker to be impartial and removed from politics, which has already been my aim since, honourable members, you did me the honour to elect me as your Speaker.

I am still quoting Speaker Macnaughton.

It seems to me that having in mind the authorities from Sir Erskine May to Lord Campion, from Bourinot to Beauschene, and from Anson to McGregor Dawson and many others, a situation such as that now facing the House must be resolved by the House itself. It is not one where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where any group of members might feel that their interests as a group or a party have been prejudiced. Nor should the Speaker be put in the position where he must decide, to the advantage or to the disadvantage of any group or party, matters affecting the character of existences of a party, for this surely would signify that the Speaker has taken what is almost a political decision, a decision where the question involves the rights and privileges of the House itself.

In the Journals of February 18, 1966 at page 159, Speaker Lamoureux, in the ruling on ministerial statements referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona, was loath to institute any change in the practices of the House at that time and indicated that he would not veer from the contemporary practice until such time as the House amended the Standing Orders to do otherwise.

In October 1979, when the issue of party status was again raised, Speaker Jerome returned to the 1963 ruling of Speaker Macnaughton to reiterate that this matter is not the responsibility of the Speaker to decide but rather, a matter for the House. I would draw the attention of members to the words of Speaker Jerome on page 69 of the Debates for October 11, 1979.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona quoted from a subsequent ruling of Speaker Jerome given on November 6, 1979, and found at page 1009 of the Debates . This ruling concerned the Chair's responsibility to protect the rights of members of small parties.

One of the portions of the ruling quoted only in part by the hon. member is worth repeating:

The House will recognize in what I have tried to do, I think both representing the spirit of the protection of minorities in the House and also, I think the generosity of the House, that what those members are entitled to can be given to them with a generosity and a recognition that respects the fact that they are members of a political party, so long as it does not give them an advantage that they would not otherwise enjoy as five members and, secondly, so long as it does not deprive other members of their right to participate in some way.

Yet again, Speaker Jerome declined to go beyond the contemporary practices of the House while ensuring that the rights of the individual member were protected.

This important theme was once again taken up in a ruling by Speaker Fraser given on December 13, 1990 and found at pages 16703 to 16707 in the Debates . At that time the Speaker declared in very strong terms that the basic rights and privileges of individual members of whatever political persuasion are fully protected by the Chair. Stating, on page 16704: ``The Chair pledges to do its utmost to continue to serve this House in as even-handed and impartial a manner as possible''.

In the current circumstances, the existence of the New Democratic Party caucus has not been denied and the Chair will continue to ensure that each member of the House is treated fairly by the rules.

In arguing his case, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona acknowledged that his party's situation could not be resolved without, what he called, "an appropriate will to discern the difference between some previous situations and the situation we find ourselves in at the moment".

I find myself agreeing with the hon. member up to a point. In my view, what he called "an appropriate will" to resolve the situation must be found not in your Speaker acting alone but in the House acting as a whole.

As the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie rightly points out, the status of minority parties in the House has always been determined in general by the political make-up of the House.

If the hon. member's argument persuades his colleagues to the solutions he seeks, then the House will have to give new guidance to the Chair.

As your Speaker and the guardian of the rights of minorities and each individual member, I remain fully aware of the grave responsibilities of the Chair in this regard. Indeed, an analysis of the last two months shows that a member not belonging to a recognized party has participated almost every day during the period reserved for members' statements and, on the average, every other day during question period. The House may be assured that I and my deputies pledge to continue to do everything we can to facilitate the fair and active participation of each member in the work of the House.

In my view unilateral action by the Chair would mark a significant departure from the interpretation of our rules and practices as they have evolved over the last decade. As your Speaker and the servant of the House, I believe that I cannot arbitrarily impose a new interpretation but must wait until the House as it is now constituted indicates to me what, if any, action it wishes the Chair to take.

Let me now address the two other matters: the designation of members as members of the New Democratic Party and their wish to be seated together.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona complained that his party is not designated, as it should be, as a caucus on the seating plan of the Chamber. He presented copies of seating plans from previous parliaments to support his view. He did, however, acknowledge that his party is clearly designated as the New Democratic Party in the Debates .

Let us review the current situation. The Members of Parliament belonging to the New Democratic Party are identified as such in the Debates and on the televised proceedings of the House. They are designated as ``others'' in the back row to the left of the Speaker on the seating plan of the Chamber.

Seating arrangements in the House have traditionally been decided following negotiations among the recognized parties.

The chief government whip places members of the government in seats to the right of the Chair and, when there is not enough room on the right to accommodate all government members, some may also be placed to the left of the Chair.

Of the remaining places, the Whip of the Official Opposition assigns seats to the members of that party and the whip of the third party then assigns seats to members of that party. The responsibility for assigning to other members the seats that remain vacant has traditionally fallen to the Speaker.

To determine the seating arrangements for those members who do not belong to a recognized party, the Chair follows the order of their seniority as elected members.

