John Maloney

[United States Customs, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have very serious concerns on the U.S. administration's proposed fee for the use of the U.S. customs' automated system. Canada moves by truck. Close to 80% of merchandise trade with the United States is by road. Members in the Chamber appreciate that this fee, being considered to help fund a much needed upgrade of automated commercial operations, would increase the cost of Canadian exports to the United States.

We acknowledge the need for and efficiency of upgraded automated commercial operations. Indeed, it has become an essential and vital component of international trade. Goods and the information associated with them must travel quickly to respond to the needs of just in time inventory management systems and the pressures of global competition.

I suggest the proposed new levy would be a customs user fee of the type that is prohibited by Article 310 of NAFTA and therefore inconsistent with U.S. obligations under NAFTA.

I commend the Minister of International Trade and the Canadian ambassador in Washington for registering our strong opposition and urge them to vigorously continue this challenge. Canadian traders deserve nothing less.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, any new act is subject to judicial interpretation as lawyers look for loopholes. This act was drafted with a view to assisting our youth at risk, our youth in trouble.

There are some very good aspects of discretion such as police warnings, a greater emphasis on prevention and a greater emphasis on youth justice committees. These are all positive steps.

The theory of the law in black and white, as the member having been a crown counsel would know, and the practice in our youth courts are often a bit different. Sometimes a warning of taking the child home to his family is much more effective than dragging him from the schoolyard into court where there is strict liability in those situations.

There are many more positive aspects to the legislation which will be of benefit. Yes, there will be interpretations like anything else, but on balance it is a good act. The aims and aspects of it are very worthwhile. It will go a long way to changing the image of youth criminal justice. There is good emphasis on the protection of the public as well.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks several questions. First I will deal with the publication of names. The debate surrounding this subject centres on two conflicting principles of legitimate and competing values. There is no question that we have the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding negative publicity. Opposite to that we have the need for greater openness and transparency. Canadians have been demanding this and it contributes to public confidence in the system.

We are concerned about individuals who have committed grievous offences and violent crimes and are not in custody. We are also concerned about the safety of the public. There is no question that 14 year olds will not go to adult prison. They will go to a youth facility.

If we speak to some of the police officers, some youths at 14 and 15 years of age are tough little characters. Sometimes for the safety of the public they have to be dealt with accordingly. We have to look at the seriousness of the offences they have committed and make an assessment.

The crown in its discretion can make a judgment call in that respect as well and say that a child should be tried in a youth facility. There is an option. I would say this would happen in a minority of cases.

It is interesting to note the profiles of young people in youth court. Only 15% were 14 year olds and two-thirds of them pleaded guilty. Crime by 14 year olds is certainly not in the same category as crime by 16 year olds and 17 year olds as far as numbers go. I do not think we will see many youths at 14 years of age being tried as adults, but there needs to be that option where it is deemed necessary.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the current Bill C-68 and the one in the former parliament are excellent pieces of legislation. There is no question that we want to zero in on very serious offences, and we have done so.

My friend is criticizing us for having a list. He has his own little list. All offences are serious. At what point do we allow discretion? Where do we draw the line? They are serious offences. Every offence is serious, even if it is the petty crime of shoplifting.

We have to appreciate that our youth today do not necessarily have the maturity that our good friend from Wild Rose has as a former principal. They are young and impetuous. He should realize that; he taught them for years and years. We cannot treat all youth like adults for all crimes.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to stand and address the House on an act that has responded to the concerns of Canadians, the youth criminal justice act.

Canadians are aware that the justice system as it applies to young offenders is not working as well as it should in a number of important areas, and that it needs reworking.

We know that it will take a sustained effort, involving all levels of government and many other partners, to tackle the complex problems of youth crime and to build the fair and effective youth justice system we deserve. That process is underway.

Last June the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice launched the government's national crime prevention program. Since then 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 youth at risk.

On March 11 the youth criminal justice act was introduced and I am pleased to participate in this second reading debate. Repealing and replacing the Young Offenders Act with the youth criminal justice act is the next key step in the process of youth justice renewal.

The new legislation will signal to Canadians that a new youth justice regime is in place. The new legislation reflects the messages Canadians want from their youth justice system: that it first and foremost protects 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, that engages Canadians in a response to youth crime, and that it does a better job of responding to the needs of victims; and that it be a system that offers hope to youth, that gives youths who get into trouble with the law a chance to turn their lives around for their sake, and the sake of their families, their communities and all Canadians.

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.

When the legislation is passed, 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. The judge would need to be persuaded by the youth that a youth sentence would be adequate to hold the young person accountable given the seriousness and circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility, age, maturity, et cetera, of the young person.

