House of Commons Hansard #109 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentencing.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I know he has spent considerable time working with victims groups across Canada, particularly in British Columbia.

I wonder if he would share with the House and with people who are watching at home the sense of frustration and bitterness and anger people feel once they realize the justice system is weighted much more toward the criminals and those accused of violent crimes than the victims of those crimes. Maybe he could share with us some thoughts and some flavour of the sentiments of people who have been deeply touched by violent crime.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Cadman Reform Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

My experience over the past number of years with victims groups and with individual victims certainly highlights the stresses imposed on victims, particularly the families of victims of homicide. These are cases that obviously inflict incredible trauma and stress among the families. The last thing they need is to not be told what is going on, and this happens time and time again. It does not happen all the time, I must admit. Through my own experience I am not afraid to basically go to the horse's mouth for the answers. But most people cannot do that sort of thing. It delays the grieving process. It is part of dealing with the issue to be kept informed and to be able to talk about these things.

I have heard of cases where a person takes an afternoon off to go to court because somebody who is accused is supposed to appear and when they get there they find out the accused appeared in the morning and nobody bothered to tell them about it.

I know of cases where an accused has been released on parole and their victim has come across them on the main street in town. It retraumatizes victims.

Victims rights legislation and dealing with those kinds of issues regarding specifically notification and the victim's role in the criminal justice process is long overdue. I am happy to say the justice committee is finally starting to hear testimony on this. We will keep our fingers crossed and see what the government plans to do. Like I said in my speech, I am not going to hold my breath for a long time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

Once again we see the spectacle of the opposition attempting to lead Canadians to believe that our criminal justice system is in a deplorable state. With hyperbole and theatrics it plays directly into the hands of criminals by promoting fear and exploiting victims for its own political purposes.

Its motion for debate states, without demonstrating it of course, that our justice system is broken and that this government has done nothing to fix it.

I would like to make one thing very clear. Our criminal justice system is one of the best in the world.

The Canadian criminal justice system is not broken. According to a Gallup poll released in March of this year only one quarter of Canadians say they are fearful to walk at night in their neighbourhoods. This is the lowest level of fear in 12 similar surveys in the last 29 years, since 1970. It is also a significant drop from the 37% level in 1991.

This government has done more in the last parliament than any other government in the past to modernize our criminal law and to make it more efficient. We have continued to bring forward progressive measures for the purpose of improving what is already an efficient system that protects Canadians better than any in other democratic societies.

It is irresponsible to repeat without having our facts straight that crime is on the rise or that the situation is out of control. We do not have the right as responsible parliamentarians to create unnecessary and unfounded fear in Canadians when the facts do not support the bare assertions being made.

Canadians want and deserve a safe society and we as a government are committed to ensuring just that. My predecessor made more than 250 amendments to the Criminal Code, a record that is surely unsurpassed. He did this in the areas of child prostitution, high risk offenders, gun control and organized crime, to name a few. He also began the process of reforming our youth justice system.

In this parliament the government has taken strong measures to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to enforce the law. In less than a year we have proposed Canadian legislative measures that reflect our commitment to more effective law enforcement without abridging the values all Canadians share and which are enshrined in our Constitution.

With Bill C-16 we have given back to law enforcement the ability to do its job without jeopardizing the constitutionality of those powers. This government tabled Bill C-20 which will give federal law enforcement officials the power to go after those who target the more vulnerable in our society for the purpose of defrauding them through telemarketing fraud.

This government tabled Bill C-18 which gives customs officers the powers of peace officers at border posts for the purpose of stopping illegal activity. This government tabled Bill C-3 which will provide for the creation of a DNA databank.

A few weeks ago I tabled Bill C-40 which will give Canada a modern extradition regime to ensure that those who are wanted abroad for crimes committed will be brought to justice in an expeditious manner.

Exactly two weeks ago I announced this government's strategy for renewing Canada's youth justice system. It is a strategy that addresses youth crime and is much broader than simply amending existing legislation.

It is clear that Canadians want a youth justice system that protects society. They want a system that fosters values such as respect for others and their property. They want a system that insists on accountability and that provides both violent and non-violent youth offenders with meaningful consequences for their actions, and they want a youth justice system that responds to the needs of victims and communities.

I announced last week that the system will be improved to reflect these concerns. We can do much more to prevent youth crime in the first place.

We must respond more firmly and more effectively to the small number of the most serious violent young offenders whose actions and how they are dealt with can impact most profoundly on the credibility of our youth justice system.

We can develop and employ more effective and meaningful community based responses for the majority of non-violent youth, more effective and meaningful for the young person, the victim and the community. We can also do a better job of reforming and rehabilitating young offenders to increase the chances that they do not re-offend and that they become productive and responsible members of Canadian society.

We will replace the Young Offenders Act with a new youth criminal justice act. We will build on the strengths of the Young Offenders Act but address its weaknesses. We will send a signal to Canadians of all ages that there is a new youth justice regime in place.

