Debates of June 20th, 1994

Excise Tax Act

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development -Quebec]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

When shall the bill be read the third time, by consent later this day?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the third time and passed.

Department Of Labour Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act.

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

I might put on the record that the House leader for the Reform Party indicated-I did not hear it-that the Reform Party would not give consent to Bill C-32 to be read a third time today. Therefore that matter will count as if it were noted earlier.

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

Young Offenders Act

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, and the amendment put forward by the Bloc. This bill has been introduced at this time only in response to the pressure exerted by certain radicals and a certain press thirsty for sensationalism which revels in fuelling the common perception that crime is on the increase among young people.

Passed in 1984, the legislation has been amended twice, in 1986 and 1992. Really, can the situation have already deteriorated to such a point that it now warrants introducing this bill?

In his final report called "Beyond the Red Book", a workshop on recommendations for amendments to the Young Offenders Act, Mr. Doob of the University of Toronto said: "We do not have a youth just crisis that requires immediate fundamental change in the Young Offenders Act. Members of the public, especially those in the media who purport to represent public opinion about crime, have for centuries expressed the view that youth crime is out of control. Youths commit a disproportionate amount of crime in society. They always have and always will. But changes in the Young Offenders act are not likely to have any measurable impact on crime".

In Quebec, a compromise has been struck between the principles of youth protection and societal protection.

I would like to remind hon. members that a motion on this subject was adopted on May 5 last by the Quebec National Assembly. It read as follows: "That this Assembly demand that any amendment to the federal Young Offenders Act respect Quebec's laws and policies with regard to youth protection". The motion was unanimously endorsed by Quebec's two main political parties.

In Quebec, youth protection workers help the young offender and his family discover the best options for reintegrating into society and the community. Of course, the system in place is by no means perfect, but at least it places equal emphasis on prevention programs and on rehabilitation and reintegration programs.

The bill now before us does not provide this kind of balanced approach. On the contrary, the emphasis here is on repression in that the preferred option appears all too often to be referral to the courts, while no provision seems to be made for rehabilitation. With the passage of this bill, 16 and 17 year olds would have their cases proceed in adult court. For the purposes of the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, the term "young person" now includes 10 to 16 year olds. Furthermore, depending on their age group, young persons will be treated differently by the courts.

Although the legislation does not distinguish between 12 to 15 year olds and 16 to 17 year olds, it is clear that as a result of these amendments, these two groups will be treated differently in the case of offences involving serious bodily harm. Some lawyers will argue that this flies in the face of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equal treatment to all under the law.

While public safety demands that young offenders be sometimes kept in secure custody, rehabilitation should always be our overriding concern. Young persons who are in contact with other offenders are exposed to influences which fuel their delinquent behaviour.

In an article published in La Presse on June 8, Mr. Trépanier, a criminologist and researcher at the Université de Montréal, reminded readers that: ``Quebec compares favourably with the rest of Canada. Quebec is the province where the number of

young people in drop-in and rehabilitation centres is the lowest, about half the Canadian average".

According to research done on crime rates in American states relying on punishment as a deterrent against crime, there is no significant difference as opposed to states having a different approach based on the fight against crime. In this regard, the Ame

Getting back to the report "Beyond the Red Book": "Few saw any serious problems with the act that could not have been remedied by proper and creative administration of the act. Repeatedly the view was expressed that the most serious problem in the Young Offenders Act was the way in which it was administrated in some provinces. Most cases involving violence that come under the control of the Young Offenders Act can be dealt with under the present legislation".

So much for the necessity of new legislation. What about increasing the severity of sentences?

In the same report Mr. Doob noted:

With adolescents, increasing the severity of dispositions has no real impact on offending behaviour; either for the youth before the court or other youths. That is, despite its apparent logic and appeal, increasing the severity of dispositions has neither specific nor general deterrent value-The data supports the conclusion that rehabilitation is more likely to be accomplished in non-custodial settings-It was suggested that if the federal and the provincial governments were serious about protecting the public, then the governments should invest money in prevention and in educating the public about youth crime. It is cheaper and more effective to prevent crime than to put kids in custody when they commit offences.

Therefore, this bill is premature. We do not have a long enough experience, here in Canada, to assess the effects of the amendments introduced in 1992. I should remind members that, in 1992, the sentence for murder what extended to five years. However, such a sentence should also be imposed. At the present time, considering the lag time in the availability of statistics, we cannot determine the impact of this amendment. How can we justify what we are doing now? Why not wait for the results of the previous amendments before taking more repressive measures?

Crime, lest we forget, is an extremely complex issue. Generally speaking, criminologists recognize that the causes of crime are many. Violence and crime are interconnected and it is therefore important to address the root cause of crime by impressing on young offenders at the earliest opportunity that they are responsible for their actions. Sanctions or penalties directly tied to the offence must be enforced. Automatic incarceration or isolation in secure custody have no rehabilitative value. The deterrent effect of these measures can even be called into question.

Getting back to the question of public perception, last February, Jean Trépanier of the University of Montreal spoke at a symposium on crime and shared some statistics on the subject. According to Mr. Trépanier, only one in every six persons who commit an offence is a minor whereas the public's perception is vastly different. It is commonly believed that nearly 50 per cent of crimes are committed by young persons.

The February 3, 1994 issue of La Presse reported that youth crime had even declined by 7.6 per cent in Quebec over the past 15 years. The same is true for Montreal. The number of juvenile delinquents was reported at 10,145 in 1979, compared to 6,679 in 1992. This represents a decrease of 34 per cent in 13 years.

More recently in the June 8 edition of La Presse , Mr. Trépanier stated the following: ``According to Statistics Canada, the delinquency rate in Quebec per 100,000 residents is the second lowest in Canada after peace loving Prince Edward Island''.

Over the past decade, the number of serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault has either remained stable or declined.