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

The act 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 greater openness and transparency in the justice system.

The proposed legislation now before the House strikes an appropriate balance between the competing views. It would permit the publication of the names upon conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. The names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent offences could also be published.

The proposed legislation would also, however, permit the crown to give notice at the beginning of a trial that it will not seek an adult sentence. This would mean that at the provincial or territorial crown's discretion the young person would receive a youth sentence and the young person's 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 youth retains age-appropriate procedure protections and that justice can be provided quickly, placing less of a burden on victims and 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. Certainly in my consultations this was a very important factor for consideration.

The act contains other important reforms to the youth justice system. In response to concerns by the law enforcement community, judges will be given more discretion to admit voluntary statements by youths as evidence at their trials.

In response to the concern of victims, victim impact statements would be introduced in youth court and victims access to information regarding proceedings would be improved. Again, this is a very important aspect of the legislation.

The bill provides for an increased sentence for adults who undertake to the court to respect bail conditions involving the supervision of a young person who would otherwise remain in custody and who willfully failed to comply with these 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 will be simplified and allow for greater access by authorized people in the interests of the administration of justice and research.

The majority of young people who get into trouble with the law are non-violent and only commit 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 youths at a rate four times that of adults, twice that of many U.S. states and ten times that of many European states. We incarcerate youths despite the fact that we knowingly run the risk they will come out more hardened criminals. Prison is a school for crime. We incarcerate them knowing that alternatives to custody can do a better job of ensuring that youths learn from their mistakes.

Bill C-68 includes criteria on the use of custody so that it is used appropriately.

As well, the bill includes provisions for handling less serious offences outside the legal system.

The police would be asked to consider all the options, including informal alternatives to the judicial process, before laying charges.

Police officers, the key partners in this strategy, would have confirmation of their authority to use verbal warnings to direct the young offender toward an informal police program such as a family advisory group or a more formal program requiring community service or compensation for the harm done to the victim.

While every effort will be made to reduce the overreliance on incarceration, some youths will be sentenced to custody. We acknowledge that. The youth criminal justice act includes provisions that respect an obligation to ensure that all young people, particularly the most serious offenders, receive effective treatment and rehabilitation. Successfully rehabilitated youths means fewer victims, restored families, safer schools, stronger communities and safer streets.

To this end, the bill includes an intensive custodial sentence for the most high risk young offenders who are repeat violent offenders or who have committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. These sentences are intended for offenders with serious psychological, mental or emotional illnesses or disturbances. The sentence will require a plan for intensive treatment and supervision of these offenders and will require a court to make all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration programs.

The proposed legislation makes an important reform to youth justice sentencing to foster the safe and effective reintegration of youth back into their communities.

Under the new law, judges will be required to impose a period of supervision in the community following custody. This would allow authorities to closely monitor and control the young offender and ensure 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 the individual.

The bill proposes a comprehensive, balanced and flexible legislative framework for youth justice. It was developed after consultation with the provinces, the police, the bar, youth justice workers, youth themselves, victims and many citizens through numerous town hall meetings across the country.

The youth criminal justice act is based on an accountability framework that promotes consequences for crime that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. More serious offenders could receive adult sentences or sentences of custody. Less serious offenders will be dealt with through measures outside the court process or be subject to constructive community based sentences or alternatives. The act emphasizes that in all cases youth should face consequences that promote responsibility and accountability to the victim and the community and teach good values by helping the young person understand the effect of his or her actions.

The new youth criminal justice act offers provinces and territories flexibility in choosing options in some areas. This will allow them to address the unique needs, problems and differences of their systems. Provisions in the act also recognize the important role of victims and communities in dealing with youth crime.

The next important phase of the renewal of youth justice is directed at the implementation of a new youth justice legislation. Youth justice professionals, community members and others will need information about the new system and often 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 and neighbourhood groups; just about anyone who works with or cares about our children, our communities and our country.

Additional federal resources in the amount of $400 million over the next six years have been made available to support the important challenge of renewing our system of youth justice.

The government youth justice strategy opens the door to greater involvement by the general public and professionals in youth crime, and I encourage all Canadians to get involved.

I ask members of the House to support the new youth criminal justice act so we can put in place the kind of youth justice system that Canadians are seeking, one that protects society and instils the values of accountability, responsibility and respect. We owe it to Canadians and most especially to Canadian youth.

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not completed my comments, but I am very close. I just made a request to the hon. member to withdraw his motion. He has not acceded to my request. Therefore I wish to advise the House that I have no choice but to call upon my hon. colleagues to oppose the motion.

