Debates of Feb. 20th, 1995

Young Offenders Act

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in one of his comments my colleague said we should look for the causes rather than lock up those who offend. There are so many cases today where young offenders do offend repeatedly. I would like to ask him whether at some point it seems a logical conclusion to lock up an individual. Whether the individual goes to a prison where adult criminals are is another question.

I would also like to ask him about his concept of looking for the causes when there is a young offender. I would also like to find out whether he thinks the publishing of young offenders' names is something that is relevant in the case of an offender or would he be more on the side of looking for the causes as well as opposed to some of the solutions to the young offender problems we have?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought what I said was fairly clear. First and foremost, we must find out the causes of crime. Environment is everything. When the environment is a healthy one, we give our young people every opportunity. If they do not have every opportunity, there comes a time in their life when they may well do something wrong. On the other hand, are they always to blame for such action? When the parents are not home, when there is no money and no work, these are all factors.

As to the second question, about identifying, publishing the names of offenders, I am totally against it. This is not the way to remedy things. Let us give our young people access to people who can look after them, experts in various areas, places to stay where people will listen to them and where they can go and talk about their problems.

Let us listen to their demands. You will see that, if we keep listening to them and giving them work, pride will come out on top, and the crime rate, although dropping now-it was at two per cent in 1992 as compared to five per cent in previous years-will continue to drop.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the justice committee which made a thorough study of this bill I would like to make a few comments.

The bill was referred to the justice committee on June 23, 1994 and was subject to hearings until December 8, 1994. Over that period of time we heard from 42 witnesses, groups and individuals from all walks of life. We heard from victims' groups, groups of offenders and ex-offenders, experts from the correctional service, witnesses from children's aid societies, witnesses from police forces, judges, bar associations, psychologists, sociologists, school board officials and representatives from the provinces. We had a very wide range of input into the work of the committee. I want to congratulate and thank members of the committee for their co-operation over those months when we had hearings on the bill.

The bill dealt with a very limited number of issues. To begin with, it added to the declaration of principles with respect to the Young Offenders Act. It pointed out in section three that crime prevention was essential to the long term protection of society and affirmed protection of society as a principal goal of the law. It also affirmed that young persons must bear responsibility for their actions and for their contraventions, although not in the same way as adults. That is one of the main reasons we have the Young Offenders Act.

The bill also dealt with transfers to adult court. Under the present law which deals with young persons from 12 to 17 years of age inclusive, a youth aged 14 to 17 can be transferred to adult court on an application from the crown for certain serious offences. The youth court will make the judgment as to whether the young person will stay in youth court or will be transferred to adult court. That is the law as it exists at the present time.

Under Bill C-37 a change is proposed whereby those who are 16 and 17 years old would be transferred automatically to adult court for certain serious crimes of violence against the person unless the young person makes an application to the court not to be transferred to adult court. That is a sort of reverse burden of proof which is being put forward in this particular bill as opposed to the present law.

The bill also deals with the penalty for murder. It would increase the penalty for murder for young offenders tried in the youth court to ten years for first degree murder and to seven years for second degree murder. At the present time the maximum penalty is five years.

The bill also provides for victim impact statements at the time of sentencing of a young offender.

It also provides that for treatment the consent of the young offender must be obtained. Under the present law treatment can be ordered for the young offender without his or her consent.

Another principal change the bill makes is to leave the decision with respect to open or secure custody with the provinces when the provinces have set up offices to deal with that.

Finally, the bill would provide for a greater publication of youth offence records, in particular the publication of the names of young offenders who have committed certain offences. Under the present law this dissemination of information is highly restricted.

Bill C-37 would allow for a greater dissemination of that information to people in positions of trust and administration, in schools and other places where young people study or work, so that there would be greater protection for the public.

More or less those are the changes that Bill C-37 would bring in with respect to the Young Offenders Act.

As I pointed out, during the hearings on the bill we heard from a great number of people, approximately 42 individuals and groups. I must tell the House that the great majority of those who appeared before the committee did not want us to proceed with Bill C-37 until we did a general review of the act such as was proposed as phase two of our studies.

The House will recall that the Minister of Justice, when referring this bill to the House and to the committee, stated that he also wanted the committee to do a complete review of the Young Offenders Act since it had been in force for 10 years. He wanted us not only to study every aspect of the law, but also the resources available to administer the law and the situation with respect to youth crime in this country.

A great majority of witnesses said: "If you are going to do that overall, comprehensive general study, why legislate in these few particular areas right now? Should you not complete your broad, general study and then make a judgment with respect to those matters once that study is completed?"

That made sense to many members on the committee, but to the majority it did not. The committee decided that despite these pleas it should carry on with the consideration of Bill C-37, principally because during the election campaign, the government had made a commitment to bring in those very specific changes. It felt those changes should be legislated right now despite the fact the committee was going to undertake a general study as phase two of its work.

The committee did proceed with Bill C-37 and reported back to the House and the bill is now before us. At the end of our hearings we did make 28 amendments. Most of those were technical amendments. They were corrections in the wording, improvements in the expression of the law, improvements in the

French translation. However, there were a couple of substantive amendments among the 28 that were made by the committee.

One substantive amendment was to change to a certain extent the new transfer provision. I mentioned that Bill C-37 provides for automatic transfer of 16 and 17 year olds, unless the 16 or 17 year old can make a case before the court that they should not be transferred to the adult court.

An amendment was made in committee. It was agreed that it would not be necessary to hold such a hearing and go to the expense and the time consuming process when the crown attorney agreed with the defence attorney that the young person should remain in youth court despite the fact that the individual may be 16 or 17 and had committed one of the serious offences referred to.

Another amendment of substance was to curtail somewhat the dissemination of information that was provided for in Bill C-37. While Bill C-37 will now provide for greater information to the public with respect to young offender records than under the present law, it will not go as far as Bill C-37 would have gone in the first instance.