"The increase noted in the number of violent crimes is due to a large extent to a 127 per cent increase in minor assaults from 1986 to 1991. According to national statistics on crime, a minority of young offenders are involved in crimes of a violent nature. In fact, only 13 percent of charges laid in 1991 were in connection with crimes of violence. However, nearly half of the charges laid against young offenders in 1991 involved first level assaults, which means that the offense was committed without the use of a weapon and that no bodily injury was inflicted upon the victim".

Tim Weiner from the Ottawa Citizen reported in March 1991 that ``one Canadian out of three is under the false impression that violence is as widespread in Canada, if not more, than in the United States.'' The fact of the matter is that a far greater number of violent crimes are committed in the United States than in Canada.

The Americans have doubled their police forces and the size of private police forces has increased fourfold over the past 30 years. Their inmate population has doubled over the past 10 years to a record high of four per 1,000 residents, which is at least four times higher than anywhere else in the Western world. Yet, violent crime rates in the U.S. are three times higher than in other industrialized countries.

As for the transfer to adult court, the amendments to the 1992 act clarified the applicable criteria to determine if a young offender must be transferred to adult court. Youth court must now take into account society's interest, in particular the public's protection and the teenager's reintegration into society, and determine if it is possible to reconcile these two objectives by keeping the teenager under its jurisdiction. If the court thinks

that it is impossible, society's protection prevails. The required mechanisms seem to be in place but the stakeholders refuse to use them.

I now come back to the June 8 article in La Presse , which quotes Normand Bastien from the youth division of Montreal's community legal centre. He said: ``The real problems come from the fact that the average waiting periods before sentencing are too long-266 days on average in Valleyfield, 180 days in Montreal, 163 days in Joliette-and that only 29 per cent of problems are resolved''. So why this bill, since the current act already has adequate provisions to deal with young offenders?

I repeat, a repressive law without rehabilitation measures and left to the discretion of various stakeholders will not bring the violence phenomenon under control. Current documentation does not support the argument that longer sentences act as a deterrent. As I said before, the American experience demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these coercive measures.

To conclude on the transfer to adult court issue, it seems that the burden of proof will now rest with the young people themselves. Too bad for the presumption of innocence. All this is intended to silence some people who will never be satisfied. It makes light of the balance between deterrence and rehabilitation which has proven itself in Quebec. Above all, it encourages laxity in certain provinces.

In the reading I have done on this bill, how does one explain some particularly troubling statistics concerning cases in youth court that resulted in a guilty verdict? In Quebec and the Maritime provinces, guilty verdicts were rendered in over 80 per cent of cases; in the Western provinces, barely 70 per cent; and in Ontario and Manitoba, 55 and 59 per cent. How come in Alberta, 34,372 people are accused and convicted out of a population of 1.2 million, compared to 16,000 in British Columbia? One province convicts half as many people as its neighbour. Are we not justified in thinking that we should pay more attention to the administration of justice instead of drafting new laws?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government introduced the Young Offenders Act and said that it intended to make some changes to the act it was very pleasing for me because if ever there was an act that needed modified it is the Young Offenders Act. However, that pleasure quickly faded when I found out that all the changes it really had in mind was just a little bit of tokenism.

One of the major things we are concerned about of course is 16 and 17 year olds and whether they are going to be treated as kids or whether they are going to be treated as adults when they commit crimes.

The government has taken a little portion of this. It has said for 16 and 17 year olds it intends, most of the time at least, to raise them to adult court. The onus will be on them to show cause why they should not be tried in adult court and why in fact they should be tried as young offenders.

This raises two problems. One of the basic problems is if they are tried as adults while still being young offenders they are still treated differently than people who are regular adults being tried in that adult court.

The second problem, and this is the larger one, is that we have a tremendous bureaucracy now. This bureaucracy is part of what drives the deficit and debt as high as it is and climbing continually.

What is going to happen is every time one of these young offenders is proposed to be raised to adult court we are going to have them appealing this and trying to fight it. What we are going to be faced with are trials to determine where the trial is going to be held, whether it is going to be in juvenile court or adult court. That is not doing anything to the legal system. That is not doing anything to resolve the problem of bureaucracy and it is certainly not doing anything to bring justice to this act.

One of the things we think should happen is that the age should be dropped. Sixteen and seventeen-year olds should be tried as adults and should be classed as adults. We think the overall age should be dropped. If you have 10 and 11 year olds committing crimes there has to be some facility to deal with that other than saying that was not very nice and sending them home to their parents, especially when the government is also talking about changing the act so that even once they send them home to their parents the parents are powerless to do anything.

Another thing the government is touching on, but again it is only tokenism, is identifying the criminal activities of young offenders. What we had proposed is that all crimes of 14 and 15 year olds should be readily available through the media and for those 10 to 13 they should be made public if, in the judge's opinion, the need for the public to know and protect itself is greater than the need for confidentiality on the part of the offender.

If you would consider a situation in which one of these young offenders may be exhibiting some form of violent behaviour and is released back to a classroom full of other children, should not the school authorities for one and the parents of the other children there know that there was a potential problem and take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of their own children?

Another area that did not get touched on at all is the need to change the face of the way our correctional facilities work. What we need is a facility that bases its primary actions on education, skills training, community service and one other thing that the government seems loath to introduce, discipline. We do not have a structured type of system that is going to provide some type of education, some kind of knowledge so that they can become useful people instead of sitting in what often are considered country club resorts compared with what many law-abiding

young people have on the outside. We are doing absolutely nothing but making a mockery of our entire system.

The final area where we believe there has to be some major change and something where the government did not even involve itself in tokenism on is the concept of parental responsibility. We believe that whenever there is a young offender and it can be shown that lack of parental control is a factor in the crime being committed then those parents must be responsible for identifying the victim for their losses.