The new legislation will propose changes to several areas. We will develop more meaningful consequences for the most serious and violent young offenders. It will propose to replace the current procedure for transfer to adult court with a process of transfer to adult sentences.

I will also be proposing an important change in relation to the publication of names. The debate on this issue essentially involves two legitimate and competing values: the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of publicity on youth versus the need for greater openness and transparency in the justice system. Both values are important, but I do not feel that the current legislation reflects the appropriate balance.

The new act will permit the publication of the names upon conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. Publication of the names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat serious offences could also be permitted.

Unlike the Reform Party which apparently believes in throwing 10 year olds into the formal criminal justice system, I do not propose to lower the minimum age. The standing committee recommended that in exceptional cases 10 and 11 year olds suspected of committing extremely violent offences be subject to the criminal regime for youth. They made a thoughtful argument for doing so, namely, to provide a safety valve to capture the very small number of youth who may not get picked up by child welfare or mental health systems.

This recommendation has been seriously considered by this government. However, rather than criminalizing the behaviour of children at such a young age, the government has decided to work with the provinces to find a more appropriate way of dealing with these few tragic individuals who are obviously desperately in need of professional help.

I will reduce the legal complexities in determining whether voluntary statements by youth can be admitted into evidence. I will make changes that respond to victims' concerns about adequate notification of proceedings and access to information.

In addition, I will change the rules to allow the provinces to recover the costs of court appointed counsel after the proceedings from parents and young people who are fully capable of paying.

Meaningful consequences for violent offenders, however, require more than firmer sentences, tighter rules and control. We want to develop in consultation with the provinces a special sentence for the small group of the most violent, high risk young offenders. This sentence would allow for long periods of custody and treatment for young offenders who commit murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.

We also have an obligation to ensure that all young offenders, including the most serious, receive effective treatment and rehabilitation. It is in their interest and ours that they be, upon release, productive, well adjusted Canadian citizens.

Our strategy will increase the emphasis placed on treatment of all offenders, including provisions for mandatory treatment, as part of the special sentencing for the most violent young offenders.

The government has proposed a balanced, integrated youth justice strategy that goes beyond a simple reform of existing youth justice legislation. There is a consensus in Canada that the time for change is now. I look forward to continuing to work with concerned Canadians and concerned parliamentarians to create a fair and effective youth justice system in which we can all have confidence.

Let me now turn briefly to conditional sentencing. The creation of a new sentencing option was the centrepiece of the comprehensive sentencing reform package introduced in the last parliament by my predecessor. While primarily intended for non-violent offences, the appropriate use of conditional sentence orders in cases involving personal injury is permitted in the code.

Let me simply say in relation to conditional sentencing that I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to review the first two years of conditional sentences and I look forward to its recommendations and guidance on this important subject.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Cadman Reform Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minister mentioned that 25% of Canadians are afraid to walk the streets. That means that one member of a family of four is afraid to walk the streets at night. I would like to inform the minister that one quarter of my family of four walked down the street one night, unafraid, and I now have a family of three.

My friend Chris Simmonds had his family reduced from four to three by a man who was out on bail after shooting a man in the face.

Does the minister really feel that 25% of Canadians being afraid to walk the streets is acceptable?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why he is saying that. As usual the official opposition misrepresents situations for its own short term political purposes.

In fact, 25% of Canadians did express a fear in terms of walking on the streets in their communities. Obviously nobody is suggesting that is acceptable. However, because of the actions of this government what we have seen is a decrease from 37% of Canadians who expressed that view to 25%.

Clearly my goal and the goal of this government is to ensure that all Canadians live in safe and secure communities. Perhaps, as opposed to the hysterical fearmongering of the official opposition, if they worked constructively with us we would see safer and more secure communities.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am very glad to see the minister here in the House. She has obviously displayed a great depth of knowledge on these criminal justice issues.

The initiatives that she has taken in this policy platform are certainly welcome initiatives, but legislation is what is vital. This session of parliament is coming to a close and we are yet to see some substantive legislative initiatives.

Ten year olds, she said, might be thrown in jail if a change was made to the Criminal Code that would hold them accountable. I suggest that is not the truth. The fact is, having a system in place that would bring youth into the system at the age of 10 would allow her government to bring about the necessary change that would encompass and hold young offenders responsible.

I also want to question the minister on what policy direction we are going to see this government take with respect to the area of parental responsibility, which is a huge problem in the area of youth justice.

Finally, I would like to ask, when is the money going to be put out? When are we going to see some of the figures to indicate what these initiatives are going to cost Canadian taxpayers?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, let me make it absolutely plain, as I and other members of this government have done over the past number of weeks. Nobody is suggesting that 10 and 11 year olds should not be responsible for the harm they create or be held accountable in ways that are commensurate with their age.

I know that the hon. member knows this because of his experience in the justice system in Nova Scotia. We have three systems in which young people can be picked up: we have the child welfare system, we have the mental health system and we have the criminal justice system.