During this debate over the last few hours and when the bill was before the House at report stage, some members especially some of those from the Reform Party, have charged that the Young Offenders Act is a failure. They have charged that youth crime is out of control and that the Young Offenders Act is to blame for that increase in crime among youth.

As a matter of fact, some have blamed me, as one of the original authors of the Young Offenders Act, for this state in our country. They blame me for what they consider to be an increase in youth crime and for the failures of the Young Offenders Act. I want to respond to that.

To begin with, youth crime is not out of control and has not increased in Canada. The incidents of youth crime have not increased. As I pointed out the other day at report stage on the bill, the greatest number of homicides committed by youths 12 to 17 years of age was 68 in 1975. That was before the Young Offenders Act. The lowest number was in 1987 when there were only 35. With respect to homicides, there was a much higher number committed by those 12 to 17 years of age before the act and the lowest number was committed after the act came into force.

One could give even more precise statistics. For example, in the period from 1974 to 1978, a four-year period prior to the Young Offenders Act, there were 60 charges for murder laid against youths in Canada. From 1984 to 1989 which is a five-year period after the act, there were 40 charges. One could go on and on.

Of course, a certain phenomenon has been taking place which has led to an appearance of increase in statistics. That is what might be called the zero tolerance approach in many school board districts. School authorities now call in the police whenever there is a fight or a disruption in the school yard. In the past, when those sorts of incidents took place, the principal might call in the young people involved and discipline them, call in their parents and do something about the incident, but criminal charges would not be laid.

Now in those ordinary types of assaults in the school yard, charges are being laid in many jurisdictions. Therefore of course the statistics for charges laid has increased but the number of incidents has not. As a matter of fact, the trend has been more or less the same with respect to those kinds of assaults over the years, both before and after the act.

Let us be absolutely clear. I can refer to many documents. There is a fact sheet put out by the John Howard Society on youth crime. The title of the bulletin is "Youth Crime: Sorting Fact from Fiction". It goes into much detail and deals with violent crime rates with respect to youth over the years. There has not been a substantial or significant increase in crime with respect to young persons. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out, there were much higher rates of youth homicide before the act than there were after the act.

The act has not failed. The act is the same one from Newfoundland to British Columbia. It is the same act in Windsor, Ontario, as it is in Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories, but it is administered very differently in the different provinces and in the different territories. In some provinces and territories there is no trouble with the act; in other provinces and territories there are problems with the act.

I must ask, are the problems attributable to the provisions of the act or the way in which the act is administered? It so happens in some provinces such as my province of Quebec a great deal of resources, much more than other provinces, are dedicated to the administration of this act and to dealing with the causes of youth crime. There is much greater satisfaction with the act in the province of Quebec than there is in certain other provinces, but it is the same act in Quebec as it is in Alberta, as it is in Manitoba, as it is in New Brunswick.

The act is not the cause of youth crime where it does take place. I do admit there are still some horrible youth crimes taking place in this country. The perception of those youth crimes is way out of proportion to the number of crimes which are actually taking place.

In any case, the act is not responsible for the crimes. There are causes for those crimes and it is there that we must direct our attention. We must also accept the fact that there has been very uneven administration of this act across Canada and very uneven dedication of resources, both human and financial, to the whole area of youth offenders and youth delinquency.

If that is the case, if the act is not responsible for those crimes which do take place, then simple changes really will not reduce the level of crime. To suggest to the Canadian population that we are going to change section 5, or section 8, or section 25 and all of a sudden there will be a panacea and we will reduce crime is to mislead the public.

If we are serious about reducing youth crime where it does exist in Canada then we must dedicate resources to the causes of that crime, whether it is broken families, whether it is alcoholism, whether it is battered children and battered mothers, whether it is drug addiction and the trafficking in drugs, whether it is the lack of employment, the lack of recreation opportunities, latchkey kids who have nobody to come home to, a whole range of things. If we are serious about reducing the rate of youth crime, a simple amendment to the law will not do it.

However putting our minds to it and putting some resources and care into it at the level of the causes at the community level might do it because where that has been done there has been more success and less youth crime. We only delude ourselves and the public by suggesting that a few changes here and there to the act will substantially change the situation.

I want to absolutely rebut those suggestions. I am sure we will hear them again, especially from the Reform Party. We will hear that youth crime is out of control, that it has substantially increased, that the cause of that youth crime is the Young Offenders Act which is a failure. Well it is not a failure and it is not out of control. However, there are still some serious cases of youth crime in this country and if we are serious about this issue we should direct our attention to those causes.

In conclusion, I want to say that this bill has some worthwhile changes in it and they should be supported. There are other changes which I find doubtful. I will nevertheless support the bill with the understanding that when we do our phase two review we will re-examine everything that we have done under Bill C-37 as well as the entire Young Offenders Act.

As chair of the justice committee, I give lukewarm support for this bill because I feel it is a mixed bag. It has some good sections that are worthwhile. It has others which are doubtful. However we are going to have a chance to do a complete review of the act within a few months.

It will not be just a complete review of the act but a complete review of the administration across the country of the facilities for correcting young offenders, the probation systems, the secure custody systems and so on, and also the nature, level and status of youth crime in Canada. We are going to do all those things in the committee later this year. Therefore, I will reserve judgment on those matters until that time.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the YOA is not the cause of crime. I do not think there are any qualms about that. I know we have been accused of saying that it is the cause but that is not the case at all. There are a number of causes. I agree with the hon. member there are causes that have to be addressed. We must address the causes in any way we can. We involve the provinces, social service and every aspect we can.

When we are trying to eliminate the causes and are doing a good job and somebody crosses the line and breaks the law anyway by committing murder, we say that the YOA is not doing its job of performing justice. The word justice is missing from our system in a number of ways.