We will have some people arguing as to whether that is fair to the parents. Maybe the parents could not stop the problem. Maybe it is not really being fair to the parents of this young offender. We have to look at the two sides of it. On one side we have a parent, in the situation we are suggesting, and it has been demonstrated that their lack of exercising parental control was a contributing factor to the offence being committed.

On the other side we have the victim. The victim is wholly innocent. There is no question of the innocence of a victim in these types of situations. Who really should have the financial burden placed upon them by the actions of this offender? Should it be a wholly innocent victim or should it be a parent who perhaps should have exercised more control in preventing that offence in the first place? If there is any injustice in this at all it certainly should be on the side of the one where there could be presumed certain responsibility for this. There is no question that it should not fall on the victim who is wholly innocent.

We believe that these are basic changes to the act that must take place. The Liberal government has not addressed this concept whatsoever.

One of the things that involves the Young Offenders Act and in fact the entire criminal justice system is what is this act in place for. Who are we trying to protect? Who are we trying to reward or make life easier for? Is it the victim or is it the person who perpetrates the crime? I suggest that we have to provide protection for the innocent people.

There may well be cause for people to say the poor youth, they have had a bad upbringing, they come from a broken home, they come from poverty. These things may all be true and may have in fact contributed to the person committing the crime.

We have to deal with those issues separately. Our first premise is that we must protect law-abiding citizens and their property. The Young Offenders Act needs to be changed and the reason it needs to be changed is for protection of society at large and also for young people themselves who are the most frequent victims of juvenile crime.

I had high hopes when they talked of introducing this change to the Young Offenders Act and I am very disappointed that they have gone half measure. On one side, we might say that something is better than nothing but on review it seems that what they are offering us is nothing at all.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand tonight to say a few words on this bill because it is one that we have been waiting for for a long time.

Having brought it forward now, it is one that has improved the initial act. I am sure that all of us know of cases in which the previous act was applied and was not certainly considered sufficient for the crime and certainly not a corrective measure to any extent either.

Some will say that there is a crisis with youth offenders today. Some will say there is not. We have hear that on the floor of this House. People who witness youth or adult crime know there is a problem. Communities that have witnessed a problem out there in youth crime know there is a problem.

It is easy to judge from afar and from a save perch but when it comes home to people, that is the time that they get serious about these issues. Of course the media wants something spectacular or there is nothing newsworthy about it. Some will say that the media is responsible for the hype about issues and others will say that it is only reporting the news.

Be that as it may, there is always room for improvement in legislation of this nature. Young people usually get their first sense of authority, their first feeling that there is authority around them, in the home. If they get the feeling at home, that there is an authority there, when they get out to face society they are able to handle it because they are accustomed to it.

When youth are not accustomed to discipline, a sense of authority and sound practices in the home they rebel when suddenly confronted with it in society because they have always had their own way. When they cannot get their own way they become angry.

I want to quote from paper written by Dr. Victor Szyrynski who is a well known medical doctor and doctor of psychiatry. He has a PhD as well. In his very learned way he says: "Parents are the first people who gratify the child's basic needs and in this way provide him with evidence of their love and stimulate similar reactions in return".

At another stage in his paper: "Generally speaking, security is provided by parental love. Here, however, in accordance with David Levy, we might consider the harmful aspects of "too much love" and "too little love". Children overfed with love in their early days by overprotective and overaffectionate parents find it too difficult to face the real frustrations present in the outside world".

Today we know that in the outside world people in a community have a fear of law breakers. There are home robberies reported that have been witnessed and there have been many business break-ins. Older people want security. When something happens in their community they have a great sense of fear.

Medical attention becomes very important as a corrective measure while a young offender is incarcerated. It is all right to talk about long sentences and so on, but while that person is in prison they must receive the proper medical attention. If they are not ready to be back on the streets when their time is up then a very definite assessment should be made of the case at that time.

I was interested in the words of the minister in his statement, his news release, on the day he tabled the bill when he said poverty, alcoholism, family violence, racism, illiteracy and many other factors may lead to criminal acts by young people and adults alike. Of course we have witnessed that from adults and young people alike. The conditions of our times certainly contribute to the moulding of the character of individuals today.

The increased sentences for teenagers convicted on first degree murder would be ten years, seven years in and three years out in the community under supervision, and seven years for second degree murder, four years in and three years under supervision in the community.

The personal injury offences would be in adult court unless they can show a judge that public protection and rehabilitation can both be achieved through youth court. They have to prove that they should be heard in youth court if they are 16 or 17 years of age. Otherwise they go to adult court.

Those who have been convicted of murder in an adult court must serve before they can be considered for parole. It is important that a person who is not ready to be out on the streets should not be out there. I mentioned that a moment ago but I think this is one of the largest fears people had about the previous legislation, that a person would be out on the street. There were a number of cases that have been very well documented and very well publicized and of course it helped to really drive that point home.

We know that in the present legislation the maximum sentence for young people convicted of murder in youth court is five years. It used to be three years. There is no parole in the youth system at the present time. However, the proposals that the minister brought in recently would increase sentences in youth court to ten years. There is a reason for it, and that is why I am repeating that particular part. With the previous three year sentence there was no timeframe for the medical attention that person should have been receiving and there was no medical attention for the proper assessment before they went back out on the street.

The minister will be meeting with ministers of health from the various provinces and territories later this year on this very important provision. The provinces are in charge of health care and we must have the proper number of people involved in the system who are well qualified to make assessments on young offenders and to make recommendations for their treatment while they are in prison. If that does not happen the additional years are not going to mean very much. The person will only come out with the same attitude with which they went in.

In my view, and having gone through a couple of very traumatic situations with families who were involved with youth murders, it is a very difficult situation for them. It is very serious for the parents but it is also very serious for other people in the family. Certainly it is serious for the people in those communities, particularly if the communities are small and people know one another. I want to emphasize the importance of proper medical care for these young people once they are in prison.