In considering the NDP's request, the New Democrats' request that they be seated together and that their leader be granted the rank due her as a Privy Councillor, I was struck by a phrase of the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. Explaining the timing of his point of order he stated:

I thought it was appropriate for the House to become acquainted with itself after the unprecedented upheaval of the last election.

I applaud the wisdom of that comment. The Chair has made every effort to accommodate members fairly in the present situation. Having now been your Speaker for some five months, I have received various representations from members of Parliament and their constituents on this matter and I have carefully reviewed the precedents. For example, on September 24, 1990, at page 13216 of the Debates , Speaker Fraser noted on a ruling dealing with seating arrangements that the Speaker can exercise some discretion in these matters. He stated:

I also think members should understand that as your Speaker, I have some discretion in dealing with the rights of every person in this House who is in a minority position. I think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I can assure the hon. member that the rights of minorities will be protected by the Speaker in a way that is fair and equitable for all other members.

Having concluded that some remedy does lie within the purview of the Speaker, I have therefore asked my officials to modify the seating plan as of the return of the House on September 19 to implement the following changes in the seats that the Speaker assigns:

(1) The hon. members for Sherbrooke and Saint John will be seated together and identified as the Progressive Conservative caucus on the seating plan.

(2) The hon. members of the New Democratic caucus will also be seated together and be identified as such on the plan.

(3) The hon. member for Beauce will be identified as Independent and the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville will be identified as Independent Liberal.

This appears to the Chair to be a fair response to competing claims. Members of the same party will be identified and seated together, with the precedence of their respective leaders determining their place in the sequence. The two other members will be assigned the two remaining seats according to their seniority and designated according to their express wishes.

I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for his thoughtful, in-depth presentation. I appreciate the contributions of the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands, Laurier-Sainte-Marie and Kindersley-Lloydminster. I hope the steps I have taken to solve matters within my discretion will go some way to remedy the situation. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and his caucus colleagues may be assured that if the House indicates to me that it has been persuaded by his arguments I stand ready to be guided accordingly.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be now read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Madam Speaker, 35 years ago, I opted for a career in education, specifically in the training of pre-school and primary school teachers.

I also decided to speak for those who have no voice, the children and adolescents who rarely get an opportunity to express their views, defend their position or demand their rights. Therefore, I am especially pleased to speak today to this debate on Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.

At the outset, I want the House to know that I fully support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert who is also the justice critic for the official opposition. This overly regressive bill should not proceed beyond second reading and should be withdrawn by the government.

Moreover, the amendment states that the Young Offenders Act "introduces no concrete measure for the rehabilitation of young offenders" and "does not encourage the provinces to take legislative or other measures necessary in order to set up comprehensive crime prevention programs".

I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues and join the broad consensus in Quebec which opposes any attempts to make the provisions of the Young Offenders Act more stringent. In the time allotted to me, I would like to outline our main reasons for opposing this bill.

First of all, far be it for me to deny the existence of youth crime and violence, much less to minimize the seriousness of the problem. In point of fact, vile, unacceptable crimes such as premeditated murder are committed by juvenile delinquents. The present system acts as a kind of safety valve and works well in that the existing legislation already makes it possible to transfer such cases to adult court and to sentence the offenders accordingly.

During 1992-93, 33 cases involving serious crimes were transferred to adult court. The problem is that we do not have the data to confirm or invalidate the government's decision to move in this direction. As for other serious crimes which can be categorized as relational crimes, reintegration into Canadian society should be the preferred approach.

The legislator showed that social reintegration was one of its main concerns, as he clearly stated in the principle of the bill by including Paragraphs a ) and c .1) in Clause 1, and I quote: Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviours in the future''. The bill goes on to say:The protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible, of young persons who commit offences, and rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young person's offending behaviour''.

Where the shoe pinches is that the legislator's goodwill does not extend beyond stating these nice principles. Too bad. The Minister of Justice had everything he needed to bring about the changes that would have made the youth justice system more efficient. He financed a late-February seminar hosted by the University of Toronto's criminology centre. This seminar brought together a group of experts including academics, government officials and professionals working in the field of youth justice.

The introduction to the final report dated March 28, 1994 says that the purpose of the seminar is explicit in its very title, "Beyond the Red Book: A Workshop on Recommendations for Amendments to the Young Offenders Act". What is the minister proposing to us in his bill? The promises in the red book, and nothing that goes beyond this now outdated document. Nothing takes into consideration the opinion of the experts who met at that seminar to advise the minister-at great expense to the taxpayers, need I remind you.

They give themselves a clear conscience. They study. They consult. But why, I ask you, Madam Speaker, since everything was already in the red book. So the essential amendments in this bill concern heavier penalties for serious crimes and the presumption of referral to adult court.

A reference document dated May 1994 and published by the Department of Justice says that the public is very concerned about the need to control youth crime and to protect society. Therefore some believe that stricter sentences are the best way to deter young people from committing criminal acts.