I received 15,000 letters in one day that I will be delivering soon to the Minister of Justice. There are another 5,000 to 6,000 letters that I received in my riding and in Ottawa. I am sure every member has received letters that ask us to do something about young offenders. The government continually sits over there saying that it is all right, that Canadians like what they are doing, and that the act is good. That is baloney.

When will the government recognize what people are saying out there? It should pay attention to Canadians. The Young Offenders Act is not satisfactory to Canadians. Why does the government continually deny that? I know the member receives the same letters I do.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his remarks I thought my good friend from Wild Rose was more or less agreeing with me. However at the end of his remarks I knew that he was not.

He asked a question and it is a serious question: What do we do with an a young person who commits a serious crime of violence after all has been done to prevent crime and all has been done to direct our attention to the causes of crime? Of course the individual has to be sent to secure custody. In some cases we would probably send him to adult court and to adult prison if the case is serious enough. The law provides for that and I support that.

However let us remember that justice in my view means protecting the public. It does not mean revenge. It does not mean an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

In our system the overwhelming majority of youth as well as adults who are convicted will be sent back to society. If we are really concerned with protecting the public, which I believe is the purpose of the justice system, we must do everything possible with an individual in our control to rehabilitate the person and to make sure that when the person returns to society he or she will be a safer risk for society. We are not going to keep that person in prison until he or she dies. We do not have

capital punishment. We are going to release the individual sooner or later, whether it is five years, seven years or ten years.

The hon. member asked what we should do. Yes, we should keep the person in custody if the person is a young violent offender. However we should work on the individual to give him or her a sense of worth, to give him or her a trade or an education, to make sure the person knows how to deal with the problems of life when released from prison, to make sure the person has contacts with family if there is family, and so on. We should build up a situation so that the person returns to society a better risk than when he or she entered the prison system.

That is what I believe. I believe in protecting society. We must dedicate our resources when the person is in secure custody or open custody to doing everything possible to rehabilitate the young person so that he or she will be better off upon return to society.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding was that during questions and comments we would rotate between the established parties present. I am wondering whether or not that is the practice.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My practice is to give the opportunity to an opposing party of the member speaking unless there is nobody rising from an opposing party. In my experience powder-puff questions tend to be put by a member of the same party.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with that. Powder-puff has been here today.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I hate to say this but I take exception to your statement about my question being a powder-puff type of question. I had a comment to make on the bill. I think the point you made should be retracted.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The comment was not addressed to the particular member. It was addressed to members in all parties in all situations.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this will not be powder-puff.

The hon. member talked about not blaming the Reform Party and not blaming him. I do not think that is the case at all. After all he is only a one-one hundred and seventy-seventh part of the problem.

There is no misleading the public at all. There is a genuine concern for law-abiding Canadian citizens. My hon. colleague read demographics and statistics from various documents. He quoted the John Howard Society. I would like to quote a few items from Victims of Violence that has a big stake in the bill.

According to Victims of Violence youth crime is up 117 per cent since the Young Offenders Act took effect in 1984: 25 youth committed first degree murder in 1990, 23 youth committed second degree murder in 1990 and 6 youth committed manslaughter in 1990.

I suspect the member would say that is not very many. However the fact is that there are strings of victims in the wake of what is going on here. When one crosses the line, as the hon. member for Wild Rose has said, there must be an act in place to effectively look after that.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this question. If he looked at the statistics from Victims of Violence, would he not agree that the tougher the measures for those who cross the line the better and more effective the fixing of the problem would be rather than looking at it from his perspective which is in my opinion is powder-puff?

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the statistics I referred to come from the Canadian Centre for Justice. We had the Victims of Violence group before us in the committee. I do not know from where it got its figures.

There is no doubt there are still some serious crimes in the country. I deny that there has been an increase in violent crime among youth over the years. When we look at the statistics from the police and from the Centre for Justice statistics they show that is not the case.

Despite that I sympathize with the public that is seriously concerned with youth crime, whatever there is. He asked if it was not better, once they crossed the line and committed serious offences, to have tougher measures.

I do not agree with that and I will tell the member why. I do not agree with it because it does not work. They are doing it in the southern United States: three strikes out and you are an outlaw. They have a much higher rate of crime than we have in Canada.

The southeastern state of the United States have brought back capital punishment and have mandatory sentencing. They execute somebody in the morning and they have three or four murders in the afternoon. The countries doing exactly what the member is suggesting have the worst rates of violent crime in the western world.

What the member is suggesting has led to no improvement in the situation. That is why I am not for it. A much better approach is the approach being used in western Europe in countries like Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, et cetera, and in Canada to a certain extent. It is to concentrate on the causes of crime, to concentrate on rehabilitation and correction, and not simply on harsh, hard, long penalties that do not protect the public. If they did protect the public we would be able to walk the streets freely in Miami, Dallas, New Orleans

and many other cities which we cannot do simply because they are doing what the member suggests.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my thoughts and concerns on the Young Offenders Act and Bill C-37 to the debate.

I would like to begin by sharing a letter from a constituent who writes:

Last week my neighbour's son was physically assaulted in the hallways of his high school, not by a teacher or a fellow student but by a youth gang member who walked in off the street. The kids call him the "enforcer". Apparently my neighbour's son had asked the wrong fellow to stop spraying rocks when he spun out of the parking lot. This less than courteous driver had gang membership connections and sent for the "enforcer" to beat him up.

I realize that changing the Young Offenders Act won't solve all our problems, but it would be a very good start. All of society has to take responsibility for putting an end to violence through long term teaching and learning in our education system. We must begin to give the message that the rights of victims will be protected more than the rights of criminals. The youth of today are laughing at our judicial system.

The RCMP advised my neighbour to press charges even though he said it would take up to 18 months to go to trial and the kid would only get probation. This type of youth thinks probation is something to brag about. We need to do more than slap wrists. We have to stop this senseless violence.

