Debates of Nov. 5th, 1997

Parenting Arrangements

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question on the motion before the House is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed deferred until Tuesday, November 18, 1997, at the end of the period reserved for Government Orders.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rose earlier to ask a question and when you announced we were resuming debate I thought a member opposite was going to speak before me. Then you informed us of the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment. After that you sat down and the clerk announced that we were going to debate another bill. I wish to inform the Chair that I still had something to say on the previous motion, which is why I rose.

I would like to know if it was my turn to speak on the motion dealing with child custody, or if it was the turn of the hon. member opposite.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must tell the hon. member I did not see him at that moment. With the House's consent, we can resume the debate.

Does the House gives its unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could you also tell me whether I have 20 or 10 minutes, as I am unsure where I stand in the order of things on this?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

You have 20 minutes.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also thank hon. members for allowing me to address this motion. Sometimes, there are issues in this House about which we care deeply.

For the benefit of those who just joined us, in the House and at home, allow me to point out that we are addressing a motion on custody and access arrangements after separation or divorce.

The motion, in part, reads as follows:

—to examine and analyze issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular—

—and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests;

You will understand that this motion is of great concern to us in the Bloc Quebecois. The subject of children strikes a chord. We believe—not only do we believe, but it is a legislative fact—that the education of children is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Separation is a provincial matter as well.

Going further, to divorce, which is federal, application of custody rights come under the Civil Code of Quebec. Allow me to point this out very loudly and very indignantly.

When the federal government decides to strike a committee to examine a question, I have never seen it—in my short experience at any rate—spend time addressing a subject and then come up empty, saying “Oh no, we are not going to deal with that any longer”.

Why, when writing these lines, this motion, did the minister or ministers concerned not say “That's not really our jurisdiction. We have no business messing about where we don't belong. There are provisions already in place”.

They say that the purpose of this is to clarify things for people.

I would just like to address the comment by the Reform member who has just said that this issue merits examination because children undergo great upheaval at the time of separation. Yes, I can imagine. It is precisely to avoid having both a provincial and federal inspector looking into the welfare of the child. I do not want to see any more battles over who is in charge of what, jurisdictional squabbles between the province and the federal level when parents separate, ending up with the children having two sets of people concerned with their well-being, looking into their case. It is all the more confusing when the children are already the victims of a problem between their parents, children who are undergoing the emotional shock parental separation or divorce can represent.

The wording of the motion embraces—a fancy word—areas under of provincial jurisdiction just a little too much. The word “embraces” may be rather inappropriate when used in connection with divorce or separation, but it is important to point out that what this committee wants to examine embraces areas under provincial jurisdiction too much.

I have already said this, but it bears repeating. The mechanisms for implementing custody and visitation in the case of a separation in Quebec come under the Civil Code. Child rearing comes under parental authority, and when it involves the education system, under the province.

The strangest part of the motion is the tail end—and I would say that it is scary—as it refers to an approach that will focus on the responsibilities of each parent to assess the children's true needs.

This approach focusses on the responsibilities of each parent, on the needs of the children and their best interests at the time agreement is reached on their education. If education is a provincial matter, what business do they have sticking their noses in this?

[An hon. member]

Meddling.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Yes, meddling. I thank the hon. member opposite. Sometimes you have to grab their attention.

I think this is inexcusable intrusion by the federal government in family matters. I recognize that the federal government wants to get involved in a relationship where the family is on its last legs, but this means going into the bedroom after the parties have left it. It means going into the parents' bedroom to see if the parents are making the right decision on the education of their children. I find that outrageous.

For the benefit of members from other regions besides Quebec, I would like to mention certain elements of Quebec legislation.

In the past year, Quebec has passed two laws. I will identify them and then we will discuss them a bit. The first is a model for setting support payments. It has in effect since May 1997 and reflects the importance Quebec accords its children. The second concerns family mediation and has been in effect since September 1997.

What does this mean? It means that Quebec looks after parents who are separating or divorcing. The model for setting support payments takes the incomes of both parents into account along with custody time. A formula and a guide for setting the amount of support are also available for the parents, mediators, lawyers and the courts. It is already set up. Family mediation is a new program allowing couples with children to agree at no cost on issues such as custody, visiting rights, child support and the division of assets in every judicial district.

The important thing in all this is that people are doing something. I see some movement across the floor. Members opposite are waking up, finally. Some are even laughing at me. It does not make sense. I realize it is getting a little late.

I want to make sure we will not let the federal government stomp all over areas under provincial jurisdiction. That is the purpose of my speech this afternoon. I want people to know that.

Moreover, I do not understand why a committee is being set up to review this issue, when everything is already in black and white. As I said earlier, I have never seen the federal government review something and then say that it does not make sense, that the government will not to come up with something.