By the way, what does the experts' famous report say about stiffer sentences? I quote:

"Variation in dispositional severity will have little, if any, impact on crime" and "there is no obvious pressure within the youth justice system for higher maximum penalties".

In other words, the experts who rely on facts, on their experience, on what they see, contradict those who rely on perceptions and their own imagination: tougher sentences are not the way to reduce youth crime.

Faced with this dilemma, what does the minister do? He decides not to take the path suggested by his experts. He even ignores the fine principles set forth at the beginning of his own bill and he opts for more severe sentences. Nevertheless, this same document issued by the department says: "All our efforts in criminal justice seek to prevent crime, including youth crime. Prosecuting someone who committed a crime may provide some comfort to the victim and reassure the public, but it cannot be as satisfactory as preventing the crime as such.

It is often harder to implement crime prevention programs than to merely sue an offender after the fact. Prevention is based on the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions which generate crime and it requires efforts to change those 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, is much more beneficial for young people, and also for Canadians who, otherwise, might have become victims. Consequently, the rehabilitation of young offenders must be a major objective of the legislation".

This is an ambitious program. Joint action is necessary. We must co-operate with the other governments, the private sector and the public. We must change the economic, educational, social and moral conditions in our society. We must promote awareness, education and tolerance. Together, we must meet the challenge of reducing crime because, in the end, it will prove more beneficial for everyone.

Experts also insist that rehabilitation is more effective outside the criminal system. The Canadian Sentencing Commission says that 70 per cent of Canadians want more money to be allocated to the development of other types of sentence than incarceration.

Yet, this is not what the minister has decided to do. He prefers the easy solution. The challenge was probably too big for his government. We must look elsewhere to find out why the minister tabled such a bill, especially considering that the Young Offenders Act was amended in 1992, precisely to extend by three to five years the sentences for violent crimes. Merely two years later, when we have not even had a real chance to see if the amended act works and to assess its impact, the government comes up with new amendments to once again lengthen sentences for violent crimes, this time by five to ten years.

It seems obvious to me that the government's chief concern, in bringing this amendment, is to keep an election promise, perhaps made off the cuff by the leader of the Liberal Party during the last election campaign when he was being pressured with questions in the Reform Party's stronghold. Or perhaps the minister bowed to various pressures by trying to please everybody, but satisfying no one. The bill does not go far enough for hard-liners who want society to be protected at all cost, and it also turns a deaf ear to those who would like to maintain the status quo and those who support the social reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders.

The second important amendment to this bill concerns the presumption of transfer to adult court.

Youth crime and violence by young people are of real concern to the public. But this concern is based on the public's perception, not on actual facts. More and more Canadians are afraid of rising crime, particularly involving young people, and many Canadians feel that the government is not doing enough to address this problem.

In a 1987 report, the Canadian Sentencing Commission noted that 75 per cent of the population believed that 30 to 100 per cent of crimes were violent crimes.

But the reality is quite different. In 1992, for example, only one of every ten crimes under the Criminal Code that were reported to police was a violent crime. In its background paper, the government recognizes that the extent of violent crime in Canada is not well known, and that rational responses to criminal behaviour among young people should be based on facts and not on perceptions. Since 1970, the average number of homicides allegedly committed by adolescents has declined sharply. The department also tells us that young people between the ages of 12 and 18 make up 8 per cent of the population, and that about 6 to 9 per cent of suspect investigations in all

homicide cases in Canada since 1986 have focused on young people in that age group. It is therefore patently false to claim that adolescents are more likely than adults to commit murder.

To deal with this problem, the government had two options: the easy, populist and short-term solution, which included the bill before the House today, or stressing the long-term interests of the teenager and society and opting for rehabilitation. When a young person who has committed a reprehensible act is charged and tried by a judge and jury, and especially if he is sentenced to life imprisonment, it may be some consolation for the victim or the victim's family and it may be reassuring for society. However, what does society gain by sentencing a young person whom we might be able to rehabilitate through community reintegration? What do we gain by sentencing a young person to closed custody or imprisonment, a school for crime with no drop-outs and where good attendance increases the risk of recidivism?

Nothing at all, Madam Speaker. Statistics show that only13 per cent of young people are responsible for violent crimes, while this was 22 per cent for the 18 to 25 group and 33 per cent for the 25 to 34 group.

According to the experts, the minister should have gone beyond the red book, because the main problem with the Young Offenders Act is not the act itself but the administration of justice.

For instance, it is a fact that the crime resolution rate is very low. The average for all types of crimes is around 29 per cent. Another administrative problem is the time it takes for the court to hand down the sentence. It takes far too long, especially when we are talking about teenagers, where time is a very important factor. When the time lapsed between the crime and sentencing is too long, this tends to erode the causal link between the two events and consequently undermines the credibility of the adults who make the decisions that alter the course of their lives.