I commend the minister for increasing the sentences and lowering the age limit for people being brought into adult court. If measures of this nature are not taken, then crime will continue to grow among those people who are today laughing at the law. When people start smiling and laughing at the law it is not only they who are in trouble, our whole society is in trouble.

This is very important legislation for this Parliament. It is very important to put it in place. The follow through is going to be very important because it is going to spell the success or the failure of this new initiative.

I want to say to the ministers and to the members of the House that as this bill unfolds and as the legislation, the regulations and the provisions for medical care are brought forward there will be a number of us in the House watching the procedure very carefully to make sure that the proper provisions are being carried and that it is going to be useful to society and useful for the young offenders who get into trouble.

A lot of improvements can be made if we have the proper discipline in the home and some direction in the home to begin with. We should encourage that while we are discussing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, when I rose to support the amendment tabled by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the Young Offenders Act, I asked the Minister of Justice to say who, in Quebec, had hoped for such amendments.

I am still waiting for an answer, but I know that it will never come, because nobody in Quebec was in favour of such repressive changes as those proposed by the Minister of Justice. If there are people in favour of such changes, it has to really be a small minority. In fact, when I see the minister remain silent, I

think that it must be an extremely small minority, otherwise I would have heard from him.

As for me, I did not waste my time. I checked with those who are really concerned by this issue to find out what they thought of those amendments. I am referring to those who will have to implement the legislation. I consulted these people and no one, absolutely no one agreed with the bill. On the contrary, they all rejected it.

On May 5, 1994, before Bill C-37 was tabled, Quebec's National Assembly voted almost unanimously in favour of asking the federal government to ensure that any amendment to the Young Offenders Act is in compliance with Quebec's laws and policies regarding youth protection.

After reading the report released by the Minister of Justice, the Quebec Liberal minister disapproved of the decisions made by its big brother and stated that he was concerned and disappointed by the position taken by the federal government on this issue. He is not the only one. Whether it is the official justice critic for Quebec, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Maison Bosco, the CUM Director, some Quebec police associations, renowned criminologists like Jean Trépanier and Marc Leblanc, and many more, all agree that the bill introduced by the minister is counterproductive and goes against the educational direction Quebec has been trying to follow for at least 15 years.

We must realize that reactionary measures will not help us to overcome these problems. Things are far from perfect, but the direction taken by the province of Quebec is far more worthy than that chosen by the Minister of Justice. Despite some horrendous crimes that have been committed, this is not the time to blindly opt for repression and intolerance, which will only add to the problems instead of solving them. We should not use this issue to play petty politics, which the government seems to be doing by trying to pull a fast one on Reform members on the one hand and silencing the minority advocacy groups on the other hand.

Yes, we must realize that the praiseworthy efforts made by the province of Quebec on this issue reaffirm once again its special status. Yes, from the debate on this issue and many others addressed here in this House, we can see that there are two countries within this country. The federal government is responsible for creating a greater gulf between our two people. It is slowly but surely helping us on our way to separation.

It will all be explained in due course to Quebecers. Till then, however, I remind my constituents and Quebecers who almost unanimously opposed this bill that Ottawa just gave in to the mass hysteria that mainly took over western Canada and those hooked on televised information and isolated but sensational cases.

The minister gave in this time and it is legitimate to ask ourselves if and when he will give in again. Will he do it when some members from western Canada ask to legalize corporal punishment against the young or to lower the age at which one can be indicted pursuant to the law or to return to capital punishment? What will the Minister do then? His actual stand worries me. Will he give in again? Unfortunately, if it can bring some temporary and irrealist glory, this heir apparent of the Liberal Party of Canada will undoubtedly do it.

This issue is too important to put the interest of a politician or a party before that of society and especially that of the young. Should I remind the Minister that today's young are tomorrow's society? Even if they are given a prison sentence, they will come out some day. That is why education, social reintegration and rehabilitation are so important.

More prisoners become real bandits than rehabilitated citizens. We must not fall into this trap. As I said, this bill does not solve anything and reflects a purely repressive philosophy. The government should understand this and withdraw the bill. Those national standards forced on Quebec, which does not want them, give its courts less flexibility in sentencing.

As a Quebecer, I understand that the federal government imposes standards that are divorced from reality. In the end, these standards will fill up prisons, increase court costs and add to the legal red tape-all areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. That gives us another good reason to free ourselves from this constitutional straitjacket, where the federal government always did what it pleased while ignoring Quebec's demands and imposing national standards without any consideration for our legitimate wishes. But the time for that is almost past.

I confess, I believed that the federal Minister of Justice was a progressive man who listens to those responsible for administering justice. Unfortunately, I was wrong; that is what I confess. I made a mistake, because had he been such a man, he would not have proposed such amendments. He could have tried to correct some problems in the enforcement of the law, within his own jurisdiction.

We heard many members say in this House that the problem is not the act itself, but its application. Everybody knows that. Neither Quebec nor Ontario now for the last few years seems to have understood the intent of the Young Offenders Act. The rest of English Canada uses this act to put away problem teenagers. That is not the intent of the YOA.

Do people really think that increasing sentences from 5 to 10 years or even from 7 to 10 years will help us achieve the aims of the act? Do people really think that reversing the onus to force the young offenders to demonstrate that they should be proceeded against in youth court instead of adult court will solve the problem and help us achieve the aims of the act? Do members opposite think that? Are Reform Party members of this opinion? Does the government think that increasing the period of time that a young offender who has received a life sentence must serve before being eligible for parole will help us achieve the aims of the act?

I have to believe that the minister did not ask himself these questions. The Liberal federal government, through its Minister of Justice, made a point of stating in clause 1 of the bill that crime prevention is essential to the protection of society and that a multi-disciplinary approach is needed to deal with this problem.