However, I will give other members an opportunity to address this issue and I am prepared to answer questions if there are any.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question on the motion before the House is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, November 18, 1997, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

(Division deemed demanded and deferred)

Drinking Water Materials Safety Act

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has a remarkable history of collaboration and co-operation among the federal government, ten provinces and two, soon to be three, territories in the north. I say remarkable because this is a vast country, an impressive land mass of nearly 10 million square kilometres from the tip of St. John's, Newfoundland, in the east to the Queen Charlotte Islands off the coast of British Columbia in the west.

This level of agreement and working together is something most countries have come to envy and in some cases study to see how we do it. The protection of drinking water is one of our proudest co-operative achievements.

This new legislation, Bill C-14, the drinking water materials safety act demonstrates our continuing partnership with the provinces and territories and the vigilance with which we guard the health and safety of all Canadians. According to the Constitution acts of Canada, drinking water quality from the source to the tap falls under the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. The federal government however is responsible for protecting Canadians from unsafe materials that come into contact with that water along the way, from the raw water intake through the filtration plant and then through the water mains to our faucets.

The new act will help better protect drinking water by guaranteeing the safety of the materials that come into contact with that water while it is moved to the consumers.

Again we are doing this with the support of the provincial and territorial health authorities. Canada has one of the largest safest supplies of fresh water in the world. We want to keep it that way. But the quality of that water has often been threatened and in the 1990s it is falling prey to some new hazards.

A rapidly increasing population puts more pressure on the existing water supply and distribution systems. There are new concerns about the use of pesticides and chemical effluents runoff from spraying farmers' fields. In recent years there has been an alarming increase in cases of animal waste washing into municipal water systems and making many people sick. This has put provincial and municipal governments under growing pressure to safeguard their drinking water. The public at large is becoming more and more concerned about its tap water and is rightly demanding guarantees of safety.

Municipalities need to replace aging infrastructures and they need health based standards to ensure that new materials they buy are safe. In some cases costly new kinds of treatment systems are required to deal with the emerging problems such as cryptosporidium infections which cannot be eliminated by chlorination.

All of these concerns and more were cited when the provinces and territories put their support behind the drinking water materials safety act currently before this House. I cannot emphasize too strongly that the distinct federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions with respect to drinking water quality will continue to be recognized after the introduction of this bill.

In fact this bill affirms both the federal government's responsibility to provide guidance and expertise in the area of drinking water quality and the right of the provinces and the territories to define legally enforceable standards within their own areas of authority. This bill also acknowledges the federal government's role in developing water quality research in collaboration with the provinces and territories.

Responsibility for the overall quality of water that flows through the system will remain with the provinces. The federal government with this new bill will guarantee that all the materials that come in contact with our water are certified to national health based standards. We will be responsible for the regulation of drinking water materials that make up the distribution system along the way. These fall into three categories: treatment devices, treatment additives and system components.

Quite simply, drinking water materials can be anything, including products and substances, that comes in contact with our drinking water from the time it leaves the water supply until it touches our lips. That includes the chlorine added to municipal water supplies, the pipes that carry the water, right down to the filters you may attach to your faucets at home. All of these products and many others I have not mentioned will fall under this legislation.

Why do we need to do this? Because safe drinking water is an essential resource. Because Canadians expect their water to be protected. And because present federal legislation and existing voluntary compliance on water materials safety are inadequate.

I know that just moments ago I was boasting about our enviable supply of safe drinking water. Indeed we have some of the best drinking water in the world. This is partly a fortunate circumstance of history and geography.

But the ongoing protection of our fresh water is no accident. In partnership with the provinces and territories, we have spent years developing the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. Since 1968 Canada has published these guidelines for safe drinking water. They recommend maximum levels of many chemicals, micro-organisms and radioactive substances. We are pleased to note that the sixth edition of these important and respected guidelines was published last fall.

These guidelines serve as the basis for drinking water quality enforcement in the provinces and territories. Alberta and Quebec have both enacted water quality regulations based on these guidelines. Other provinces are enforcing them through their own provincial mechanisms.

This partnership has been working extremely well but we must do more. These guidelines do not have the added weight of being federal law. The provinces and territories have asked us for that added leverage in protecting drinking water materials right across Canada.

This bill will ensure that drinking water materials are certified to health based standards enforced by law. They will give Canadians better control over potentially hazardous drinking water materials that could contaminate drinking water.

Home water filters are a good example. There are many of these products available to consumers at every hardware store, department store and shopping mall.

When we buy one of these filters, we have no guarantee that it will do what the maker claims, which is to improve the quality of drinking water.

In fact we know that while many of these products are reliable, a full 50% would fail a health based test. This is a growing industry. There are false health and safety claims being made and consumers do not always have the means to compare one product against another. This bill will allow direct comparison based on the same standards tests. These devices are just one area of concern.