Our so-called civilized and industrialized world has no initiation rites to mark the passage from childhood to adulthood. Instead, we invented adolescence. What are the messages teenagers get from our society? You are too big to be a child and too small to be an adult. You have to settle for being a teenager. You have to meet standards of acceptable behaviour. You have to go to school, because you are too young to work. You have to go on welfare, because there are no jobs.

Between the ages of 14 and 18, teenagers experience a major identity crisis. They are trying to find themselves. They want to test the limits of society. They need understanding, support, supervision, explanations, information, education, training, but they are often left alone with a list of instructions. In other cases, they are often exposed to confrontation and violence.

I have heard some quite remarkable speeches in this House on traditional family values and the need to subsidize women in the home to allow them to raise their children. But those same members were among the first to call for more repression, more punishment and stricter standards. Have we forgotten that children do not come into this world as delinquents and that the environment in which they were raised has made them what they are? Are we overlooking the fact that we are the sum of our experiences? Are we trying to disclaim all responsibility for the mess we have made?

I am disappointed, even sad. Sad because we do not seem to care about working to improve our collective well-being. We have the power to save our children, but we are choosing to put them in jail. Yet, are not parents responsible for their children until they reach 18? Then, why not consider alternatives like the ones suggested by the expert panel? For example, we could have added the option of imposing a suspended sentence, which would protect our society and give young persons a chance to prove their willingness to modify their behaviour.

To improve the delivery of justice we could have considered a better co-operation between the Crown and the defence, in order to reach a decision best suited for the accused. Personally, I think that the probation officer could have been involved, to find alternatives to prison.

To conclude, amendments to an act will never make up for not enforcing of that act properly. The federal minister is responsible for the Young Offenders Act, but its application comes under provincial jurisdiction. To reach his objective, better youth justice administration, the minister should have involved the provinces in the legislative review process.

He did not do that and that goes to show, in my opinion, that he is not looking for an effective, long-term solution, but rather for a short-term, popular solution, even if it is counter-productive. Once again, the federal government demonstrates that it has but one concern: to centralize. It follows its own course, irrespective of the good of the children of Quebec, among others.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Madam Speaker, I have been working on amendments to the Young Offenders Act since the day I was elected. Some of the comments made by my hon. colleague across the way I certainly could not comprehend.

This particular act we are dealing with was first tested in 1985 when a young individual in my riding killed three people: a mother, a father and their seven-year old daughter. The young offender received three years in total. There are no words to describe the feelings of my constituents.

What I am hearing from the hon. member is that the Liberal Party wants to appease the Reform. I do not think the Liberal Party brought these changes about because of the Reform Party. For a long time the Liberal Party has been a beacon for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Certainly I disagree with what my colleague is saying.

My colleague is saying that in a civilized world we should have something which is called an adolescent. This young individual who snuffed three lives was not an adolescent; he had already moved into the adult world. He committed a crime. As the saying goes: You do the crime, you pay the time.

I heard with great interest my hon. colleague saying that we do not need prisons, that we need rehabilitation. I quite agree we need rehabilitation.

What in the hon. member's view should a young offender get for committing a severe crime, such as a killing or a rape? Do we say: "You are a nice adolescent so don't worry about it. We will give you a pat on the back because you are not old enough to do it", or: "You did the crime, you pay the time"?

Closer to home, if a young offender were to kill a member of the hon. member's family, how would she want to see justice served? What kind of time would that young offender be paying?

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Madam Speaker, it must be understood that I never said that teenagers, including criminals, were all very nice individuals. Let us not get carried away.

I think that it is extremely important to realize that there are around two million teenagers in Canada and that the member is talking about something that happened three years ago in his riding. One out of two million, that is not a lot to justify amending an act. According to statistics, over the past 20 years, around 46 teenagers a year commit odious crimes.

The example given by my colleague clearly proves that the problem is not with the act or sentencing, but with the enforcement of the legislation. If, in his riding, this odious murderer had been tried in adult court, as allowed under the present legislation, he would have been sentenced accordingly. He would have received a life sentence, Madam Speaker, not three years.

It must be understood that once again, the member, with his question, is providing me with a beautiful opportunity to make my point, a point which is in keeping with the question he asked me.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague in her speech mentioned that the preamble of the amendments to the Young Offenders Act falls very short. What does my colleague from Quebec say about what should be the balance between the needs of the victim and the needs of the offender as outlined in the preamble as to the general direction the act should be administered?

I noticed the word "victim" is not mentioned at all in the preamble. I would like her views on the balance between victim's needs and offender's needs, especially as it should be outlined in the preamble of the Young Offenders Act.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Madam Speaker, I think we need to make a distinction between the various types of crimes. There are the serious, horrible and unacceptable crimes, which should be dealt with before adult courts, as stipulated in the current legislation.

Now, for all the other types of crimes, we know that the majority of crimes committed by young people are property offences. The most important thing is to find a way to allow the young offenders to directly compensate their victims. Let me give you an example.

