John Maloney

[Gun Control, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked about the benefits of our gun control registration. Let me give the House a few statistics.

Some 3,128 potentially dangerous gun sales have been blocked and sent for further investigation. Some 548 applicants have been refused for public safety reasons. Some 451 licences have been revoked for reasons of public safety.

This is good legislation. It is working and it is promoting a culture of safety. Why will the Reform Party not accept that?

[Child Poverty, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have observed the 10th anniversary of a unanimous House of Commons resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Regrettably and sadly, this goal is beyond our grasp. Our noble expectations lie in failure.

Today, we observe poor families falling deeper into poverty and the gap widening between their incomes and those of well off families.

Children are our greatest assets, our greatest treasures. We must reaffirm our desire, indeed our necessity, to work much harder to include the unincluded in society.

The government has signalled its intention to act and the foundation has been put in place for a national children's agenda. Intentions must become reality and the reality must be now. Children are a priority of this government.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not answered my question. Does he not know that clause 18 provides for diversion programs? Has he not read the bill?

He has gone on at great length about youth justice committees. Diversion is provided for here. It was provided for in the other act. May he please respond.

[Division No. 54, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speeches, both today and previously when he spoke on this issue.

He went on at great length about the diversion program, which has been an excellent program within his community. He also made reference to youth justice committees. I would like to draw to the member's attention that this bill provides for a youth justice committee, as did the previous act, the Young Offenders Act. All of the beneficial aspects which he has brought out are already here.

Can the member respond to that? Has he not read the bill? Is he not aware of clause 18 of the bill? Is he not aware of the comparable section in the Young Offenders Act?

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 16th, 1999]

It should first be noted that the firearms which were declared prohibited weapons under Order No. 11, SOR/94-744 were not all appropriated but some were in fact voluntarily handed over by their owners. Owners who did not voluntarily turn over their firearms were not eligible for any payment.

(a) 60 firearms in total: 19 American Arms AP9, 12 Benelli M1 Super 90, 2 Benelli M3 Super 90, 3 Claridge Hi-Tec, 1 Enfield MP-45, 3 Franchi Spas 12, 3 Franchi Spas 15, 1 Grendel P30, 1 Harrington & Richardson Premier, 1 Heckler and Koch Super 90, 1 Heckler and Koch SP89, 1 Inland Man. Div. M-2 Carbine, 9 Interdynamic KG99, 1 Intratec Tec-22, 1 Intratec Tec-9, and 1 Sten Mark II.

(b) 47 firearms in total, for which compensation was given to owners: 17 American Arms AP9, 11 Benelli M1 Super 90, 2 Benelli M3 Super 90, 3 Claridge Hi-Tec, 1 Franchi Spas 12, 2 Franchi Spas 15, 1 Grendel P30, 1 Heckler and Koch Super 90, and 9 Interdynamics KG99.

(c) A letter was sent to firearms owners by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to notify them that their firearms had been declared prohibited weapons under Order No. 11, SOR/94-744. The letter advised them to voluntarily hand over their weapons to the authorities and that they would be eligible for compensation for firearms returned voluntarily. In order to receive compensation owners were also required to do the following: sign a notice of waiver; provide their surname, given name, date of birth, address and telephone number; provide the make, model and serial number of the returned firearm; and indicate the month and year in which the firearm was acquired.

(d) 13 firearms in total without compensation to owners: 2 American Arms AP9, 1 Benelli M1 Super 90, 1 Enfield MP-45, 2 Franchi Spas 12, 1 Franchi Spas 15, 1 Harrington & Richardson Premier, 1 Heckler and Koch SP89, 1 Inland Man. Div. M-2 Carbine, 1 Intratec Tec-22, 1 Intratec Tec-9, and 1 Sten Mark II.

(e) The following are reasons for lack of compensation: 2 of these firearms were seized and there was a destruction order from the court; 8 of these firearms were not listed in Order No. 11, SOR/94-744; 7 of these firearms were already prohibited, 2 under section 84 of the Criminal Code and 1 is a restrictive weapon; and 3 files are still pending.

Question No. 32—

[Port Colborne, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all residents of the city of Port Colborne in my riding of Erie—Lincoln for that city's recognition as being one of the best in Ontario in which to raise a family. This municipality of 19,000 people has the smallest proportion of children falling through the cracks, according to health and academic measures.

A recent article from The Globe and Mail confirmed that Port Colborne has “the highest proportion of students meeting or exceeding provincial standards in mathematics, reading and writing”. In fact, over 97% of our grade 3 students are at or above the provincial standard for reading.

Port Colborne has a “woven-ness”, a strong sense of belonging, where young and old work together for common goals, where people look out for their neighbours and where one does not have to look far to find a helping hand. Port Colborne residents are Canadians in the true sense of the word. It is a caring and sharing community.