Surely the government can act to change the present state of our judicial system. An overhaul is long overdue. The rights of the average law-abiding citizen of Canada need to be protected now.

As for my neighbour's son he is on a waiting list for a head scan as they feel the bone fragments in his head could cause permanent damage. The doctor said this was not a school kid fight but a serious attempt to do permanent damage. How many more young leaders of the future have to be maimed or killed before changes to our laws are made?

That sentiment is echoed by many letters. I am sure I am not the only MP to receive those types of concerns from constituents.

This one school yard incident illustrates much of what is wrong with our youth justice system today: youth gangs, physical assault, fear in the school yard, misplaced value systems, increasing levels of violence among youth, lengthy delays in our youth detention centres before going to trial and overcrowded courts, lack of respect of youth for the justice system, and inadequate penalties for repeat and violent young offenders.

When I speak about school yard violence I have to relate it to my own situation. We can all appreciate that as we grew up we were confronted with bullies. I know in my case my father said: "At some point in time you just have to stand up for yourself. The only language bullies understand is to meet force with force, or you will just keep getting pushed around".

I have a young son who will be 12 years old pretty soon. I hear in the news about young children getting stabbed at school or getting kicked in the head. I see some members opposite laughing about this. I do not understand how they find it humourous. I am very concerned about when my son will come to me for advice on what to do about bullies in the school. I do not know if I should tell him to stand up for himself against a bully who might bring a knife to school the next day and stab him or kick him to death.

Something has to change. Bill C-37 begins to address some of the problems but I do not think it goes nearly far enough. We cannot afford to tinker with our justice system. We must look at what works and what does not work. We must have the strength and the confidence to change what must be changed.

One out of every two young offenders who passes through the system will commit another offence. That is far too high. Obviously our current system is not working.

One significant problem that must be addressed is the enormous time delays between the commission of a crime and the court date. In some jurisdictions it takes from six months to a year. In Prince George it can take up to 18 months, and that is not acceptable. How can young offenders think we take their crimes or rehabilitation seriously when it takes so long to get their cases to trial? All too frequently if left at liberty youths will reoffend while they are waiting for their court appearance.

According to justice statistics in 1993-94, 9 per cent of the youth court cases dealt with young offenders who had not complied or had failed to appear for previous court dates. However, if the youth is held in a youth detention centre pending trial, they are subject to physical, mental, emotional abuse by other more violent young offenders. This is not fair either to any youth.

A lengthy stay in such an environment is not conducive to learning more socially acceptable behaviours. Eliminating trial delays must be a priority so young offenders are placed into programs appropriate for them sooner, whether community service or the so-called boot camps.

Another serious flaw of this bill is that it does not apply to 10 and 11 year olds. Child protection services in most provinces do not have the resources to meet the needs of every child they know is at risk of criminal activity. They know once the youth is finally arrested at age 12, additional resources might be available within the young offender system.

According to a preliminary study on youth gang activity done for the Solicitor General, gangs are recruiting young children to transport drugs, break into houses and rob commercial property. Children under 12 are re-enacting the violent behaviour of older juvenile delinquents in the school yard. Twelve is obviously too late.

We must get these children into the system earlier, giving them appropriate counselling, structure and values before they become set in their criminal ways. They must learn as early as possible there are always consequences for one's actions, if you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time.

Our justice system needs to distinguish between young, first time offenders who commit minor crimes and those who engage in habitual or violent criminal behaviour. Everyone deserves a fair chance to mend their ways, to learn responsibility, accountability and a new sense of purpose.

Many of these first time offenders are trapped in dysfunctional or abusive families. Some are poor or have learning disabilities. They have low self-esteem and are looking for a way out of their cage. Some turn to a youth gang for security. They steal something to boost their own confidence, to impress their peers or simply because they are looking for help.

Our youth justice system must recognize these kids and provide them with a sentence appropriate to their needs to guide them back to the straight and narrow. That does not mean we allow them to blame their background or society for their actions. It does not mean we put them into counselling and ignore their crime.

The first step on the path to becoming a responsible citizen is to accept responsibility for one's own actions. They must be held accountable. If they are sentenced to open custody, part of that sentence must entail reparations for the damage they have done. In some cases it might mean picking up garbage. In others, more difficult work such as planting trees.

If they are going to be successful, community programs must be tailored to the needs and the punishment of the particular young offender. We must differentiate between those who deserve a chance with a lighter sentence and others who have repeatedly demonstrated they have no respect for our laws.

Despite what some advocates would have us believe, not all young offenders who commit non-violent property offences are harmless. Many are already habitual criminals with no moral conscience and a warped value system. They do not understand why they should respect the lives and property of other Canadians.

These youth need to know the punishment for their crimes will not be a slap on the wrist like raking leaves at the local park on weekends. These youth need a stronger reason to think twice before stealing another car. We need to strike a balance between deterrents and accountability, between punishment and rehabilitation.

Under Bill C-37 sentences for young offenders are inadequate and uncertain. It fails with respect to habitual delinquents. For property offences Bill C-37 advocates open custody. If a youth commits a property offence, the onus is now on judges to justify sending them to secured custody rather than to the community.

Currently there are not enough community programs to absorb these youths. The infrastructure is not yet in place. For property offences more emphasis has to be placed on whether the youth is a habitual offender. I do not think a bit of community work will be taken seriously by someone who openly flaunts the law on a continual basis. They should be dealt with very differently than other first time property offenders.

For violent offences Bill C-37 generally prescribes maximums rather than minimums. In the case of premeditated first degree murder a young offender is subject to a maximum six-year sentence in secured custody with an absolute maximum of ten years, including open custody.

This is a substantial improvement over the old five-year maximum but still does not go far enough. With no minimums, a young offender may still believe the sentence for murder will be a few short years. Some people do not believe longer sentences will deter youths. All I can say is ridiculously light sentences sure have not.