If we were to ask a 14- or 15-year-old who broke into my house to mow my lawn for a whole summer, I think that might serve as compensation for the crime and as a constant reminder to the offender of what he did wrong. That could improve relations in our society. I would probably lock my doors while he mowed the lawn, but still there may be some innovative alternatives to intolerance and repression.

Teenagers and children are victims. They were not born this way. We have to understand that they are not totally responsible for their actions. The economic and social conditions in which we have them live and the school situation they find themselves in have a significant impact on the lives of 14- to 18-year-olds. When they need to identify with someone, there is no one around: their fathers are gone, their mothers have new boyfriends or vice versa. They change home every week, they never live at the same place, they have problems at school. We built them huge schools where they do not feel as though they belong. All of these things make life very difficult for our young people. That is why they are constantly testing society to see what is allowed and what is forbidden.

The more innovative and tolerant we are towards young offenders, in order to give them the opportunity to right the wrongs they did, the better their chances for rehabilitation.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. I think she understands the problem of young offenders and she presented the issue quite well.

The member is also surely aware, from what the Minister of Justice has said, that he wants to address this issue in two steps: the first step being the amendments which he proposed last week and which are being undertaken, as you said so well, without first knowing the results of the 1992 amendments. The Act is therefore being reworked again before those results are even known. The second step will take the form of large-scale consultations on the entire young offenders issue, possibly resulting in a report to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, along with proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act. This is just one more snag for the Young Offenders Act, which was passed in 1984.

I have two questions for the member, Madam Speaker, which can be answered quickly. First of all, does the member find this to be a normal process in dealing with an issue as important as young offenders? Second, do this process and the amendments proposed by the minister-although she did touch on this point in her address-conform to Quebec's expectations concerning this issue, and in particular the expectations communicated very clearly to the federal justice minister by the National Assembly and the provincial minister of justice?

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

I thank my colleague for his congratulations and his two questions. The process seems quite abnormal to me. If the minister had made a career in the same field as I did, and if he had applied for a grant to bring new amendments without first awaiting the results of a previous amendment, he would never have got the grant. It makes absolutely no sense to make amendments without really knowing the results of previous amendments.

In my opinion, therefore, since this is a two-stage process, it would be logical for the minister to be patient, wait for the second stage and postpone his bill for the time being. He is sending us on vacation but not sending our young people to jail as he does with this bill. The presumption of transfer to adult court is a problem that will increase the enforcement requirements of this Act, although he seems to say somewhere between the lines that it will be possible, for anyone so inclined, not to follow the Act and perhaps to circumvent it.

Now, as for Quebec's position, the only thing I find to cheer about in this bill, if one can say anything good about it, is that it gives me one more argument in favour of voting for Quebec sovereignty. Once again, the federal government is turning a deaf ear to Quebec concerning an Act that, while it could always be improved, is working very well in Quebec. The federal government will not win points in Quebec by making amendments such as these. It is showing us again that we have one more reason to leave this country which is not ours.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Western Arctic Northwest Territories

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew LiberalSecretary of State (Training and Youth)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today in support of the government's recent actions to crack down on violent young offenders who commit serious crimes.

As a preamble to my speech, we all have responsibilities in this country that we should not predicate the effectiveness of programs on what our political agendas are. I think we have a responsibility for the young people of this country and this piece of legislation and the amendments are clearly to address the needs that are there.

I am happy to be a member of Parliament and a contributing member so to speak who will perhaps add to a healthy debate and make viable suggestions that would fortify the country, bring people together and carve out a future for young people in this country rather than talk about some rather destructive means that would not bring any enjoyment or any good health to the country such as it is.

I am pleased that on June 2 the Minister of Justice tabled amendments to the Young Offenders Act. These amendments recognize the public's growing concern about youth violence and demonstrate the priority this government places on protecting the public.

These amendments, by shifting the onus on young people to take responsibility for their violent crimes, sends a strong signal to young people that their actions carry serious consequences. We are a country that basically wants Canadians to know that we all have a responsibility for our country and consequently for our actions.

However, as the Minister of Justice made clear, legislation is only one part of the answer to violence among young people. Protecting the public is the primary and necessary objective but we must focus our attention on helping our young people if we are to find lasting and effective solutions to youth crime.

I am encouraged to see that the amendments to the Young Offenders Act include provisions for the rehabilitation and treatment of young offenders in the community. There are many complex questions surrounding youth crime, questions that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be examining as part of the reform of the youth justice system.

I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues in the House to take action on the contributing factors to crime and violence such as unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug and substance abuse, family violence, racism and illiteracy.

This is not to say that any of those factors justifies any kind of violent crimes or should contribute to saying that young people have the right to commit crimes. These are mitigating factors. These are things that make it very difficult for young people to have a life that is well, a life that is healthy and a life that keeps them from the negative side of life, so to speak.