There is the sale of chemicals of uncertified quality to water treatment plants and the leaching of contaminants, such as lead and cadmium, from water storage and delivery systems. This bill will guarantee the quality of these chemicals and the safety of water system components.

I am also proud to say that the drinking water materials safety act will build upon the unique collaborative and co-operative working relationship Canada has enjoyed with the other jurisdictions in this country.

The Assembly of First Nations in partnership with Health Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is currently working on a project to identify solutions to assist First Nations communities in protecting and enhancing the quality of their drinking water. This project is known as the drinking water safety program for native people. Since the drinking water materials safety act is national legislation which will regulate all drinking water materials on the market in Canada, it would of course affect future purchases of material for use on Indian lands.

Ongoing discussions with provincial and territorial members of the subcommittee on drinking water indicate continued support for federal legislation to improve the safety and effectiveness of devices, additives and components. Direct consultation with the provincial departments of health also revealed strong support for this legislation.

When Health Canada crafted this legislation, its officials wanted to make sure they were not adding a layer of red tape to the existing guidelines. This proposed legislation will not duplicate or replace local and provincial plumbing codes for example. In fact it will give much needed support to the provinces in their efforts toward compliance and enforcement of these codes. Current Canadian plumbing codes do not contain health based performance standards and the vast majority, a full 70%, of plumbing materials are not certified as free from harmful contaminants. This is simply unacceptable.

Again provincial drinking water authorities have asked the federal government to act as a clearing house by guaranteeing health based standards through a process of third party certification. This bill will do that. It would be far too costly for each province to run its own separate certification program. If they did, a costly and confusing patchwork of legislation would result.

I also want to assure my colleagues that this bill will not force the provinces and territories to rip out their existing water systems and put in new ones. What it will do however is ensure that those municipalities who need to build new water distribution systems will buy safe infrastructure materials.

The provinces and territories will also find their home grown products on a level playing field, opening the door to international markets but closing the door to unscrupulous manufacturers and substandard products which right now can easily be dumped into Canada because there is no federal legislation to prevent it.

I think many members of this House and many consumers will be shocked to discover that a country like Canada has not had such a basic piece of legislation in place long before now. In fact drinking water legislation was first proposed by a Liberal government in 1983 but it is only now that the Liberals are finally in a position to make good on this commitment to protect the health of Canadians.

The public is worried about issues concerning health and the environment, such as the contamination of drinking water.

Canadians will remember this government's strong commitment to protect the health of women and children and the need to stop long term toxic pollutants from entering our water. This legislation will make good on these promises.

As I said earlier, the protection of drinking water quality is a co-operative venture in Canada, one which we can all be proud of. We have made great strides in making drinking water safer over the past century and we have done so in partnership with our many distinct regions.

I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to once again work in conjunction with our provincial and territorial constituencies. I urge members of the House to give their wholehearted support to this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we resume debate I should inform the House that the House will be moving to Private Members' Business at 5.30 p.m. The hon. member for Macleod will have two minutes and would then come back when the legislation comes forward again.

On a point of order, the hon. opposition whip.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might find the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as reading 5.30 p.m. so that rather than split up the hon. member's speech we could hear it in its entirety at the next opportunity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent to call it 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

moved that Bill C-209, an act to amend the Criminal Code (joyriding) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on a private member's bill. Private Members' Hour in the House of Commons is a special time for ordinary backbenchers. They do not have to be a member of the government. They can find an issue that is of importance not only in their community but to the country and try to convince other members in the House in a non-partisan way that it is a good idea.

I would like to take a few minutes to outline the reasons for introducing the joyriding bill, a bill I originally introduced in December of 1996 and reintroduced in this Parliament because of the ongoing problem with joyriding.

I suggest that joyriding is actually a misnomer for what is really a very serious criminal offence. At one time joyriding was equated to someone coming along and borrowing uncle Jim's car and going to a barn dance. That was called a joyride. Times were different when that section of the Criminal Code entitled joyriding was brought in.

Joyriding is no longer a joy. It is now very much a serious crime. It is not a victimless crime. It is something that causes a lot of dollar damage, a lot of social problems and unfortunately a lot of injuries and deaths.

I brought forward this bill to try to correct this, the Criminal Code amendment, because of the problem of widespread auto theft in Canada. In the city of Montreal there are 40,000 auto thefts every year. There is a total of $1.6 billion in damage and loss of vehicles in this country due to auto theft and joyriding. Most of the vehicles that are taken out for what used to be called a joyride are indeed taken, damaged and left. They are not necessarily sold for parts or anything else, just straight malicious damage, and it seems the police are having a difficult time dealing with it.