[Child Pornography, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this case will be heard on January 18 and 19. We are vigorously defending it. To invoke the notwithstanding clause at this time would weaken our case, a case where we feel we are constitutionally strong.

[Child Pornography, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to ensuring the safety of our children. We have intervened vigorously at the British Columbia Court of Appeal level and we will do the same at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let us not forget that possession of child pornography is illegal in nine provinces and three territories. Let us not forget that. Also let us not forget that it is illegal to produce, to transfer, to sell child pornography. The government is acting well on this issue.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this morning to speak at second reading of Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

In the throne speech, the government indicated its intention to work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be safe. Its focus will be balanced, combining prevention and a community-centred approach with action to deal with serious crime. This balanced approach is clearly reflected in Bill C-3 which we are debating today.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs extensively studied our youth justice system, travelling to all regions of the country and listening to Canadians. The members visited over 23 sites, involving a variety of facilities and programs. The committee also held a number of round table discussions at which it heard from many interests, both inside and outside the youth justice system. The committee produced an excellent report entitled “Renewing Youth Justice” and the government has responded to that report with excellent legislation.

The minister of justice first introduced the youth criminal justice act during the last session of parliament as Bill C-68. The minister has had the benefit of having heard views on the bill in this House and from others with an interest in the complex issues surrounding youth justice.

While a range of views has been expressed, some find the bill too harsh. Others find that it is not harsh enough. The government and many others continue to believe that the bill reflects a comprehensive, balanced and flexible framework for youth justice.

The minister of justice has reintroduced this bill and looks forward to hearing the views of Canadians through the parliamentary process. We believe this legislation will establish a youth justice system that strikes the best balance to deliver fair and effective measures that Canadians want and deserve.

Canadians believe that our current youth justice system is not working as well as it should in many significant areas and it needs to be overhauled. We know that it will take a sustained effort, involving all levels of government and many other partners to tackle the complex problem of youth crime and to build a fair and effective youth justice system. We look forward to their participation in a constructive fashion for the benefit of our children in crisis. That process is under way.

In 1998 the minister of justice and the solicitor general launched the government's national crime prevention program. Since then several millions of dollars have been invested in community based crime prevention initiatives across the country, dealing at the front end with the root causes of crime, with a special focus on children and youth at risk.

Since its launch the national strategy has supported more than 600 crime prevention and community safety projects throughout Canada. These projects are the products of communities and of Canadians. The Government of Canada is proud to support these grassroots efforts to make our country a safer place for all its citizens. These are investments in our communities and in our youth.

Replacing and repealing the Young Offenders Act with the youth criminal justice act is the next step in a process of tackling youth crime. The new legislation signals to Canadians that a new youth justice regime is in place. The new legislation reflects in its preamble and principles the message Canadians want from their youth justice system: that it is there first and foremost to protect society; that it fosters values such as respect for others and their property; that it insists on accountability; that it provides both violent and non-violent young offenders with consequences that are meaningful and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence; that it be a youth justice system that is inclusive and that engages Canadians in their response to youth crime; and that it does a better job of responding to the needs of victims.

That being said, the needs of youth will always be considered. The new regime will be one which offers hope to youth and will give those who get in trouble with the law a chance to turn their lives around, for their sake, for the sake of their families and their communities.

As the minister of justice has made clear in the House on many occasions, we on this side of the House are not prepared to criminalize 10 and 11 years olds. This is not the best way to address the needs of children who are faced with situations involving unacceptable behaviour. We believe that in those circumstances where a formal approach is required child welfare and the mental health systems are the preferred approaches. These systems have access to a wider array of services that are more age appropriate, family oriented and therapeutic than those available through the criminal justice system.

We are committed to working with our provincial and territorial partners and non-governmental organizations on developing a comprehensive strategy for dealing effectively with children under 12, particularly the small number of children in this age group who are involved in serious offences.

I attended a conference sponsored by the minister of justice on September 27 to 29 of this year. It was called “Working Together for Children: Protection and Prevention”. The conference was an important step in developing a collaborative approach to address problem behaviour by children. Participants from across the country exchanged information and ideas regarding best practices in dealing with the interrelated issues of child offending and child victimization. Again, prevention is always the ultimate objective.

The youth criminal justice act includes provisions for more meaningful consequences for the most serious violent young offenders. It expands the list of offences and lowers the age at which youth would presumptively receive adult sentences. In the legislation, youth 14 years and older who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

In addition, a fifth presumptive category for repeat violent offenders would be created. Young offenders aged 14 and older who demonstrate a pattern of violent behaviour will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

Bill C-3 contains an important change to what may be the most controversial aspect of our youth justice legislation, 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 the youth versus the need for a greater openness and transparency in the justice system.