Socioeconomic misery and crime are two sides of the same coin. By addressing these problems in our society we will be tackling the root causes of youth crime and ultimately adult crime. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to see how such socioeconomic misery fuels anger, frustration, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity among young people.

I would like the House to consider the adverse conditions that many of our aboriginal youth face as they walk through the perilous path to adulthood. Unemployment among aboriginal people is twice the Canadian level. It is the number one problem facing aboriginal communities and they have the lowest incomes of anyone in the country.

The illiteracy rate among aboriginal people is twice the national average. High school dropout rates can be as high as95 per cent in isolated northern communities; 57.7 per cent of aboriginal people are under the age of 24. The aboriginal population is very young, growing fast and on the move.

The majority of aboriginal peoples do not live on reserves and the migration of on-reserve aboriginal peoples to urban centres particularly in western Canada is increasing. In Manitoba it is estimated that one out of four new entrants into the job market will be of aboriginal origin. In Saskatchewan it will be one out of three.

Are they destined for a life of unemployment, social problems, crime? The odds seem stacked against them but this need not be the case. Five to six times the number of aboriginal peoples are incarcerated in provincial and federal institutions as compared with aboriginal peoples in the general population. Yet aboriginal peoples only represent approximately 3.7 per cent of the Canadian population.

The state of many aboriginal peoples in Canada is not a pretty picture. Despite these socioeconomic problems, progress has been made in health, education, economic community development and social services.

Such progress is often linked to aboriginal peoples having culturally appropriate services controlled by aboriginal peoples. I am proud to be a part of a government that recognizes the enormous potential that our young people have to offer and that is prepared to invest in their abilities and to give them hope and opportunities for the future.

This government has implemented a number of programs and services we feel will help aboriginal youth and other youth as well recognize their strengths and grow to their full potential and to see the sun on the horizon in an optimistic manner.

I, as Secretary of State for Training and Youth, and the Minister of Human Resources Development have announced a youth strategy. This strategy will attack some of the root causes for turning youth into young offenders.

In my riding last month we made a contribution to a youth program with the Gwich'in people. The Gwich'in people have taken it upon themselves to build their own healing centre, to deal with many of their social and justice issues, many of their health issues. They have done so along with the partnership they are building with people who have the expertise in and outside their own communities.

Last month we announced 37 projects as part of the first wave of Youth Service Canada. We believe it is necessary to send a signal that young people can contribute to rather than take away from their communities. Many think of young people very negatively because young offenders tend to get all the stories, all the ink. The news media always covers them. However many young people are doing wonderful things but are not being celebrated or recognized.

Youth Service Canada aims to help 18 to 24-year olds gain work experience, develop their skills, learn good work habits and improve their self-esteem through community service projects. Youth Service Canada should provide opportunities for youth to break away from the socioeconomic factors which have held them back and have seduced some to become involved in a life of crime.

Recently I attended the University of Calgary's graduation for its native students. It has graduated 18 native students with university degrees, some of them with a Bachelor of Social Work, some of them with a Bachelor of Education. A young woman graduated with an engineering degree. Those young people are very healthy models of outstanding citizens who will help their communities and this country.

So far it is not all bad news. These 18 students from the University of Calgary graduated under the leadership ofMr. George Callion who works with native students across Canada. He works on the Calgary Police Commission and contributes in a number of ways.

It takes leadership. It takes caring. It takes generosity. These must be expressed to our young people to encourage them and to let them know that the government cares and the people in their communities care. We must let them know that we in this House care about them and are directing our efforts to deal with those things.

Thus far from all the colleges and universities across Canada, there have been 92,000 aboriginal graduates. That is quite a huge cadre of professionals who will contribute in some way to their communities.

On Monday the Edmonton Journal featured the graduation of native law students. Five or six of them were pictured on the front. I know most of them, but the one that leaped out at me was none other than Mr. Brad Enge from the Northwest Territories. He is a native student and a 20-year veteran of the RCMP who has contributed to his community and his country. He is a proud Canadian who has worked hard for law and order. He is a proud Canadian who has worked for the young people in his community. He is a model for these young people.

That is how it is done. Success is the way in the native communities to bring further successes. These 92,000 graduates thus far, along with the law students who were pictured on the front page of the Edmonton Journal are the way to go.

There is more than one way to deal with young offenders, the whole issue of social justice and a number of other justice issues as well. There is rehabilitation but there is also the way of leadership, young people who set an example as those people will do.

Part of the consultations on the concept of Youth Service Canada had me in contact with many youth across Canada. I met with hundreds of groups. We talked about all the bad things which are happening.

I had the occasion to go to the SkyDome stadium in Toronto. There were 50,000 young people accompanied by their teachers. They were celebrating what they called the journey of hope. It was a positive celebration to show that Canada's young people are not just involved in crimes. They are doing many wonderful things.

I have attended many graduations across the country, many of which involved aboriginal youth, but many of which involved ordinary Canadian citizens.

It is positive and wonderful to see people doing something constructive for which they get no credit. I wanted to celebrate that with my hon. colleagues.