The practice of joyriding is covered under section 335 of the Criminal Code under the title “Offences Resembling Theft”. It reads:

Everyone who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated is guilty of an offence punished on summary conviction.

The problem is that this section of the law dealing with joyriders is so weak that young offenders do not even worry about it. Young offenders, underage drivers, are the most common abusers of this section of the Criminal Code. They do not do it for the money. They do not do it to sell the cars. They realize that if they get caught there will not be serious consequences. So they steal cars.

The average joyrider causes $4,000 in damage per car. That is not a joyride. That is a serious crime and a serious amount of damage to the vehicle of the unfortunate victim of this crime.

This section of the code is unfortunately tailormade for young offenders. It does not want to saddle the teenager who is out for a thrill, so it just calls it resembling theft. Unfortunately, because of the changing societal problem we have, this misnomer means that teenagers caught stealing cars do not pay a serious penalty for it.

The average young offender stealing a car in Canada receives a $100 fine. That is the median fine for car theft. The courts allow some discretion for judges. If it is your car that got ripped off with an average of $4,000 damage done to it, it is a little disturbing when the penalty does not fit the crime. A $100 fine for $4,000 average damage is out of proportion and needs to be fixed. That is why this bill is before us today.

There are 160,000 motor vehicles stolen in Canada at a total cost of $1.6 billion. There is only $3.5 million a year stolen in bank robberies. We are justifiably worried about bank robberies and take the necessary steps to make sure we call it a serious crime. This is a case of $1.6 billion in penalties and we shrug our shoulders and say boys will be boys. I do not think we should continue with that.

I say that because too much damage is done and too many innocent people are injured by so-called joyriding.

A couple of years ago my brother, a logging contractor, was going to work in the morning and found a kid on the road all covered in mud. He waved him down and asked for help. He stopped and helped the kid. He had driven off the road, down into a creek. His friend, who was in the car, had a broken back. My brother got on his cell phone and called for an ambulance and the police.

When the police arrived on the scene they said to this young guy “hi, Jim, took another car, eh?” They bundled up the poor innocent victim who was the passenger in the car. He had a broken back.

They took the other fellow down to the police station. Before my brother could get there to fill out the papers about being a witness to this event, the young man was on his way out of the police station. He waved at him and said “see you around”.

He did that every weekend. It seemed as though there was nothing the police could do. They caught the guy. They knew who he was and yet that young guy went away, shrugging his shoulders. He was an underage driver. He had almost a chronic problem with car theft. Nothing could be done. The innocent victim, his friend who came along for the joyride, ended up with a permanent lifetime disability. That is very unfortunate.

In my riding of Fraser Valley people held an auto theft awareness town hall meeting. An RCMP officer gave a presentation at that meeting. I was asked to give my point of view with respect to a Criminal Code amendment.

The RCMP officer informed us of things we could do to prevent auto theft. ICBC was there as well, our local insurance company. They also went through some of the things we could do. They told us to always lock our cars and to put an auxiliary lock on the steering wheel. They suggested an increased use of bike squads, an increased use of auxiliary police, as well as the use of crime stoppers and community patrols, such as block watch and citizen patrols. They went through all the things we could do to address the crime of auto theft.

In my home town of Chilliwack auto theft went up 90% last year. It went up 150% in Prince Rupert. Manitoba had the biggest increase in the country. It is growing exponentially.

There is a bunch of things we can do to prevent it, but the bottom line is after the patrols are done and the bike watches and other community efforts are made, and the cars are locked up, put in the garage and everything else, the net result is a 90% increase in auto theft.

The average claim in Chilliwack is $4,000. That does not count the disruption and the anxiety. I would even argue that it is a bit like the horse thievery of the old days. It is more than just the $4,000 in damages. When someone comes out in the morning, expecting to go to work, and their car is not there, the damage is more than in dollars. There is the loss of wages. There is anxiety. The family is disrupted. It is a big problem.

The RCMP officer went on to say that it is not a police problem, that it is a community problem. It is a national problem. He asked how the police could do their job when they go through all the work involved in arresting and processing the young offender and the courts fine them $100 and ask them not to do it again.

This bill would address that problem. It would give direction to the police and to the courts. My bill would make this a serious offence under the Criminal Code. It should be treated as a serious offence.

My bill would establish minimum and maximum sentences for jail terms; if not jail terms, at least there would be some way of dealing with these young offenders. They could be sent to a group home or to another appropriate facility.

This bill also stresses the fact that at times it is possible to tell parents of young offenders that they too share a responsibility.

The bill particularly addresses the idea that where it can be shown and where the judge is convinced that the negligence of a parent or guardian has contributed to the crime, then the parent or guardian would be obligated to help pay for the damage.