We need longer minimum sentences for violent young offenders so they know exactly what they will be facing when they contemplate rape, assault or murder.

When we incarcerate youths today the law says they must be provided with shelter, safety and schooling. There is also some counselling but the rest of the time they are frequently idle without constructive structure in their life.

Last summer at a justice rally in my riding one teenage girl told us that she has friends who actually look forward to detention. It was like a vacation for them with three square meals a day and no worries. They do not have to confront the reasons they are there. How can you rehabilitate a violent young offender if they do not understand there are serious consequences for breaking the law? How can they learn an acceptable value system if they view custody as a vacation?

Youth detention centres are expensive. In Alberta it has been estimated that it costs about $45,000 per year to keep a young offender. In Ontario it costs taxpayers $100,000 per youth. At least 50 per cent of all young offenders currently reoffend. For $100,000 a year Canadians have a right to expect better results.

I advocate the concept of the so-called boot camps. We do not yet have enough statistics on the various models of these camps to prove whether they are effective in all cases, but we do know

that the reoffending rate is lower for many graduates of these wilderness or outbound camps, or whatever you call them.

For many youths in these camps, it is the first time in their lives they are placed in a highly structured environment with specific tasks, responsibilities and expectations. They do not have idle time to scheme or intimidate other youths.

Just south of Prince George we have one such camp. It has been around for 23 years and has a fairly good success rate. These young offenders warm up with callisthenics and go for a four mile run before breakfast. They are assigned tasks and chores around the camp, have strict school and study regimes, and almost no idle time.

They are not doing hard labour as critics of some camps might suggest. They are in a disciplined, structured environment, designed to foster more responsible behaviour.

Just this last year Manitoba has also moved toward this style of detention for youth. In Ontario it costs half as much to send a youth to Camp DARE and they are far less likely to reoffend than if they stayed in a youth detention centre.

Another problem with this bill is that it only transfers 16 or 17 year olds who commit violent personal injury crimes to adult court. It does not deal with 16 or 17 year old habitual offenders who obviously hold the justice system in contempt.

In B.C. between April and September of last year 999 of the 1,819 youths sentenced or remanded in custody were 16 or older. They are responsible for more than half the crimes committed by youths. When it comes to 16 or 17 year olds who commit crimes, I am in complete disagreement with this bill.

I believe every 16 or 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. They know when they are committing a crime and I believe they should be treated as adults. They do not belong in the same system as a 12-year-old, nor should they expect the same treatment for their criminal behaviour. This bill provides a loophole to keep even the most violent of older offenders in the youth system. Sixteen and seventeen year olds who commit murder or violent assaults can request that they be kept in the youth system. This bill has created a whole new field for lawyers and will tie up even more valuable court time. I do not think that is right.

I was recently reading an article in Readers' Digest by Mike Royko which originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune . It illustrates the sentiments many Canadians feel toward violent criminals who rape or murder regardless of their age. I will quote a part of the article:

Judge McKay hears criminal cases in Trumball County, Ohio. Recently he had a two-legged beast in front of him who had kidnapped, robbed and repeatedly raped a 12-year old girl. When it was time to sentence the 22-year old villain Judge McKay said:

"When you slithered out of your hole that day and spewed your venom all over this defenceless girl, you made this court's top ten list of the lowest scum this country has to offer. In a way the best sentence this court could give would be no sentence at all because if you left this courtroom I don't think you would be alive 10 minutes. You are nothing but a weed among wheat. When we have a weed, it is my job to eradicate it because if I don't you will choke the wheat. Therefore I am going to take you off the streets for as long as I can".

The judge then ticked off long sentence after long sentence for each crime committed against the girl. "You won't be eligible for parole until you're 92", the judge pronounced, "that leaves only one more count, aggravated robbery. You stole this little girl's bra as a souvenir, probably to brag about it to your friends. I'm going to give you a souvenir of Trumball County justice, and that is a maximum sentence of 10 to 25 on the aggravated robbery for stealing that bra and I hope that in your last 25 years in prison you remember that souvenir. Get this scum out of here".

There are millions of Canadians across this country who are demanding that type of justice for that level of criminal. When a 17-year-old in Canada murders or rapes they should know they are going to face serious, severe consequences. Three meals a day in our current youth detention centres and time to practise more criminal skills does not cut it.

I believe inmates in adult prisons should not be idle either. Reform of the entire prison system is not the subject of this bill.

In summary, young offenders must know they will get caught, they will be convicted and they will be punished. Young offenders must know that justice will be swift and sure and they must know what to expect.

Bill C-37 is a start but our entire youth justice system must be overhauled now. It should include 10 and 11 year olds who are slipping through cracks of underfunded child protection agencies and becoming habitual criminals before the age of 12. It should recognize that all 16 and 17 year olds are responsible for their actions, not society. It is their choice to break the law.

We must commit the resources to implement and monitor programs for first time offenders. We must establish or expand highly structured and disciplined youth detention facilities and programs that teach habitual and violent young criminals respect for our values and laws.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation of my hon. colleague with a great deal of interest as he discussed Bill C-37.

One of the points that we should recall in that bill quite obviously is the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are moved over to adult court and there is only one way as I understand that piece of legislation for them to even be considered in youth court. They must prove for some reason beyond a doubt and must have

that evidence agreed to by the judge that they would be considered for youth court.

That would happen in very limited situations with extenuating circumstances. As we know also basically this new legislation would double sentences.

Further, I would like to touch on a presentation that I recently had the opportunity to attend by Dr. Fraser Mustard. The presentation indicated the research that he had done over many years. While many in this House would recognize that a few short years ago when we looked at early intervention with children we thought of kindergarten age. Today according to Dr. Mustard we are looking at a much young age. We are looking at an age as low as six months for proper nutrition, for nurturing and for assistance.