It is even stated in clause 15 that an order of custody is not the solution. However, the bill provides absolutely nothing to strengthen what is stated. Finally, they try to put on a smoke screen, to put everybody to sleep, saying that it will pass without a hitch. Well, no, it will not pass without a hitch. In Quebec, we do not want this bill. We feel unanimously that this bill is harmful to youth and that is not the solution. The solution lies in the implementation of the act as it now stands. The solution lies in social rehabilitation.

What I ask the Minister of Justice to do is simply to postpone this piece of legislation, not to have it given second reading in order that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can properly analyze the issue and report to this House. We will then see whether or not the act should be changed.

For the moment, the minister is saying: I am bringing changes to it and you go and study it. This is not the way things are supposed to work. That is not the way to improve legislation.

I would simply ask the minister to backtrack as common sense would require.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to address Bill C-37 respecting the Young Offenders Act. Although I believe the government is perhaps considering changing the Young Offenders Act, I do not feel Bill C-37 really addresses the issues.

I have two main concerns with the bill. One of them is the reverse onus that everybody seems to think is a real change, something that is going to make a real difference, sort of the meat and potatoes of the bill. I would argue that the reverse onus, which means that the youth courts will put the onus on the

16 and 17 year olds to prove that they should be heard and dealt with in youth court, is really going to solve the problem.

My concern is that the people presently in the youth court system are the ones who make a decision on whether or not youths 14 years old and up will be tried in adult court. These same people are the ones who will hear the cases of 16 and 17 year olds and make the decision on whether they will stay in youth court.

The past will show us that judges in the youth court division are very reluctant to place 16 and 17 year olds into an adult court to face the serious charges of murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. They seem to be very reluctant to have the younger people move up to adult court.

I do not see that the bill will make any change. I do not see where these same people will force young people to be tried in adult court. What we will see is that the people who make these decisions will continue to allow 16 and 17 year olds to be tried in youth court.

One of the cases that comes to my mind is the young person who was convicted of killing Jessie Cadman. He was a young offender at the time of the murder. The youth court judge determined that he would be tried in youth court. It was only because of the pressure put on by the community that that youth judge was forced to consider adult court. Isaac Deas was eventually tried in adult court and was convicted of murdering Jessie Cadman.

I suggest to this House that the same thing is going to happen where the youth court judges are going to act in favour of the young people and keep them in youth court as opposed to moving them into adult court. I do not feel that this change in the bill is going to make any bit of difference to the way that 16 and 17 year old serious offenders are going to be treated. I have great concerns about that. I think it would have been a much stronger message for the government to automatically lower the ages so 16 and 17 year olds are tried in adult court without any kind of dilly-dallying around in the youth court system.

The other concern that I have is in lowering the ages. It concerns me when I hear some colleague from the Bloc suggesting that the only reason this government introduced Bill C-37 was because of complaining and hysterical comments from the west, that people in the west want to throw their young people in jail and throw away the key. I think they are misrepresenting what the people in the west are saying.

Westerners are very concerned about the direction in which young people are headed and the way our justice system is not treating them. We suggest that young people and adults have to be responsible for their actions. For every action there is a reaction. If the action is serious, the reaction should be duly serious. If we have young people out there creating physical harm to other young people, young people who are murdering

with intent or without intent other young people or adults, they should take the responsibility for their actions.

We are suggesting that 16 and 17-years olds are old enough to take that responsibility in an adult court situation. We are also suggesting that we cannot just forget about young people, 10 and 11 year olds, who have made a decision to commit crime, things that they know are wrong. We have to bring them into the system so that we can deal with the problem at that early age. If the problem is showing itself at 10 and 11 years it is very important that the system deal with that problem.

I suggest that when my colleagues from the Bloc say that people out west just want to lock away their kids and not deal with the problem, to ignore the problem, that perhaps they are ignoring the problem. Not too many weeks ago there was a 15-year old boy who was stabbed to death in Hull. Last week or perhaps the week before a 10-year old boy took two loaded handguns to school and threatened his classmates.

I suggest by not dealing with those problems, my colleagues are ignoring the problem in their province. If they really think that people in their province are not concerned about safety in their homes and on the streets and that young people bear the responsibility for their actions, they are fooling themselves. I do not think this problem only concerns western Canadians. I think it is a problem all Canadians are concerned about.

The results of various polls show that people in my constituency, representing all different classes of people and economic situations, feel that we have to lower the ages to 10 and 15 years old, and to let 16 and 17 year olds be dealt with in adult court. I received 3,500 replies to the poll included in my householder. Of those 3,500 replies over 90 per cent of the respondents were in favour of lowering the age.

This is not an insignificant number. Over 90 per cent of the respondents of 3,500 replies feel that the age limit should be lowered.

In a poll separate to mine taken by the community newspaper only 12.7 per cent of the readers who responded felt that the age limit should be kept the same. Over 80 per cent wanted either to eliminate the age restrictions with the Young Offenders Act or to lower them. I would suggest that I am in a position of representing my constituency. It may be in western Canada, but it is telling me loud and clear that my constituency feels one of the major changes the government should have considered in its amendment to the Young Offenders Act was to lower the ages.

I mentioned earlier that another concern of mine was reverse onus. It will not make any difference at all. I do not think we will see any changes in the numbers of young people who are raised to adult court. It certainly will not deal with offenders who are under 16. The present act as it stands right now allows 14-year-

olds and older to be raised to adult court. I do not see the same kind of conditions in this piece of legislation.

In summation, the only feeling of hope is that this is the first of two stages. The bill is only the first stage in amending the Young Offenders Act. The second stage, which is a 10-year review of the act, will allow the kinds of changes I feel Canadians are demanding, Canadians all across the country and not just in western Canada.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on second reading of the bill. I have been listening carefully to comments by both the Official Opposition and the Reform Party in respect of the bill. I want to make a few preliminary remarks in that regard.