In other words, a young offender might have a curfew already imposed by the court with restrictions on travel or where they could be or whatever the court has imposed. The parent might say “What can you do with these young people? Jimmy steals cars and that is the way she goes”. Under the bill, if the court were convinced there was negligence it could tell the parent “Your kid has stolen a car. He was out at one in the morning, but he was told to be in at midnight. Therefore we are going to hold you responsible for some of the damages”.

I think that could give parents and guardians some second thoughts as to whether they should be negligent in their duties.

I hope people here in the House recognize the seriousness of this problem. I believe it is a national problem and one that affects not only the criminal justice system, the courts and the police, and the people who have their cars stolen, but it affects the victims of joyriding, people who are passengers, people who may be involved in a hit and run situation or someone who goes along as an innocent person in what they think is a fun trip to a show and it turns into a very serious accident. It also affects the young people themselves.

I would argue that in dealing with young offenders who are beginning a habit of breaking the law at a very young age, the kinder thing would be for our police, court system and community not to shrug our shoulders and say that is the way it goes, they are just growing up.

As a country and as a Parliament I think we have an obligation to step in and say that it is serious and we are going to step into their lives at a young age, while they can still possibly be saved from the hardened criminal life. We should get them help, let them know it is a serious problem that we also take seriously. If we could send that message clearly to young offenders, perhaps we could start the clean-up.

I think of cases in New York where they have now started to prosecute very minor crimes such as graffiti, defacing walls, breaking windows. They are starting to prosecute the small stuff because they are finding that if they look after the small stuff then people do not progress in their criminal activity to become habitual criminals.

I hope people will take this into account and I hope the minister gets a draft of the bill and of the message I am trying to send today. I hope the House of Commons will accept the idea that this has been a long time coming and it is now time to deal with it.

I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to make this a votable motion, to send it to committee for consideration at that stage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member has asked that his bill be made votable. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley has presented several amendments to section 335 of the Criminal Code which he claims will create a tougher and more effective law, one that will have a real deterrent effect on joyriding by young people. I would like to commend him for his work in this field.

However, these changes will result in a more draconian law. I would like to outline a few of the changes: a minimum penalty of six months imprisonment; a minimum fine of $1,000, with a maximum of $5,000; a provision for damages to be paid by the offender directly to the victim; a clause which would make the parents of a joyrider, if he or she is a young offender, liable for any fines or damages in certain circumstances.

As responsible parliamentarians we have an obligation to examine any change in the criminal law very carefully to determine whether tougher penalties will be effective and fair. We have a special responsibility to scrutinize any law that would impose additional imprisonment and fines on young people who come into conflict with the law. As we know, joyriding is predominantly a young persons' offence.

The question I ask is this. Is there objective evidence to show that the existing law in section 335 has failed to do the job? In order to answer that question we should examine how the courts have actually used the joyriding section.

In case I am accused of diminishing the importance of this offence, let me state for the record that I do regard joyriding as a very serious offence. In fact, I was a victim of such an offence. I know firsthand.

The involvement of a young person in the appropriation of an automobile is always a significant matter. It is all the more serious because joyriding so often results in personal injury or costly damage to property.

The problem with Bill C-209 is that its drafters have not paid sufficient attention to the way section 335 is used by prosecutors and the courts in relation to other criminal charges, in particular the offences of theft, criminal negligence and the possession of stolen property.

The hon. member suggests that there are a huge number of joyriding incidents but relatively few convictions. I will not debate the numbers but I do recommend that he look at the number of convictions for theft and possession of stolen property at the same time as he analyses the joyriding statistics. He will likely find that joyriding incidents frequently result in more serious charges or charges in addition to joyriding.

Several decades ago Parliament wisely decided that joyriding should be a distinct offence separate from the theft of a motor vehicle. The difference lies in the intention of the person who takes the vehicle. In a theft situation, the thief intends to steal a car for purposes of reselling it. Joyriding, as the name implies, is more often an impulsive act and the offender may take the vehicle for thrills rather than profit.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the distinction between theft and joyriding in a 1972 decision, stating that the joyriding offence was created in order to provide a penalty where it may be difficult or impossible to establish the offence of theft. The difference lies in the intent of the taker. The courts have said that if the intent is to merely drive a car and then return it the owner, then that is not theft but rather a separate offence.

These decisions provide the key to understanding how joyriding should be dealt with under the criminal law. If joyriding charges are not laid as often as the hon. member would like, it is because serious joyriding incidents, which result in injury to other persons or damage to the car or to other property, are often prosecuted with a charge of theft or possession of stolen property, perhaps criminal negligence, careless driving or dangerous driving.

An obvious concern arises here. Can someone who steals a car claim that he really intended to return it to the owner and therefore avoid a theft charge? The courts have provided us with the answer. Each case must stand on its own facts. For example, how long did the offenders keep the car? How far did he drive it? Did he make an effort to return it? Did he drive the car recklessly? All the circumstances must be considered.