Speaking about the Youth Service Canada I believe that every department and crown corporation will do its part to forge those partnerships which will produce healthier and better contributing young people across Canada.

In the Dene language we have what is called Dene Tulu. It is the path you walk on and the path you walk on is the path of your own choosing. We have integrated that as one stream into the youth services corps because of the young people who have been marginalized or have been left out, who have dropped out of school and have given up learning and are out of the labour market. Essentially, they become so marginalized they drop out of life. We need to rebuild their confidence. We have to get them back to work and back to learning.

This stream called the Dene Tulu or Tulu would have them contributing. Whether the path you choose is good or bad is really up to you. That is the Dene form of justice. Tulu is one of our four guiding themes for Youth Service Canada to look at directly assisting those young offenders who are in community based rehabilitation programs.

Young offenders were also prominent at some of our consultations across Canada, along with the disabled and the homeless youth. Youth Service Canada is one part of the government's actions to help young people to make the transition from school to the workforce or to reintegrate into society.

We could talk about the many attempts which the government has put forward. We have put forward a youth strategy and a youth internship program. We have been discussing the changes to the Canada student loans program. They will help young people to participate positively in their learning for future jobs they will engage in for nation building. There are exercises in their communities at the community and regional levels.

For that reason part of the youth internship approach is industry driven and involves the sectors of automotive repair, logistics, environment, electrical manufacturing, horticulture and tourism. Aboriginal youth will benefit from the youth internship, acquiring the hands-on knowledge and skills required in today's workforce.

The success of all our young people as they step into the adult world is crucial not only for their own self-esteem but also for the well-being and prosperity of society as a whole. The government stay in school aboriginal campaign is using innovative methods to increase public awareness and spur community action to reverse the appalling trend of having young people drop out of school, to the tune of 95 per cent in some areas as I have indicated.

A lot of discussion that preceded these amendments to the Young Offenders Act focused on violent crime and a need to get tough with young criminals. However let us not lose sight of the fact that less than 20 per cent of the youth crimes are violent acts. Of course they get most of the attention. It is very unfortunate and very negative that that is what usually gets a lot of the ink and the air time.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that less than 20 per cent are violent acts. Most youth crimes are property and alcohol related. Getting tough and throwing these young people behind bars is not necessarily the best answer in these situations. We are not saying that leniency is the answer. We are saying that perhaps there are other ways of forging relationships and partnerships that will help to reconstruct and rebuild communities.

We as parents have a responsibility. When a child is born and when a young child leaves the house to go to kindergarten, you do not know how that child will turn out. But if you do not do your level best, if you do not do everything in your power as a responsible member of the community to provide the nurturing, love and guidance for that child, it is almost guaranteed that you are sealing the fate of that child to a life of negativity and downfall. Even if you do everything right there is no guarantee but if you do not do anything to help young people you are almost sealing their fate to a life that is not very positive.

I encourage all the people who affect young people in the communities. It takes one person to make a positive impact on your life. That person could be a counsellor, an RCMP officer, a teacher. That person could be a friend, an aunt, or an uncle. Somebody to be there to reach out and encourage a young person is what it takes sometimes.

Remember, the responsibility is not just in legislation or amendments. The responsibility is the relationship we forge as members of this wonderful country, members of our wonderful and diverse communities, that contribute to making life better for everyone.

We have a responsibility for Canada's future which is going to be drawn out through the young people whom we nurture, guide and teach. Government and all of the governance we leave behind is in their hands. We have an onerous responsibility, but if we do nothing, we will reap nothing.

I appeal to all Canadians to remember that laws are guides. They guide us. We work in the highest court in the land. We are building, remaking and changing laws, but we cannot legislate caring, loving and nurturing, the things that we have to give to ensure that the situation with young offenders is abated.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB

Madam Speaker, the secretary of state talked about a crackdown in this legislation which is coming forward. I certainly would like to know what type of crackdown is being proposed.

A constituent who has written to me, Mr. Forsen, talks about the need for tougher penalties. This gentleman is a grandfather. His two grandsons are repeat offenders and all they got was a slap on the wrist. He is afraid to leave home because he has been robbed by these two grandsons in the past.

I want to know what kind of crackdown the hon. member is speaking of here? She has suggested that only 25 per cent of the acts are violent, but I would put those I mentioned in that violent class as robberies were involved. Can the hon. member explain to concerned Canadians what type of crackdowns are being proposed?

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberal Western Arctic, NT

Madam Speaker, this is directly from the news release of the Minister of Justice who tabled the amendments on the Young Offenders Act.

The highlights of the bill include: increased sentences for teenagers convicted of first or second degree murder in youth court to ten and seven years respectively; dealing with 16 and 17-year olds charged with serious personal injury offences in adult court, unless they can show a judge that public protection and rehabilitation can both be achieved through youth court; and extending the time that 16 and 17-year old young offenders who have been convicted of murder in an adult court must serve before they can be considered for parole.