What we are saying as a government is that we believe, when we are dealing with children, when we are dealing with 10 and 11 year olds, that the best way to deal with the harm and make those young people accountable and responsible and help them to recover from what has happened in their lives is to make sure that they are dealt with through the child welfare or mental health systems. My pledge is to work with the provinces to ensure that they have, in part, the resources to be able to make sure those kids are picked up and do not fall through the cracks.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the minister moving in that direction. There was a serious offence in 1984 in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt. In 1989, when we were both novices here, I presented a private member's bill. After 10 years a lot of the recommendations I presented are coming to light. I want to thank the minister for moving in that direction. It is an honour to be part of a government that has seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

Could we not look at the legislation for automatic transfers? Could we not look for mandatory treatment? For a serious crime like a killing where the young offender is over 14 we could automatically transfer that case to adult court. We have mandatory treatment. If the young offender refuses mandatory treatment we could withhold these special considerations.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we can force no one, adult or child, to submit to mandatory treatment. However, it is obviously possible to help a young person or an adult to understand that it would be in their long term best interests to participate in some sort of treatment program.

The animating spirit behind the member's question is important. Even with the most serious and violent young offenders it is important for us as a society to ensure they are provided with the necessary treatment programs to ensure their long term and eventual successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend this portion of the debate. We have the minister with us. I am sure the minister would love to be here for an extended time to answer the many questions—

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House prepared to give its consent to extend the time for questions and comments?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I do not hear consent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Is it appropriate for the minister herself to say no, that she would not extend the—

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is not who does or does not say no. The Speaker puts the question to the House. There was not consent. Consent was refused. The Speaker is not saying who said it. I do not know who said it. I heard no, and that is enough.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I actually said it because I wanted to have an opportunity, if the members do not object, to put some thoughts on the record on this very important issue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Good.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

You may not enjoy them. You say good, but you may not enjoy them. I can assure you that some of them will reflect on your philosophy and policies. I do not think they will—

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I know the hon. member for Mississauga West will want to address his remarks through the Chair rather than to some “you”. I realize he has not named another member, in his view, but I would invite him to address his remarks through the Chair please. It might help in the circumstances.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will suggest through you that they may not think my remarks are particularly good.

I was interested in one of the comments made by the minister in response to a question from a member opposite. She said that their issue is for their short term political purposes. Just about everything they do in here is for their short term political purposes. The operative phrase should be short term. That is exactly what they do. They do not think in the bigger picture or in the long term about the consequences of some of their policies.

I like to think of them not so much as the Reform Party, but as the “ing” party because the Reform Party's three cornerstones are based on caning, whipping and hanging. Those are the solutions of the “ing” party.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to agree with that. Let me share with everyone something spoken by one of the Reform Party members. I believe the member for Wild Rose said in the May 10, 1994 Edmonton Journal “I do not think that kind of punishment hurts one doggone bit”. He was referring to caning. “In fact I think it probably has more effect than what we do today”.

The justice critic for the “ing” party decided that he wanted to travel to Singapore to study the merits of introducing caning to Canada's justice system. What a spectacle. Imagine in our public places, in our courtyards, in our school yards, in our homes that we would actually resort to caning as a solution to violence. That is the Reform mentality. If we cane them it will hurt so they will stop being violent.

I do not profess to be an expert, unlike many members opposite, but I have read many articles written by experts and any expert will tell us that violence begets violence. That is exactly the kind of thing we want to stop.

The same member went on to say “I do not think caning is too extreme”. That is from the Calgary Herald of May 10, 1994.

The Reform Party, or the “ing” party as I like to call it, has not excluded young offenders from what it refers to as its two strike and you are out policy. This would mean, as the justice critic who is sitting here right now listening to this, said in the Toronto Sun of August 15, 1996 “the repeat offender”—and because they have not excluded young offenders, young offenders would be included in this policy—“will never see the light of day after committing his second act”.

That is just terrific. That is going to solve our problems. We will throw them in a dungeon, lock them up and forget about them. Young offenders need to be treated properly by professionals not locked up in some medieval archaic way as that party would profess.

I see the member from Wild Rose has come in, the member who was illustriously quoted in the Edmonton Sun in March 1995 in referring to his time as a school principal. He saw remarkable change in behaviour among those who had “tasted a piece of wood”. That is just brilliant.

It is a remarkable quantum leap to go from the motion that was put very responsibly by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, whom I saw on Canada AM this morning speaking about his policy on the headstart program dealing with young people. It is a quantum leap in logic to go from dealing with a pregnant woman and helping her give birth and raise a healthy, happy child to caning, to hitting them with a piece of wood.

Where in the world did you guys come from? When they loaded up the wagon train to come east I guess they checked their brains at the Manitoba border.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I know the hon. member is perhaps enjoying the rhetoric but I think he knows he must address the Chair rather than any of the “you guys” he may be referring to. I invite him to continue to do that.