This is what I am asking the hon. member to ponder. Rather than applying a mandatory minimum jail term in every case, why not give the courts some flexibility in structuring the penalties for the young joyrider in view of all the circumstances of the individual case?

What about the youth who has no previous record? There are so many ways to handle this problem short of sending every young joyrider to prison. A probation order for a first time offender combined with an order of restitution may be quite adequate.

I would also point out that it is unusual to see a custodial term imposed for a first offence of possession for stolen goods. I do not see why we would opt for mandatory minimum of six months jail time for a first offence here.

I also cannot understand why the hon. member wants to take sentencing out of the realm of the Young Offenders Act. The bill says, notwithstanding the Young Offenders Act, the offender is liable to a term of imprisonment. I would point out that he is also liable to imprisonment under the Young Offenders Act. Young offenders can also be forced to pay restitution. The Young Offenders Act provides all the remedies needed in conjunction with a penalty structure of the Criminal Code. Section 3 of the Young Offenders Act sets out 10 principles that apply to the sentencing of youth offenders. I quote the first principle:

Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviour in the future.

These principles should be applied so that all of the circumstances surrounding the offence, including parental involvement, can be considered.

I can see that Bill C-209 would continue to require that young offenders be tried in youth court but I cannot understand why he would want to add a notwithstanding clause that would suddenly take sentencing outside the structure of the Young Offenders Act. I have no objection to prosecutions under section 335. Joyriding is a problem in itself, aside from damage to property or personal injury that may result from it.

In the last session, the government introduced a series of amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-17, which is now chapter 18 in the Statutes of Canada, 1997. These amendments included section 335, a change that for some reason is not reflected in the hon. member's bill before us today. The amendment deals with the responsibility of occupants of the vehicle.

Young people who take cars often do so in the company of others and these passengers may be aware of their immunity from prosecution even when they clearly know that the car has been taken without the consent of the owner.

Furthermore, it is often difficult to determine who took the vehicle when several young people are involved. The new law solves this problem by making passengers liable to a charge of joyriding unless they make an effort to leave the vehicle. This amendment shows that the government does take the section of the code very seriously.

Let me give an example of how section 335 has been used. In 1991 in a Saskatchewan case, an offender took a vehicle and claimed that he was going to use it to pull another vehicle out of the mud. However, he made no attempt to restore the vehicle to its owner and the accused appeared to be responsible for the later destruction of the car in a fire. The offender received a conditional discharge combined with 18 months of probation but he was forced to pay restitution to the victim for the loss of the vehicle.

This is an example of how section 335 in combination with the restitution sections in the Criminal Code can be used to benefit the victim where property damage and loss have occurred. The amendment in Bill C-209 is not really necessary.

Let me give a quite different example. This is an Alberta case. The offender admitted to taking the vehicle for purposes of joyriding. He began driving too fast, misjudged a turn and slammed into a trailer parked on the other side of the road. Of what was he convicted? Not joyriding as the offender hoped, but rather dangerous driving, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and 10 years if there is personal injury.

Finally, I wish to comment briefly on the second part of the bill which tries to make parents responsible for fines and damages incurred by a young person who is convicted of joyriding.

This idea was examined recently by both the House of Commons committee and a federal-provincial task force on youth justice. Neither group recommended that parents be required, under the Criminal Code, to pay damages for neglecting to exercise due care. The task force did recommend that provinces develop legislation governing the civil recovery from grossly negligent parents for damages or losses arising from the criminal acts of their children.

I understand that Manitoba recently created legislation making parents civilly responsible to a limit of $5,000 where it is proven that the parents bore some responsibility for the offence. In terms of the parents actually participating in an offence, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act already contain offences of aiding and abetting.

For these reasons, I suggest that the amendments of Bill C-209 are not needed and will not improve the capacity of the criminal justice system to deter joyriding.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we return to the debate, the Chair would confirm that the member for Fraser Valley West did not receive unanimous consent to have this bill made votable. Unanimous consent was not received. This is for the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see a bill like this one being used to try to misrepresent the facts, because of a lack of understanding, exaggeration or what not. The problem is not as bad as it seems or as the member from the Reform Party made it out to be.

What does the Criminal Code provide in this respect right now? Section 322 of the Criminal Code deals with theft per se. Let us call a spade a spade. Let us call things by their rightful name. To take a vehicle with intent to use it—when there is, in legal terms, actus reus and mens rea, that is to say acting wilfully with criminal intent—it is just that, theft.

The other thing the lawmakers saw fit to add to the Criminal Code under the heading of offences resembling theft is subsection 335 (1), which the hon. member from the Reform Party would like us to amend.

What does this subsection say?