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. P-31, presented by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. It requests that the Prime Minister table in the House his ethics code for ministers.

We have made integrity and ethics a top priority for our government, as we promised in the 1993 and 1997 election campaigns. We have done this by keeping our promises for new policies and legislation and for new standards of ethical behaviour. We have delivered on our election commitments to meet the needs of Canadians through new policies and programs. Allow me to point out a few.

We promised to improve prosperity for Canadians and the unemployment rate is now at the lowest level since 1990. In fact, in my area of Niagara, it is less than the national average.

We promised to reduce the budget deficit and we did. In fact, it is the first time this has occurred in almost three decades that we have a surplus. It speaks to the commitment this government has to Canadians.

The recent budget also contained important initiatives to develop Canada's international competitiveness in a knowledge-based global economy. These are promises made and delivered on by the government.

The integrity demonstrated by the government toward Canadians is not a paper exercise. It is a reality. It is an ongoing commitment we show Canadians each and every day.

The leadership the government has shown in creating a government Canadians are proud of sets an example of what integrity in government really means. We have kept our election promises about specific actions on integrity. Allow me to elaborate.

The Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for public office holders in the House on June 16, 1994, early in our first mandate. It sets out principles and clear rules for all public office holders, ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees.

We also strengthened the Lobbyists Registration Act and a new ethics councillor was appointed in 1994 with responsibilities for administering the code and investigating complaints about lobbying activities.

We have kept our election promises about new standards of ethical behaviour. The conflict of interest code has clear rules for public office holders, including ministers, and the government is committed to upholding it.

I oppose Motion No. P-31 which requests that the Prime Minister table his ethics code for ministers in the House. As noted, the Prime Minister has already tabled the conflict of interest code in parliament. It sets out principles and clear rules which apply to all public office holders, including ministers.

All parliamentarians have a responsibility to gain and keep the trust of Canadians in government institutions. This is an obligation that we take seriously. It is an obligation that I know my colleagues across the way also believe is a pillar of our democracy.

Let us cut through the smoke. This motion is really about access to the Prime Minister's personal advice to ministers on government issues. The Prime Minister provides personal instructions to his ministers on a wide range of governance issues. Communications between the Prime Minister and the ministers by the nature of our system are confidential. This type of advice is protected as a cabinet confidence under section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Parliament itself, in passing the Access to Information Act, decided that documents which constitute advice from the Prime Minister to his ministers are cabinet confidences and would be protected under the act.

The heart of the Canadian system of government centres around collective responsibility. This means that the government is responsible to parliament. The government must maintain the confidences of the House in order to govern, but for ministers to fulfill their collective responsibility to parliament and Canadians they must be able to discuss their views frankly and fully. Cabinet confidentiality allows ministers to debate issues openly among themselves and to concentrate on the objective of our system of government, which is to take good policy decisions for the benefit of Canadians.

The government has already responded to the motion that we are debating by stating that information sought by the hon. member is considered a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and in keeping with Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 446(2)(i) and section 69 of the Access to Information Act, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Even 1% would be too much. There is no question about that.

While these inmates are in prison they receive treatment. There is a careful release planning. They move from maximum security to medium security to minimum security, then to a half-way house. They are supervised and observed at all stages. If the individual is known to be at risk or thought to be at risk they are not released. That is an important factor to take into consideration. It is a graduated movement through various security levels into the community.

It is eminently better than having them serve their full sentence and then bang, out on the street, like a caged animal most likely to behave in a much more serious manner than perhaps the 10% who do manage to reoffend. It may be a small offence or whatever but they are very strict on them.

I have heard from some of these offenders today in our committee. For a very slight offence they are back in. They may have consumed a glass of alcohol and they are back in prison.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her question as well as on her dress today. It is very appropriate as we lead into St. Patrick's Day. I think the question was what are we doing to prevent these matters.

Last year the Minister of Justice announced a crime prevention initiative directed toward children whereby we set aside 1% of the justice department budget, which would amount to roughly $32 million, for crime protection initiatives. These programs are now starting to come to fruition.

I agree with the member that drugs are a horrendous problem with our youth. Something must be done about it. There must be stricter enforcement. We must get to the suppliers of these illicit items. That is not only within Canada but beyond our borders. We must cut off the flow from these countries. We are working together with many of our international partners to cut off the flow of drugs to this country.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly disagree with that suggestion. I was a member of the justice committee, as was the member for Crowfoot. We did a comprehensive study of the Young Offenders Act. As a result of that a report was prepared, filed in the House and given to the Minister of Justice who responded to it. We have recently seen a new youth justice criminal act which has considered many of the points we put forward in that report.