Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I have had a lot of feedback from my riding that people are very dissatisfied with the way the Young Offenders Act works at present. I know from the feedback I am getting that they are also dissatisfied that the provisions of the bill do not go nearly far enough.
I conducted an electronic referendum on the Young Offenders Act, the first of its type, certainly in North America, during last year. I would like to cover a few of its results which fortify the belief that this bill does not go far enough.
I would like to cover a bit of the background on the Young Offenders Act so we know what we are talking about. The Young Offenders Act, Bill C-61 at the time, was passed in 1984, replacing the 76-year old Juvenile Deliquents Act of 1908. It had been around for a long time and it was generally recognized to be out of date and overly rigid.
Shortly after its passage the Young Offenders Act was also found to be somewhat rigid in certain aspects. Therefore, in 1986 Bill C-106 was passed, making changes to the sections of the Young Offenders Act dealing with the short term incarceration of juveniles awaiting preliminary hearings, the compilation and disclosure of criminal records of young offenders, and some other aspects of the law. Sentencing rules for first and second degree murder were toughened in 1992 by Bill C-12.
The government of the day carried out a poll in 1991 when it had made some changes to the Young Offenders Act in early 1990. The poll question asked: "The federal government has recently introduced legislation which would increase the sentences received by young offenders, 18 years or younger who commit crimes like murder. Do you approve or disagree with this legislation?" The results were remarkable. Eighty-eight to 90 per cent of the people polled felt that the sentences were not nearly tough enough.
I still see the same sort of result coming today from the referendum that I held in my riding. In answer to the question of whether there should be automatic transfer to adult court for serious crimes such as murder, over 95 per cent of the 5,500 people who responded said yes. To the question of whether there
should be a special category in the Young Offenders Act for repeat and dangerous offenders, 97 per cent answered yes. There is a sense in the community that people are not safe under the present Young Offenders Act.
My office is in a building that has a McDonald's on the bottom floor, and often a crowd of young people gather there on the weekends. Sometimes graffiti, urine and other things appear over the weekend. I have spoken to the RCMP about it, as have many people who live in the area. The police seem to be very limited in their ability to deal with the situation.
The residents who live in the area are very upset that nothing gets done. They see the police arrive to try to break up minor fights and so on and they hear these young offenders telling the police to f-off and get out of there. It has reached the stage that if the average person on the street witnesses a youth crime and tries to do something about it by calling the police, the whole exercise will turn out to be totally unsatisfactory for everyone involved; for the person who reported it, for the police, and for the people who had the damage done to their property. The only person who seems to get off scot free is this young offender who gets released right away and does not seem to have to pay any penalty for what he or she did.
In a semi-famous case that was printed in our local newspaper, I recently had the mother of a young offender come to my office. Shortly after arriving she burst into tears. She could hardly tell me the story. She had a son who was a young offender. He was a repeat offender. She had pleaded with judges. She had pleaded with people to get tough on this young guy and give him a sentence.
Unfortunately it seemed this kid was constantly given another chance. His crimes progressively got worse. Finally he was picked up on a series of break and enter charges and minor assault. The mother decided this time she would not bail him out; she would not do anything to get him out. She begged that he be put in jail. Of course a lawyer was engaged to defend the young man when he appeared in the courts. He was let out right away.
The first thing he did was to set fire to his family home. That same evening he burned down the family home because his mother had stood up and said something has to be done about this young man. The next day he was back in our local area serving pizzas as usual.
It is a pretty bad situation to have that going on in our society. The people in my riding certainly feel this bill is not going to address those sorts of problems.
I go back to the referendum that was held in my riding. It was one of the biggest samples ever taken on this issue. Over 7,000 votes were cast. We provided a very comprehensive householder. I know I cannot use props in the House so I cannot hold it up for everyone to see.
We set out the background of the Young Offenders Act in the householder and gave both sides of the argument. We quoted from a speech that the Minister of Justice made in a debate on March 17, 1994:
-the act substantially has been a success and that in principle it is the right approach. I am certain improvements are needed but I am equally certain this process will result in a confirmation of the enlightened approach which the Young Offenders Act contemplates.
That is not what the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police think. In its 1994 response to the Department of Justice report "Toward Safer Communities" we get the quote: "It is our view that the Young Offenders Act requires amendment in many areas and a piecemeal approach will prove ineffective. A comprehensive approach, which includes not only legislative change but also functional changes, is fundamental to addressing the problems of troubled youth".
I have a quotation from the working paper on the victims of violence with respect to the Young Offenders Act. It was also included in my householder: "Instead of becoming more responsible for their behaviour, young offenders are hiding behind the act. Society's right to protection from illegal behaviour has been eroded to the point that nothing short of a major shake-up of the Young Offenders Act will regain its confidence". That is absolutely true.
I have mentioned before in the House that I have gone into the schools in my area and we have discussed the Young Offenders Act. I have asked the young people there what they think of the Young Offenders Act. They think it is a sham. Many of the young people in the schools are afraid of it because it does not protect them from the gang violence that occurs in society.
I said to one young class: "Are you sure you are not just making this judgment that the Young Offenders Act is not working based on the hysteria in the community, that really you do not know what is in it and you are just making an emotional judgment?" Those hands went up again. About 35 out of 37 students in the class said: "No, it is not an emotional decision. We know what happens with the Young Offenders Act. We know how these gang members get off. We want something done about it".
Within the referendum that was held in my riding we had a separate electronic referendum for students. They too confirmed by over 95 per cent that they wanted the Young Offenders Act dramatically revised.
I do not think there is any question that the rate of youths charged with violent crimes per 100,000 population has increased dramatically since 1986. The rate of youths charged
with violent crimes has increased by an average of 14 per cent annually.
During this time the rate of adults charged with violent crimes increased only an average of 7 per cent. Therefore youth crime of a violent nature has really accelerated away from those that are happening at the adult level. This has to be because there is no deterrent in the present Young Offenders Act. Young people can do practically anything they want.
I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not give us what we really need to make a difference. I hope that eventually the minister will see the light, change his mind and bring in some tough provisions.
Besides all that, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if the GST was not gone in one year and she still has not done it.