First, quite frankly the position of the Bloc Quebecois startles me. I was here in the last Parliament when the Conservative government introduced certain amendments to the Young Offenders Act. At that time the vast majority of members of Parliament from the province of Quebec were from the Conservative Party. They supported the bill. They supported the so-called strengthening of the Young Offenders Act at that time. They spoke as Quebecers, specifically stating that the people of Quebec wanted the Young Offenders Act strengthened, that there were problems with young offenders not only in Quebec but throughout Canada, and that it was necessary in order to make certain amendments.

Unless I am not hearing things clearly, it would seem as if there has been a startling transformation in the opinions of the people of the province of Quebec as represented by the Bloc Quebecois. I find that a bit hard to believe. I am very interested in knowing where they are coming from. I find they are literally coming out of left field. They are not representing the people of the province of Quebec as I understood the concerns of the people of the province of Quebec for five years prior to the last election. Maybe things have changed but I honestly do not believe so. I have to discount much of what the Bloc Quebecois is saying with respect to the bill.

Until I start hearing some realistic comment and I start hearing some acknowledgement that the Young Offenders Act applies exactly the same way throughout the country or does not apply exactly the same way throughout the country rather than hearing that those in Quebec do this and that as if there were a different Young Offenders Act in the province of Quebec, that is absolutely untrue because the Young Offenders Act applies from coast to coast to coast.

With that said let me turn then to the bill and to the approach we in the Liberal Party have decided to take with respect to young offenders. We do not pretend that the act is perfect. We never have. It was clearly stated in the red book and in our campaign that we acknowledged the people of Canada were not happy, if nothing else, with the perception of how the Young Offenders Act was working. It may have been working extremely well. I am not one who believes it was but it may have been.

However that is not the important point. The important point is that it was perceived and still is perceived by the people of Canada not to be working to the best effect that it could. We decided as part of our campaign strategy that we would agree to do something about the Young Offenders Act.

As soon as the Minister of Justice took office he began holding meetings with his colleagues in the Liberal Party to develop a strategy. The strategy that was developed was mentioned by my hon. friend, the last speaker. It was very clearly a two-stage process.

Stage one is to deal with the immediate concerns that we feel were brought to us by the people of Canada, namely, violent offenders, young offenders. Stage two is to conduct a complete, extensive section by section review of the act, taking as much time as is necessary, examining it in parliamentary committee, listening to the views and concerns of the Bloc Quebecois, of the Reform Party, of the Liberal government and anybody else who feels like coming in. For example, the the NDP might want to come in and make a contribution.

When we take that second step process, we will then be able to examine and consider with the benefit of expert testimony and opinion the various points that have been made throughout this debate including, for example, lowering the age to whatever age it might be. Should it be 10? Should it be eight? Should it be seven as it was under the juvenile delinquents act? Why was it raised from seven to twelve? I do not know. Should it be moved down to 10? Should it be moved down to seven? These are the kinds of questions that are going to take some time to discuss.

In the meantime we have something in front of us, Bill C-37. I really only want to spend the few minutes that I have on three sections. I would ask colleagues on the other side whether they agree or disagree with the preambles found in section 1 of this act which I am going to read in their entirety as they would amend paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Young Offenders Act.

(a) crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society-

Who would argue that?

-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 behaviour in the future;

All that says is that we have a problem. Let us see if we can figure out how to deal with it before the young offender offends.

(a.1) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions.

With great respect, I doubt very much if there are too many Canadians who would disagree first, that people should bear responsibility for their contraventions and second, that children are not adults. In my view children should not be treated in exactly the same way as adults.

Therefore the debate then becomes this. What is a child? Under what circumstances is the behaviour so egregious that it is necessary to take that child and say: "Okay, you are not a child. For the purposes of what you have done, you will be treated as an adult". Those circumstances are few and far between.

They are delineated in section 8 of the bill dealing with section 16 of the Young Offenders Act. Those are very clearly set out. If a young person is alleged to have committed first degree murder or second degree murder, the taking of a life, it is something that is sufficient to take them out of the realm of being dealt with as a child.

Second, attempting to commit murder, a very serious offence; manslaughter, technically one step below murder; aggravated sexual assault or aggravated assault, these are all violent crimes. They are the kinds of crimes which make people say that enough is enough, young people are not going to be allowed to do that and then be given the opportunity to be treated as if they had walked into a local Beckers store and stolen a chocolate bar because the two offences are entirely different.

While society might tolerate a 13-year old who goes in and steals a chocolate bar, a pen, some books or a girlie magazine or whatever it may be, they are not prepared to tolerate that kind of behaviour if someone takes a life. The bill says in those circumstances, if you are 16 or 17, you are going to be tried in adult court unless you can demonstrate why you should not be. Anytime a line is drawn, any line, some will say the age is too high and others will say the age is too low, but the fact is that lines have to be drawn. In this case it seems to me that 16 and 17 years of age is reasonable. You can drive a car at that age so if you are charged with committing a murder at that age, presumably you have the wherewithal to be able to be tried in adult court.

Now what about the perceptions of Canadians? I happen to have a petition signed by hundreds of people from the metropolitan Toronto area. I want to tell my friends in the Bloc that I absolutely refuse to believe that the people of metropolitan Toronto are any different from the people of Quebec, Montreal, Chicoutimi, or any other place when personal safety is at risk.

The petitioners believe what this petition states. Whether the stats are exact is irrelevant. That is what they believe and this is what they have signed: "Violent crime in Canada has increased by over 40 per cent since 1984. Youths age 12 to 17 although representing only 8 per cent of the population account for 23 per cent of all persons charged with criminal code offences". As I said, it is not relevant whether or not the figures are accurate to

the exact percentage. What is more relevant is that people believe them to be true.

The petition goes on: "Canadians from coast to coast are calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act and for heavier penalties for all those convicted of"-and I underscore this-"violent crime". That is the key. We do not want to lock these poor ki

So the petitioners have asked that the Criminal Code of Canada and the Young Offenders Act be amended to provide for heavier penalties. Indeed what they see is the Liberal Party doing just that.