The bill also includes: improved measures for information sharing between professionals, like school officials and police with selected members of the public when public safety is at risk; retaining the record of serious young offenders; provisions that will encourage rehabilitation and treatment of young offenders in the community when this is appropriate.

This does not necessarily speak to the question the member asked. I do believe in the various communities that will be affected by this legislation there are people, for example the provincial and territorial justice ministers, who are looking at attempts to better deal with young offenders in their own regions and provinces. That might include community service work for example.

One suggestion has proved to be quite viable in the aboriginal community. Young offenders have been sent out on the land to do hard physical labour in camps. They have had to cut wood, haul water and do a lot of physical work. It has been found that the recidivism rate with those young offenders is virtually nil. It is not necessarily boot camp. They learn something. They learn how to survive. They learn coping skills. They regain their self-esteem. Those are the kinds of ideas that are being entertained and I do not find them totally offensive if they are coupled with other positive rehabilitative measures.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, as the Official Opposition critic for Training and Youth, to question my counterpart, the Secretary of State (Training and Youth). As a courtesy, I had agreed to change my speaking schedule, and I am not sure this will suit the hon. member opposite, because she has given me a golden opportunity to talk about the Youth Service Corps which was the subject of the first part of her speech. I will start with a comment and then ask a few questions.

The employment and learning strategy includes the Youth Service Corps, but I would like to point out that this year, only 2,500 young people across Canada will be able to take advantage of this initiative, while we have 400,000 young people across

Canada who are unemployed. It depends on the age group, because if we look at the 16 to 30 group, as we do in Quebec, we could say there are 600,000 young people who are unemployed.

So 2,500 does not have much impact. When we realize that of the $10,000 spent on each young person in the Youth Service Corps, about $4,000 goes to administration, there is only 6,000 left. It all depends. There are some variants in the pilot projects, and incidentally, in Quebec, pilot projects tend to be found in Liberal ridings, in most cases, although in Laval, there are two Bloc ridings and one Liberal-

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

An hon. member

It was a mistake.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

It was probably a mistake. So there is a coincidence, and I do not know whether in Western Canada our Reform colleagues may wish to help us out on this, there are not many, but they tend to be in ridings that are carefully chosen. The Secretary of State says the program will also be used to rehabilitate offenders, and I do not mind, but when they announced this plan, it was supposed to be about jobs.

I wish she would try and convince me, and I would also like to ask her about the $150 per week, because I remember that initially it was $61 per week for those living with their families, and it went up to $121. She talked about partnership and consultation when she came to Quebec City. I heard she was coming the day she came, so it was too late for me to be invited. Another point is that to finance this Youth Service strategy, the government is taking funds intended for existing programs, including women's programs, which means that the government is more or less robbing Peter to pay Paul. Is this the kind of attitude the Liberal government wants to take? So I listened very patiently to the Secretary of State, but quite frankly, she has yet to convince us that she made a very positive presentation on the subject before the House today.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberal Western Arctic, NT

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I would ever be capable of convincing the hon. member to believe anything the federal government does. I am sure he will recognize that since we have been in government there has been a boost in the economy. We have created 183,000 jobs since we were elected. Sixty-six thousand of those jobs have gone to Quebec. We have just had the signing of the infrastructure program recently.

Our youth initiative is an initial first step. We believe that this is one way to stimulate a very downtrodden and a very cynical group of young people who have been marginalized. We do not feel in the five and half months we have been in office we have had enough time to do all of the things we should do.

The hon. member spoke about consultation. This from the party that did not agree with us interfering jurisdictionally by bringing forward this program. We had nothing but headaches and heartaches from its members. Now they want into the program. I am glad. Any time the hon. member wants to put forward a proposal I would be more than happy to receive it. I would be happy to meet with him outside the Chamber to discuss this program. I would also be happy to discuss all of the other programs we have.

The opposition members know we are having a very difficult time. We are streamlining, restructuring and in some cases collapsing boards and getting rid of programs that duplicate other services. This will allow us to reallocate for other positive purposes such as the youth service corps. We managed to maintain a level of service that is adequate for the public.

I do not really know what the hon. member is complaining about. However, I am certainly willing to work with him in the future on all of these initiatives.

Young Offenders ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 1994 / 4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the Secretary of State for Training and Youth said. I think that she understands the problem well, particularly in a riding like mine where there really is a problem with young native offenders. I think her analysis of the situation was excellent.

I would like the hon. secretary of state to tell us however, with regard to social rehabilitation and reintegration-because I am sure she has ascertained with the Minister of Justice that it does-if indeed this aspect is covered in the bill. I am quite sure she did check because the minister alluded, albeit half-heartedly, to rehabilitation or reintegration. I would like to know where in the bill this aspect is emphasized. Is it emphasized by imposing stiffer sentences? By reversing the burden of the proof? How exactly does the bill provide for the reintegration of young offenders into society?