The proposed legislation now before the House strikes an appropriate balance between the competing views. It 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 one of the presumptive offences could also be permitted. However, the legislation provides the crown with the flexibility to give notice at the beginning of a trial that it will not seek an adult sentence. Thus, at the provincial or territorial crown's discretion a young person would receive a youth sentence and his or her name would not be published.

The youth criminal justice act would also replace the current procedure for transfer to adult court by empowering all trial courts to grant adult sentences so that the youth retains age appropriate procedural protections and justice can be provided quickly, placing less of a burden on victims and their families. This will also ensure that the offender, the victim or victim's family and the community see a clear and timely connection between the offence and its consequences.

Bill C-3 contains other important reforms to the youth justice system. In response to concerns by the law enforcement community, judicial discretion would be permitted to allow voluntary statements by youth to police to be admitted into evidence. I spoke to many crown attorneys on this issue. This was the only section of the previous young offenders act that they would like to see changed. In response, we have done so.

Also in response to the concerns of victims, victim impact statements would be introduced in youth court and victim's access to information regarding proceedings would be improved.

The bill also provides for an increased sentence for adults who undertake to the court to respect bail conditions involving supervision of a young person who would otherwise remain in custody and who wilfully fails to comply with those conditions.

The bill provides that provinces may recover the costs of court appointed counsel from parents and young people who are fully capable of paying. The record keeping system for youth records would be simplified and would allow for greater access by authorized people in the interest of the administration of justice and research.

It is important to note that the majority of young people who get in trouble with the law are non-violent and commit only one offence. Unfortunately there are too many examples in our current youth justice system of young people serving time in jail for minor offences.

We incarcerate youth at a rate four times that of adults, a statistic which is hard to believe but is true. We incarcerate youth despite the fact that we knowingly run the risk that they will come out more hardened criminals. We incarcerate them knowing that alternatives to custody can do a better job of ensuring that youth learn from their mistakes.

Bill C-3 includes criteria on the use of custody so that it is used appropriately. Further, the bill includes provisions for dealing with less serious offences outside the formal court process. Police would be asked and encouraged to consider all options including a formal alternative to the court process before laying charges. The police, key partners in this strategy, will be given more authority to use verbal warnings or cautions to direct youth to informal police diversion programs such as family group conferences or more formal programs requiring community service or repairing the harm done to victims.

While every effort would be made to reduce the over-reliance on incarceration, where necessary youth will be sentenced to custody. Bill C-3 includes provisions that respect an obligation to ensure that all young people, particularly the most serious offenders, receive effective treatment and rehabilitation.

That reminds me of a visit the standing committee on justice made to the Pinel institute. We spoke with a number of young individuals who had been involved in very serious crimes. One was a young boy who had attempted to murder his mother and father. That facility had worked very hard with the boy. In fact he had been released when he spoke with us and was back living with his mother and father. Rehabilitation works. Youth should be given the opportunity to participate in such programs.

Furthermore, with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, youth will serve their sentences in youth facilities in almost every case. Successfully rehabilitated youth means fewer victims, restored families, safer schools and stronger communities. To this end Bill C-3 includes an intensive custodial sentence for the most high risk young offenders who are repeat violent offenders or have committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.

These sentences are intended for offenders with serious psychological, mental, emotional illness or disturbances. The sentence will require a plan for intensive treatment and supervision of these offenders and will require the court to make all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration programs.

The proposed legislation also makes an important reform to youth justice sentencing to foster the safe and effective reintegration of youth back into the communities. Under the new law, judges will be required to impose a period of supervision in the community following custody. This will allow authorities to closely monitor and control the young offender and assure he or she receives the necessary treatment and programs to return successfully to the community. The period of supervision administered by the provinces will include stringent mandatory and optional conditions tailored to that individual.

Bill C-3 provides a comprehensive, balanced and flexible legislative framework for youth justice. It was developed after consultation with the provinces, the police, the bar associations, youth justice workers, youth themselves, victims and other Canadians.

The next important phase of the renewal of youth justice is directed at implementation of new youth justice legislation. Youth justice professionals, community members and others will need information about the new system and sometimes training.

The best answers to the complex problems of youth crime lie in integrated approaches. Effective youth justice involves educators, child welfare and mental health systems, voluntary organizations, victims, families, youth employers, neighbourhood groups. It involves just about anyone who works with or cares about kids, our communities and our country.

Additional federal resources have already been made available to support this important challenge of renewing our system of youth justice. The government's youth strategy opens the door to greater public and professional involvement in dealing with youth crime.

The minister welcomes input from Canadians who have an interest in youth justice. I also urge members of the House to move Bill C-3 into committee where Canadians' voices may be heard.

[Petitions, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present petitions from residents of the Niagara and Haldimand regions.

The petitioners request parliament to amend section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(h.1) of the Income Tax Act to allow members of a tradesmen's union to deduct employment expenses if they have to work out of town in situations where the contractor is considered local.