We know the act is abused. In my riding there is a particular street where every night on any night of the week drug transactions are taking place. Most times children under the age of 12 are used to run the drugs or to carry the bags from the customer to the vendor. In exchange they get a nice gold bracelet or gold chain or some sort of bauble. The perpetrators, the scum of the earth who deal with drugs, use and abuse these children because they know there is no way the law can reach them. Believe me, many of these kids know exactly what they are doing regardless of their age.

In preparing for the debate on the Young Offenders Act I spoke with my 11-year old daughter. I asked her a few questions about right and wrong in general, what she thought was right and what she thought was wrong and what her views were of the news. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a person who at age 11 knows precisely that if you kill somebody you are doing something wrong. She knows that if you take something that belongs to someone else you are doing something wrong. I have no doubt that is the case.

I am very sympathetic to lowering the age, but I am prepared to wait to hear the evidence in committee. I am prepared to hear the departmental officials tell me why it was that in 1917 people were deemed capable of answering for their actions at the age of seven, whereas in 1984 it was felt that people could only be responsible enough to deal with their actions at the age of 12 and over.

There may be reasons. There may be psychological studies, tests or any number of pieces of evidence to demonstrate a reason for the age of 12. Frankly, I rather suspect it is what I was talking about earlier. It was simply a question of drawing a line. If the line was drawn at 10 years there would be those who would say seven. If the line was drawn at 14 years, there would be those who would say 10 or 12. I guess for whatever reason, in 1984 our counterparts in Parliament chose the age of 12. I assume we will hear the reason in committee.

I underscore that we have a two-step process. Step one deals with the immediate violent criminals in the young offenders system. Step two will be a section by section examination of the act with recommendations to the justice minister and the cabinet. I have no doubt that everybody will have an opportunity for their input.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever I have the honour and pleasure of rising to speak in this House, I always think of my constituents in the riding of Shefford, to whom I owe this privilege.

This evening, I would like to present my views on Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act.

Because of my own training and education, I tend to favour the rehabilitation of young offenders over repressive measures. I believe that the present Act contains all of the provisions required by courts and prosecutors to adequately protect society.

The real problem lies in enforcing of the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, not in subjecting it to an in-depth review. I understand that certain painful events in recent years have generated public anger and misunderstanding, and have fuelled the debate on how minors found guilty of very serious crimes are treated by the courts.

I can see that the public is deeply concerned about the need to control youth crime, but I cannot tolerate people like the Minister of Justice, my colleagues across the floor-the Liberals-and my colleagues in the Reform Party believing that harsher sentencing is the best way to curb criminal activity among young people.

Basically, the provinces which complain about the present Act do not enforce it rigorously; Quebec and Ontario, on the other hand, have the right attitude and see no problem with the Act. It seems to me, quite obviously, that the justice minister has yielded to the demands of the western provinces and the right-wing faction of the Liberal Party.

I must question the relevance of this bill, since studies indicate that the average number of homicides committed by young people has declined sharply since the 1970s.

Would it not be more accurate to say that the minister is simply trying to keep an election promise from the last campaign, armed with the knowledge that the Canadian Sentencing Commission, in its 1987 report, found that three quarters of the Canadian population believed that 30 per cent of crimes were violent? In reality, according to 1992 statistics, only one of every ten Criminal Code offences reported to police were

violent crimes. From 1982 to 1992, even the number of murders committed in Canada increased only marginally.

This public perception is contrary to the reality as shown by those facts. Is this a sufficient political reason to change the Young Offenders Act? In my humble opinion, the Minister of Justice, by tabling this bill in the House, is only trying to look g

Is this what we want? Is this the effect that the Liberals, who are in power, and the Reform Party want? The Minister of Justice should try to prevent young people from committing criminal acts and should react effectively instead of taking harsher measures like longer sentences, lower age limits for young offenders and stiffer penalties.

As a teacher, I worked for a long time with young people, and I can tell you that the solution is not to punish more harshly, but to help young people through better supervision and better efforts at reintegrating them into the community. I am deeply convinced of that. The deterrent effect of longer and harsher sentences is not supported by the literature and experiments to date.

Crime prevention requires that we examine the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions that foster crime, and that we make an effort to correct those conditions. The co-operation of many departments, the private sector, and the community are needed. Developing effective crime prevention programs is a big challenge we have a duty to meet. The result of such programs, namely crime reduction, is much more advantageous to young people and to Quebecers and Canadians, who could otherwise become victims of crime.

However, even the greatest efforts to prevent crime cannot eliminate crime altogether. Social rehabilitation of young offenders must therefore be one of the main objectives of the legislation. It is really a form of long term crime prevention aimed at making young offenders stop their reprehensible behaviour.

The proposed amendments to the bill fly in the face of the objective sought, namely the protection of juveniles and of society.

To conclude, I would like to remind this House that Quebec is a distinct society, not only because of its language and culture, but also because of our beliefs, philosophy and social concerns. In Quebec, we know what are the main principles behind the protection of juveniles and of society. The objective is to avoid, as much as possible, criminalizing cases involving young offenders. First of all we seek the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of young offenders because, in Quebec, we believe that is the way to go. You would be surprised at the results we are getting.

I would like to remind my colleagues that, under certain conditions, these young people can be helped to become productive and responsible adults for the good of society as a whole. Moreover, a cost benefit analysis shows that the money invested by society to rehabilitate a young murderer is paid back in less than five years when he becomes a productive adult.