335.(1) Every one who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This is another offence which, while not being as serious as theft, is also punishable. This is the case where a young person, or an adult for that matter, decides to use an automobile or another vehicle without the owner's consent, but does not have a criminal intent, has no intent to defraud, there is no fraudulent intention, and the lawmakers leave it up to the crown to decide whether to prosecute under section 322 of the Criminal Code or under subsection 335 (1).

I think that, in a free and democratic society as ours in Canada and Quebec, it is healthy to let those who enforce the law use their head in laying charges to try to see what would be most appropriate in each case.

As the government member said earlier, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1973, however, not in 1972, handed down a clear ruling in Lafrance v. Regina to the effect that the offence as worded in section 335 (1) is not a lesser offence than ordinary theft. They created two separate offences, each with its own characteristics. The two are distinct and the crown may decide on the charge according to the circumstances of the case. This interpretation by the courts seems to show the effectiveness of the standard set by the present wording.

The amendments or speeches by Reform members I have heard sometimes seem to indicate an interest in seeing everything covered in the Criminal Code. Each situation would have its own section in the Criminal Code. The goal would be to limit the judge's discretion as much as possible. I have the impression that the Reform Party wants to see the courts turned into legal robots, heartless machines operating on the basis of sections, statistics, sometimes even stereotypes. It looks like they want to remove any possibility of discretion, of a decision based on a particular case.

In the field of justice, I learned very early on that nothing is black and white. In this field, as in many others, some things must be analyzed, and I think that judges in the existing system—if everyone does not agree with me on this, we have a big problem—have the training and the skill to analyze and judge the offence before them, which the crown has decided to prosecute under either section 322 or section 335 (1).

But the Reform member's bill goes further still. It calls for a stiffer sentence. Once again, the intention is to prevent judges from exercising their discretion, from using stiff fines to make a distinction between cases. It is true that sometimes this will be the result of a joyride, but other charges will be laid against the wrongdoer, the adolescent or young man who uses a car without the owner's consent, because damaging another person's property is also an offence. And it is the crown prosecutors who look at the facts presented to them by the police and decide which sections they will rely on in court.

There is also a major shortcoming in Bill C-209, and you will agree with me that it is another reason to reject this bill. It undermines the Young Offenders Act.

I know that when it comes to the Young Offenders Act, there is a tremendous gulf separating the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. I think we will never succeed in sharing the same views on this matter.

This is what I concluded when we studied the Young Offenders Act last year. With Bill C-209, an attempt is made to quietly uproot powers in the Young Offenders Act, namely a part of that act relating to the application of section 335(1) of the Criminal Code. There is an attempt to increase the penalties for this offence.

Let it be clear, I do not want to minimize that. I think that presently the Criminal Code includes all the necessary tools for the administration of justice, provided of course that the courts apply it properly. I have every reason to believe that today the courts are applying properly sections 322 and 335(1) of the Criminal Code.

There is another reason why we should reject this bill—this will my last point—and it concerns parental responsibility. In fact, I remember when I was 15 or 16, I was attracted to cars. Are not all young people at that age attracted to cars? I am not saying that I stole cars, I am not saying that I used cars without my parents' consent, but I was nevertheless attracted to cars, especially in a county like Berthier—Montcalm. Berthierville is in that county, and with the Villeneuves, it is natural down there to be attracted to cars.

Can it be said that parents are negligent if one day a child sees a car with its keys, and, without thinking, gets in the car, takes a ride and brings it back to the parking lot where he took it. On a whim, the young person used a car. Does this make that child a criminal?

I know that the members of the Reform Party would want that child to be called a criminal, but I tell you that is not the case. That child, on a whim, used a vehicle. In such a situation, the crown attorney can at his discretion decide to refer to theft under section 322 or to an infraction resembling theft, use without consent, under section 335(1) of the Criminal Code.

I know that it upsets Reform members when they are told such truths, but that is what is found today in the Criminal Code. I do not think the Criminal Code is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and there are things in it that should be changed. If we really want to change it, let us review it completely, rather than trying to do patchwork, as the Reform Party is doing with Bill C-209.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-209 brought forward by the member for Fraser Valley outlines the member's concerns about the serious increase in and problems with joyriding and car theft. No one would question the concerns and the seriousness we have seen in Canada with the growing problem of car thefts which the bill seeks to address.

Between 1990 and 1994 the number of car thefts increased by over 40,000 and the number of vehicles stolen per 1,000 registrations increased by 50%. It is generally known in the community that most car thefts are used for joyriding, in fact something like three-quarters.

There is a concern in the community that dangerous behaviour associated with joyriding makes it a threat to the safety of not only the police but the public and often tragically the joyriders themselves. Probably most of us are aware of various instances and circumstances that have taken place in our local communities and neighbourhoods which involve joyriding and often result in serious injury or even death.