My question for my hon. colleague would be formed in this fashion. Does he not believe that community assistance and community help in addition to those changes in Bill C-37 to make penalties stiffer is certainly something that we all have to work for in order to prevent those crimes from happening and the necessity to punish our youth in the future?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his thoughts on my presentation and for his question.

I will try to address my answer to the issues he raised in the same order that he did. As to the transfer of 16 and 17 year olds under Bill C-37 to adult court, he is quite correct. The onus is on the individual, on the young offender, to apply and give reasons why he or she should be kept in youth court.

As a previous speaker noted, there is also the facility that came forward by way of an amendment when it was at committee stage where the prosecutor and the defence attorney can get together and make that decision before it comes to court. This leaves the whole thing open to exactly what we have seen in cases of plea bargaining. It is of real concern to us.

As I stated in my speech, 16 and 17 year olds should not be given that option. At 16 years old, these children know exactly what they are doing. They should know the consequences of committing that crime. Therefore there should be automatic transfer with no chance to be tried in the same youth court that would try a 12-year-old.

As far as the comment about the sentencing provisions of Bill C-37 that double the sentence, my understanding is that Bill C-37 only doubles the sentence for murder.

As I said also in my speech, the sentence goes from five to ten years. I personally believe that for first degree murder, 10 years is not long enough. It certainly is not when one looks at the maximum. It can be six years in closed confinement and four years in open.

As to the comment about the community service, certainly I support that concept. I referred to it in my speech as well. We have to have all the forces that can be brought into play. That is not the answer in all cases.

The wilderness camps are not the answer either. Closed confinement is not the answer for everyone. We have to look at a wide range. However, the concern that members are hearing from Reformers is that there are those individuals out there who constantly flaunt the law.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with a case of three young offenders last spring in Edmonton who broke into a young family's home. They knew the family was at home. The young mother woke up and disturbed their burglary. They could have ran. She was no threat to them. However they had absolutely no respect for law or even for human life. They cold bloodedly murdered her. They stabbed her to death.

That is why Reformers say we have to get tough with these people. We have to send a message that our society is not going to condone that type of behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to take part in this debate; I especially did not wish to comment on the hon. member's speech. However, given the well-known difference between his way of thinking and the mentality in Quebec, I feel compelled to speak up.

The way I view these matters is far removed from that of the Reformers. To listen to the hon. member, one would think that young people are the very scourge of society. One would think that young people 18 years of age or younger are truly responsible for the majority of crimes or that crime is increasing because of 18 year olds. We need only look at the statistics. I am a Bloc member and I will use statistics from Justice Canada: we see that the average number of persons under 18 years of age suspected of homicide has dropped considerably in recent years as compared with the 1970s.

Since the 1970s, I believe that the number of serious and abhorrent crimes committed by young offenders has decreased. There are of course the tabloids-the type of newspaper Reformers probably read-which report and in fact highlight such serious crimes. Yet that is not a true representation of what is happening in Canadian society, especially in QUebec.

Would the hon. member please say whether, in his own province at least, the present young offenders act is enforced in the spirit of its objective? Specifically, the act states that "the protection of society. . . is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth". This objective is served by rehabilitating young persons whenever possible. In his own province, is

the act enforced with this objective in mind at least? Is there a system to rehabilitate and reintegrate these young people? It is fine to criticize, but are the minimum instruments in place to help reintegrate these young people into society? I think not.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be granted as much time as was granted my hon. colleague who just rose with his comments.

I have a couple of comments. The hon. member from the Bloc finds himself a thousand miles away from Reform thinking. That is very obvious and all I can say is thank goodness for that.

The hon. member likes to quote statistics. I notice that most members seem to be using statistics that support their case. I guess we will continue to do that as long as this debate lasts.

I am referring to the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics which say: "Since 1992-93 the number of property cases has decreased by 5 per cent"-this is referring to young offenders' statistics-"while the numbers of cases in all other offence categories have either increased or remained near the same level. The number of cases involving violence has increased by 8 per cent".

We can all quote statistics. We can all say the problem is getting worse or better, depending on what side of the House we are on and what side of the argument we are on.

The point I would make to the hon. member is this. The people who are demanding justice the loudest are the children themselves, the good kids. We tend to forget that. Some seem to think that if Reformers get up and say that we have to get serious with these young offenders that we are somehow attacking youth.

We are trying to defend the youth who are the good citizens, the model citizens, the ones who are afraid to go to school, scared to walk down the street after dark because they could be attacked by some gang because the gang is not being properly dealt with by the system. The system is failing these young people.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to join in this debate on such an important issue as the well thought out and timely amendments to the Young Offenders Act that have been proposed by the Minister of Justice.

The issue of youth crime and youth in general has been a part of the Canadian political scene since the passage of the Juvenile Delinquency Act in 1908. It was completely overhauled in the mid-1980s and replaced by the current Young Offenders Act which has gone unamended since its initial passage.

The government made certain commitments and promises during the election campaign. It promised to move on this specific issue. As a matter of fact it was a promise instrumental in my election to Parliament. Once again we have delivered as we have on so many other issues. Even the media has praised us for our efforts and I admire them for doing so.

Let me quote an article by an Ottawa reporter. "The Tories talked tough on law and order, but the Liberals have acted" says Sean Dirkan of the Ottawa Sun . ``Jean Chrétien's red book brigade have introduced more tough law and order legislation in a little under nine months in office than the Tories did during nine years in power''.

He points to measures introduced by the Minister of Justice and by the Solicitor General, measures such as amendments to the Young Offenders Act, sentencing reform, a crackdown on child sex offenders and reform to the correctional and parole systems. It goes on and on.

This legislation does not stand alone, nor should it stand alone. It will no doubt have an important impact on various other portfolios. Not unlike a car engine, all cylinders must work together, one province co-operating with the other, all levels of government and political parties working together in harmony to achieve this very important goal.

