Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Young Offenders May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we have been very, very clear in terms of young people under the age of 12. No one on this side of the House is suggesting that a young person, at the age of 10 for example, who hurts another individual should not be held accountable or take responsibility. What we believe on this side of the House is that the most effective way to deal with those children is not through the formal criminal justice system but through either the child welfare system or the mental health system.
Young Offenders May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about serious violent crimes committed by those under the age of 12, as I have in the past let me inform the hon. member that in 1996 for example there were exactly zero youth aged 10 and 11 convicted of the most serious violent crimes.
Justice May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on that specific point, the hon. member chooses to ignore the fact that we are creating a fifth presumptive category that deals with violent serious repeat young offenders. That will expand the number of young people who are presumptively subject to an adult sentence in our youth justice system.
I also remind the hon. member that any 14, 15, 16 or 17 year old charged with an indictable offence can be subject to an adult sentence.
Justice May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, these proposals are very serious. I would ask the official opposition to seriously engage in a meaningful debate. The government and Canadians are interested in working together to create a culture of safety.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker what members of the official opposition are doing today and are continuing to do? They are only interested in creating a culture of fear.
Justice May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that neither I nor the government has been sitting on the statistics to which the hon. member refers.
I also reassure the hon. member that in our government response we are proposing a renewal of the youth justice system that makes the exact distinction between violent and serious violent offenders and non-violent young offenders that Canadians want us to make.
Justice May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member means by his question. I do not think anybody is sloughing anything off.
I think the government has taken a very responsible approach to the renewal of the youth justice system. We tabled our response and I look forward to the constructive comments of the hon. member and others in the official opposition.
Supply May 26th, 1998
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.
Supply May 26th, 1998
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.
Supply May 26th, 1998
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.
Supply May 26th, 1998
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.