In addressing this bill, which is non-votable and being debated for the record, there is also widespread agreement that we really need to examine new ways of dealing with crimes by young offenders.

In the NDP we believe very strongly—and there is a growing sense in the community—that we need to promote a renewed sense of social responsibility. Our focus must be on finding ways of making young offenders aware of the consequences of their actions. That is important but most important is that the information and studies that have been done show the most critical actions we can take and the most effective things we can engage in are crime prevention and addressing the underlying issues which drive young people to antisocial behaviour and criminal activities.

Unless we can understand the issues and provide the resources and tools to local communities to address underlying issues of antisocial behaviour and crime, the NDP believes that we will not make much progress.

There are different opinions on how we have to build a sense of responsibility among young offenders. Certainly for the member from the Fraser Valley the idea of minimum penalties for joyriding requiring parents to pay for their children's actions is seen as the way to go.

The bill before the House sets out a minimum penalty of a $1,000 fine or six months in prison. It also stipulates that parents or guardians could be required to pay the fines or other penalties incurred by their children if it was felt somehow that their neglect of parenting duties resulted in the child committing the offence.

The problem with this approach is that there is little or no evidence to show that increasing penalties will actually work and will actually deal with the issue of joyriding or many of the other issues facing us in terms of increasing crime among young people.

To talk about the position of the Reform Party and how it has approached this issue and issues it has raised around crime and punishment, commenting in the Alberta Report on the problem of car theft in the city of Regina, the member for Calgary Northeast suggested that without incarceration young punks have nothing to fear.

That member ignored that Saskatchewan already incarcerates a higher proportion of youth than most provinces and has now recognized that it has not reduced crime. Simply criminalizing young people, throwing them in jail and increasing fines, has not dealt with the issue most people would recognize as a problem.

Fortunately for the city of Regina, the Government of Saskatchewan has recognized the limitations of the approach of the Reform Party and what it is advocating. It is looking at more effective ways as one province, and certainly in my province of British Columbia, of dealing with the situation of young offenders.

It is also very questionable whether simply holding parents responsible for the actions of their children will actually impact young people and make them consider the consequences of their own actions. There are cases where better parenting may have prevented the child from committing an offence. However, the more important point is that if the relationship between the parent and the child is so bad that the courts feel the parents have failed, it is not clear at all and there is no evidence to suggest that penalizing the parent will improve the situation.

It is important to point out that according to the National Crime Prevention Council, 97% of young people in custody have suffered abuse at the hands of a trusted authority figure. That is a very startling figure. It should lead us to be very suspicious of superficial approaches put forward by the Reform Party. It should lead us to understand that these approaches have failed.

When looking at the bill we must ask ourselves how we will address the problem by having parents pay their children's fines. Holding parents responsible, even in a limited sense, for the crimes of their children sends out a wrong message.

When dealing with young people who have committed crimes, the goal should be to persuade them to take responsibility for their actions and to prevent these actions from taking place in the first place. Holding responsible someone other than the person who committed the crime seems to us to be a step removed from the objective.

The main problem with the bill is that we cannot deal with issues like joyriding in isolation. We must address the social and economic conditions that cause these acts of antisocial behaviour, criminal acts in the first place. We must also find more effective socially responsible ways to deal with young offenders.

Criminal activity by our young people does not happen in a vacuum. While it is important to state that each individual, whether a young person of 18 years of age or an adult, is responsible for his or her actions, we must recognize that there are societal factors at work which often push young people toward criminal activity. If young people grow up in poor circumstances and in an environment that shows little respect for the rights and needs of children, we should not be surprised that children grow up not respecting society's rules.

One approach that is having some impact in terms of dealing with young offenders rather than jail sentences or penalties is to deal with restorative justice. The objective is to bring about understanding and recognition of the damage that has been done to a victim or to a community at large.

In a program in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, local businesses allow young offenders to pay their fines by working at the local businesses. There is an attempt to bring about better understanding of the crime that has taken place. While some have criticized restorative justice or diversion programs as letting people off scot-free, the fact is the results are positive. At the Maple Ridge program only 6% of the participants reoffended in the following year.

We believe in the NDP that we need to understand the risk factors that increase the chances of a young person being victimized or engaging in antisocial behaviour. We need to ensure early prevention for high risk youth. We need to ensure we are investing in education. We need to ensure families have good support in the community. We need to ensure families have good paying jobs and that there are family friendly workplaces.

Our concern with the bill is that the approach of the Reform Party is to further criminalize young people. This is no answer. It is an answer that may pander to the concerns of the community and may offer a very superficial response, but it does not deal with the underlying issues at work in terms of young people at risk.

We do not agree with the bill and suggest that it is a short-sighted measured to deal with what is a very serious problem.