The most important player is the family unit. That is where it all begins.

Several months ago my family had a frightening experience with a group of youths at the exhibition grounds in Toronto. Since that time I have urged the Minister of Justice to act swiftly to bring forward changes to the Young Offenders Act so that we can once again make our streets safe for ourselves and for our children.

Since my election to the House I have had the opportunity to speak with many of my constituents regarding this legislation. One common theme that has consistently been raised is that the crime situation has grown out of control in general and among youths in particular.

Although the crime rate has not increased according to Statistics Canada, it is the seriousness of youth crime which has been amplified both in the media and by the Reform Party specifically.

A recent article in the Globe and Mail stated:

No longer are students simply breaking windows and stealing from corner stores, rather they are breaking into cars and carrying weapons to school.

In the city of Scarborough, school board officials have recently noted that prior to the implementation of the board's zero tolerance policy they were finding 25 weapons a month, of which half were strictly possession for self-defence and the other 50 per cent were used to intimidate, scare and assault. I

find that very disturbing. Our children attend schools for educational and intellectual stimulation, not to intimidate or assault. They should be taking pens, pencils, books and calculators to classrooms, not guns and knives.

The government's real interest is in attacking the roots of youth crime, getting at the circumstances that breed crime, learning why youths have committed those crimes and ensuring that they do not happen again so as to stop the next generation of potential criminals. These circumstances include child poverty, youth unemployment, inadequate day care and insufficient counselling for high risk families and children before they fall into a criminal pattern. We must attack those roots and prevent criminal behaviour before it starts.

The 12th report of the standing committee on justice released in 1993 stated that we must attack the roots of crime, including unemployment, physical and sexual abuse and neglect, illiteracy, low self-esteem, substance abuse, glorification of violence in film, video and television, school failure, dysfunctional families and inequality.

This is not to say that we should ignore or simply pardon crimes committed by youth, who unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond their control, have violated. Youth must be held accountable. They must learn to be accountable for their actions. If they violate societal rules they should be punished. They must learn at an early age to be respectful, responsible and accountable. It is at this stage that the family plays a vital role.

We must go beyond punishment. We must rehabilitate those who break the law and that is what this legislation also does. It provides for the punishment of violators while recognizing that the most successful treatment for young offenders is not only punishment, but rather to both punish and rehabilitate so that the offender will learn that it is wrong to commit a crime, know why it is wrong and will not reoffend.

The onus to reduce crime is not just on the government to bring in and amend legislation. The onus is also on the participants of society. The family is paramount in helping to alleviate the problem of youth crime. This is the first line of defence. It is here that youth receive their earliest level of socialization and they are taught right from wrong.

The onus also falls on our educational system and our educators. They must step forward and show leadership and compassionate guidance, become once again role models for their students and motivate and encourage them to become nothing but the best. But the school system must also have the opportunity to function in an environment that is free from fear.

The onus also falls on our police forces to properly carry out the law. If we are going to ask them to provide and improve their performance, to take a leading role in crime prevention without seriously jeopardizing their lives, we have an obligation to provide the proper resources so they may be able to serve and protect the public.

The onus also falls greatly on the CRTC in the type of programs that are easily and readily available which so much influence our youth of today. I have an article here from the Toronto Sun about Jamie Taylor and Mark Williams who became murderers at age 17.

It states here how Jamie Taylor grew up as an abused and neglected child. When he was three Jamie was rushed to hospital after his step father severely beat him with a curtain rod. Since the age of 12 he had no supervision. He did whatever he wanted. His mother often disappeared for a month at a time without checking in on him. Jamie grew up watching macho man destructo movies, playing war games, embracing the very tough image. That was his way of having a leading role.

We also know of a case in the U.K. in which a youth watching a video took an axe and seriously injured the child he was baby sitting. We can see here how constant bombardment of this nature not only can but does influence people's minds and behaviours.

When we do apprehend, convict and incarcerate these people, let us ask ourselves is the problem solved? I do not think so. This is what I mean. Mark Williams has had virtually no treatment in six years. He has seen his case worker four times, less than once a year. Mark also states how he has had to rehabilitate himself. Is the system helping in any way to prepare this person to re-enter society? I do not think so. I am very worried because his parole comes up in 1998.

I have stated in the past that I would make the parole request contingent upon successful completion of a rehabilitation program so that the risk of reoffending can be if not eliminated, greatly minimized.

It has been said many times by many people and deserves repeating once again that our youth are Canada's future. However, it has been said recently this is the first generation that will not have a higher standard of living than its parents. For me that is truly a tragedy.

Youth should be a time of bright optimism. Today our youth find themselves facing problems that are not of their own making. Unemployment for youth is at an all time high. We are in an economy grown weak by constant tinkering, a political situation that to many seems to defy solutions, an economy weakened by constant talk of separation which has brought nothing but instability. We hear of investors in companies hesitating to expand and invest because they do not know if Quebec will be in or out tomorrow.

It is no wonder that our youth live in a perpetual sense of pessimism. I think it is time to move away from political rhetoric to concentrate on economic renewal, development and job creation for our youth.

We must work together to turn this sense of hopelessness around. We must encourage our youth to stay in school, complete their studies and become valuable members of our community. We as a government have initiated programs to do just that. However, our government or any government cannot do it alone.

In partnership with the other players in society, the businesses, the educators, the community groups as well as members of the opposition parties, we must work together to achieve this goal of eliminating youth crime.

Some of the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act such as doubling the sentences for those convicted of first and second degree murder go a long way in doing so. Also, victim impact statements would be allowed where victims, should they wish, would now have the opportunity to make a statement about how a young offender's crime has affected them. I believe this will certainly go a long way in helping the courts to see the broader picture in imposing proper sentences.

With respect to medical and psychological assessments, we will with these amendments give the courts the authority to request assessments be done on chronic and serious young offenders without having to request consent from the offender.