In conclusion, I would like to remind all my colleagues that it is essential for Quebec to maintain its own approach regarding the reintegration of young offenders. Therefore, I am asking them to take into consideration the fact that any amendments to the federal Young Offenders Act must respect Quebec legislation and policies regarding the protection of juveniles and of society.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on May 12 of this year members on this side of the House presented an opposition day motion. The purpose of that motion was to call upon the government for positive and immediate action with regard to the Young Offenders Act. I commend the government for bringing forward so quickly some amendments which are a step in the right direction.

I rise today however to demonstrate my lack of enthusiasm for this bill. I believe that although measures were taken they certainly are far from enough.

In an attempt to help calm the fears of Canadians we proposed three basic amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The first was to have the age limits changed from 12 to 17 to 10 to 15. This was in recognition of the fact that there are offenders under 12 years of age who currently slip through the system and go on to be full-fledged youth criminals because police are unable to charge them or to deal with them in any way. As for older offenders, we believe that youths aged 16 and 17 are old enough to assume full responsibility for their crimes and should therefore in serious cases be tried as adults.

Under Bill C-37 the justice minister has proposed that 16 and 17-year old youths who are charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault be tried in adult court unless an application is granted for the youth cases to be heard in youth court. The onus is now on the young offender to demonstrate why he or she should not be

tried in adult court and the court will have the discretion to accept or reject the application.

Although this amendment will be somewhat positive in nature it misses the point that we tried to raise some weeks ago. Sixteen and 17-year olds, given today's society and the rate at which our youth are maturing, according them the same degree of respons

The Reform Party had proposed increasing sentencing. I am therefore pleased to see that the minister has recommended increased sentences for first degree murder from five to ten years. We also recommended that amendments to the Young Offenders Act include a permit to publish the names of young offenders who have been convicted of any offence involving the use of violence, who have contravened any Narcotic Control Act or Food and Drug Act or who have been convicted previously of two offences.

Unfortunately Bill C-37 has failed to provide this amendment and it is this topic I wish to elaborate on today. I firmly believe that the publication of the names of young offenders is essential for the protection of Canada's innocent children. For example, a school principal may not know that one of his students had been convicted numerous times for drug trafficking. A parent may not know that his child is associating with an offender convicted of a series of rapes. The young man next door whom you have entrusted to babysit your children could be another Jason Gaumache.

Who should we be protecting, the vast majority of Canadians who are law abiding, hard working and caring people who will continue to be the building blocks for a productive society or the local high school's drug dealer or an unknown rapist in the neighbourhood? I do not think that is a hard question to answer. Undoubtedly it is these offenders who must be made known to our society.

We are not talking about the youth who makes a small mistake and comes in contact with the justice system on a single occasion wherein the best interest of the public may not be served by publishing the details. However, we do propose and firmly believe that in order to make community protection the number one priority, the publishing of violent youth offenders' names must not be prevented by law as it is today and is continued in Bill C-37.

The first penalty paid for committing a criminal offence against society ought to be full disclosure of who you are, where you come from and what you have done. This is completely exempted from this act and from the amendment.

The names of victims and the horrific details of the crimes perpetrated on them are open to public scrutiny but the names of the offenders remain a state secret. The young faces in Canada's courts and jails are like masks. They hide society's ugliest scars, scars that will fester if they are not exposed.

The Reform Party on behalf of our many constituents had asked the government to establish a registry of child sex abusers. The government has provided its typical response to a request of this nature. It knows there is a problem. It knows Canadians want something done about it. Therefore it has promised to study the issue and consult the proper authorities. In other words, the government is dragging its feet and in the meantime children will continue to be sexually abused and violently attacked by repeat offenders that the government is guilty of protecting by refusing the public the information they need to protect their children and society in general.

In their effort to understand the need for a child registry, Health Canada, Justice Canada and the Ministry of the Solicitor General commissioned a study. The federal ad hoc interdepartmental working group on information systems on child sex offenders prepared a discussion paper. Do you know what the conclusion of that study was, Mr. Speaker? We need another study and we need further consultation. However, contained in that paper is information which clearly indicates both the need for the child registry and for the publishing of young offenders' names.

I really have to wonder what purpose all these studies, reviews, consultations and more consultations serve. Are they to find viable solutions to problems we already know exist or are they a means to keep full the hands the taxpayers are feeding at the present time?

The ad hoc group reports that current research indicates that the development of sexually intrusive behaviour may begin as early as childhood and adolescence. The report goes on to say that statistics compiled on all violent crime committed against children in Canada indicate that young offenders, those aged 12 to 17, account for approximately 23 per cent of all accused offenders.

It is important to note that the same age group only represents 7.9 per cent of the Canadian population. Studies have repeatedly indicated, states the report, that sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group with an estimated 40 per cent reoffending within five years of release. Furthermore research examining the effectiveness of offender treatment programs has shown limited results.

I ask, does the right hand of the government know what the left hand is doing. Did the Minister of Justice not read the report of the federal ad hoc group? If he did, he would know that sex offenders reoffend. If he could do simple calculations he would know from the statistics that 23 per cent of sex offences in Canada are committed by young offenders. If 40 per cent of that 23 per cent reoffends, violent, sadistic acts will continue to be committed against the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society and the government could have prevented it. If it had read its own report and acted immediately on the findings of

that report, unspeakable acts and attacks upon our children could have been thwarted.

However I believe the government is in direct contravention of article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states: "States, parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse".

Bill C-37 does not undertake to protect our children from the Jason Gamaches of this world. It does not protect us from the faceless, nameless monsters who pose behind the masks of adolescence.

The government is in direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore the weight is still balanced in favour of the young offender. The protection of society, the protection of our children, is still outweighed by the so-called rights of violent and delinquent young Canadians.

All we are asking is that the scales be evened out, that the rights of the victims, and the rights of the potential victims, that is the rights of our children, be given priority and that the protection of society outweigh the protection of violent young offenders who have no respect for the lives and the rights of others.

I reiterate my opening remarks. Bill C-37 is a step in the right direction but the stride is not long enough for the people walking on my side of the street.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.