Through these amendments we have also established an information sharing system which I believe is very important. Records and information would be shared and would also allow the release of information of young offenders to affected members of the public where there might be a risk to them in the entire community. This information would be shared among professionals, for example between the police, school officials, child welfare agencies, day care centres, et cetera.

Again, we can see here that this will help minimize the risk and we will add more protection for all. Most important, with these new amendments the young offender who was charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated and sexual assault will now automatically be transferred to adult court.

This is a very important step because the onus here will now be on the youth to prove that they should be tried in the youth court as opposed to adult court. We can see therefore that all these amendments go a long way in sending a strong message that crime at any level will and can no longer be tolerated.

In conclusion, we can clearly see that these changes, some of which I have mentioned, are a step in the right direct so as to help our youth get started in the right direction and send a strong message that violence will no longer be tolerated.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear government members speak on bills like Bill C-37.

The bill on young offenders was hotly discussed in Quebec. I would like the member to tell me whether Bill C-37 reflects the opinion of the Quebecers who spoke before the justice committee. Their message to summarize it in very clear terms, was "do not touch the Young Offenders Act". The act is only good if each province enforces it and, to the best of our knowledge, Quebec enforces it the most. The provinces that say the Young Offenders Act is no good are those that do not enforce it.

Is the government member aware of that and will he tell me whether Quebec's demands are respected in the government's proposed amendments to Bill C-37? Perhaps Quebec's reaction to the Young Offenders Act is an example of its distinct character.

Will the member tell me whether the amendments to the bill contain changes to meet Quebec's demands?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. In our red book commitment when we looked at this issue we did not try to look at B.C.'s, Quebec's or Ontario's interest. We tried to look after Canada's interest because it is Canada's youth. It is not Quebec's youth, not Ontario's youth, not B.C.'s youth.

It is an overall picture that we are looking at here. I believe the members from the Bloc Quebecois and the members from the Reform Party should learn to put our differences aside for a moment and work on streamlining these amendments together collectively to bring forward the proper amendments, to send the right kind of message as a united force that violence will no longer be tolerated whether it be youth in Quebec, Ontario or anywhere in the country.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member I would like to say how much I appreciate his family values and the importance and emphasis he puts on schools and the function that they have to perform. I compliment him on his speech in that manner. He did a very good job.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on something that crosses my mind when we talk about what we are going to do with regard to these problems. Over the course of the last 20 or 25 years or whatever we talked about causes. The causes, we have to search them out.

I remember the drinking age being 21 and how that was lowered. That simply meant that it was lowered even lower than the illegal drinking age. Instead of 18 and 19 year olds illegally drinking, now it is 14, 15 and 13 year olds.

I think of pornography. There was a time we did not have any. Now it is running rampant. We have a lady in Alberta who is fighting hard to get rid of pornography, peep shows, nude dancing, all these things which we know contribute to the minds of our youth in a very negative way. It is a cause.

If you walked down the street and called a policeman a pig when you were a young man, what would happen? You would not do it out of fear, but more so out of respect. Now it is common practice. Yet there is no recourse, no way in the world that they are supposed to do any thing. We do not meet violence with violence. We listen to all of this bad mouthing-causes.

It seems like every time I address it the one thing that comes up is a wall that is put in front of me. If we want to do something about these causes, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that stops us so many times. When we decide we want to do something about a problem we have to remember the rights. I think it is a hindrance in our judicial system in that regard with young offenders.

Would the hon. member comment on that?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As much as I would like to agree with him, I cannot. In any civilized society we need to have a basis to function around. We need a charter. We need rules and regulations. Sometimes we do not agree with them. We need obviously rules and regulations to protect us.

There have been times when people abuse these rights. I am not disagreeing with that. This is why the Minister of Justice is taking the initiative to bring forth changes. I am not saying that these changes are going to solve our problem. As we know there is ongoing consultation. The justice committee has not finished its work. It will continue.

We have often heard the saying that Rome was not built overnight. The minister cannot bring forth an amendment that will solve every one of our problems. This is a step in the right direction.

I certainly would hope that the justice committee would continue to look at the situation, monitor it and make continuous recommendations. Hopefully as time goes on we will make new changes, new amendments that will hopefully improve the system and make it safer for ourselves and our children.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend the hon. member for his speech. I enjoyed it very much. It is that kind of attitude that certainly we can work with on this side.

There are some things that the government can do and there are other things it cannot do to help people out. My hon. colleague from Wild Rose mentioned this point. We have a problem with pornography and these other things which eat away at the moral fibre of our society, in particular the moral fibre of our young people.

Would the hon. member be prepared to support the elimination of pornography, pass laws that would do away with peep shows where people for a fee can come in and watch girls dancing and gyrating on the other side naked? Would he be prepared to pass laws to support the elimination of naked dancing in bars and lap dancing? Would the member be prepared to support legislation, initiate legislation, on the government side to eliminate this kind of conduct that has such a terrible, negative-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has about a minute.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his warm comments about my presentation. I campaigned on family values. I tried to reflect that in my presentation.

I personally do not approve of pornography, especially child pornography, and I certainly would like to see the elimination of child pornography and see people who engage in that type of pornography harshly penalized.

This legislation is not one that addresses this specific concern. I know there are proposals to address these concerns. I hope that the quicker we bring them forth the cleaner and safer our society will be.

There are so many justice issues that we have to address it would be unfair to spread ourselves too thin. We are attacking one specific issue and that is the Young Offenders Act in this debate.

I certainly hope that the other issues, as the member has stated, come forth as soon as possible so that we can address them with the thrust with which we are addressing this Young Offenders Act. As I stated earlier, I think this is a step in the right direction. I believe there is room in the future, but again, let us not prejudge our youth. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt.

In the future I would be very happy to work in the area of eliminating pornography.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.