Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.
This matter is close to my heart, as I lived with young offender issues and their consequences long before the Young Offenders Act became the law of the land. I was a part of the more than 10 years of consultation and wrangling that occurred which finally produced Bill C-61 back in 1981, which brought us this tragic, social science experiment perpetrated upon the Canadian people.
I have a clear message for the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues. I also want to wake up the policy section of the Department of Justice which has led the justice minister into the mistake of Bill C-37.
I can appreciate that the justice minister has to take what he believes is the best advice he can get from his advisers. I say to those few in the department who have misguided the minister that the shame of the country is on their shoulders.
The condescending prescriptive approach of Bill C-37 is fundamentally out of step with mainstream Canadian values and it makes one's heart sink. I do not know what I can say to drag the members opposite into the nineties, clear their heads and listen to what I am saying. They should not discount what I say because of where I stand in the House. I claim particular credibility about the Young Offenders Act.
This country does not need Bill C-37. Rather, it needs a renewed Young Offenders Act, one which will improve the safety of our streets, put Canadians' minds at ease and reflect what Canadians want.
Members of this House and the minister, listen to what I am saying and make the appropriate adjustments. Bill C-37 is wrong. Hopefully we can get it right at the 10-year review.
Since coming to Ottawa I have sat through most of the justice committee meetings which dealt with Bill C-37. I have held town hall meetings and have done widespread surveys in my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby. I have also consulted across the country. The conclusion is the same, the Young Offenders Act and the amendments proposed as part of Bill C-37 do not come close to solving the problems associated with young offenders today.
In a survey included in a recent householder of mine I asked constituents a straightforward question: Does the current Young Offenders Act need to be amended? The yes response was an astounding 96.3 per cent. At town hall meetings in my riding the consensus was to lower the age and to change other essential elements.
This feeling is widespread across Canada. However, the bleeding heart Liberals do not want to admit it. Clearly the YOA is fundamentally flawed and has not achieved the acceptance that we would expect if it were operationally appropriate.
Canadians have had it with high taxes and an uncontrollable deficit and debt. They have had it with gun control measures which do not deter criminals. Most of all, they have had it with the Young Offenders Act which does not protect innocent people or support the principles of specific or general deterrence. Instead it seems to protect the rights of the offender in a manner out of balance with that of the victims.
The Young Offenders Act makes certain that the identity of a young offender is not known even if this puts the general public at high risk. Further, the Young Offenders Act fails to recognize the rights of the victim as a needed integral part of the justice system, as there is no legal recognition of their stake in the general proceedings.
The Minister of Justice asked for consultation, such as his 1993 discussion paper "Toward Safer Communities". The public thinks that the minister really cares about what it thinks. What the public does not know is that the minister already finished drafting the bill before the last responses were received.
True consultation is something which all members of the Liberal Party need to learn. Perhaps they should take a lesson from the members on this side of the House. To consult means not only to listen but to implement what the majority wants. Canadians are being reminded again that the Liberals' definition of consultation is to appear to listen and then to follow their original agenda.
Before the drafting of Bill C-37 there were rallies upon rallies across the country for drastic changes to the YOA. What happened? There were no drastic changes. Now on the eve of the 1995 budget Canadians are holding tax rallies from Victoria to St. John's demanding no more taxes. What will happen? The finance minister will raise taxes and increase the deficit all in one shot. The Liberals will still have the nerve to say that this is what the general public wants or should have.
The Reform Party appreciates the grassroots and listens very carefully. Our plan of reform of the YOA is community based, with a history of a bottom up approach, rather than the traditional bureaucratic, top down, no grassroots approach. Therefore, the Reform proposals I want to present are the ones that the
Canadian public wants and the ones that the Canadian public deserves.
One, lower the young offenders age of definition of young person from 10 to 15 years inclusive from 12 to 17 years inclusive. Two, any young offender who commits an indictable offence could possibly be transferred to adult court. Three, remove extra privacy and secrecy provisions in the Young Offenders Act and treat all YOA records, access to information, ability to publish in the same manner as is for adults.
Four, sentencing must emphasize victim compensation, community service, skills training, education and deterrence to others. In custodial facilities opportunities for rehabilitation must be emphasized in a disciplined environment. Medical psychological treatment orders should not require the consent of the young offender.
Five, parents of young offenders should be held responsible for compensating victims for property crimes if it can be demonstrated that they have not made a reasonable effort to exercise parental control. Six, victims must be given legal standing in youth court and be invited to be involved at all stages of court.
Constituents often ask why the government always tinkers with the YOA instead of making all the necessary changes in one try. I think we all know the answer. By changing it slightly throughout its mandate, the government makes it appear that it is really working hard for the people while basically preserving the status quo and not changing what it originally gave us.
Many members spoke on Bill C-37 at second reading stage and many more are going to be speaking at this stage. However, very few who will speak on this bill have experienced the frustrations of the Young Offenders Act firsthand. I realize that many of my colleagues in this House are lawyers but I know that only a few have ever dealt with defending or prosecuting a young offender.
As a former probation officer in the British Columbia Youth Court, I had to deal with the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis. I have lived and breathed the Young Offenders Act problems for years. As an officer of the court I did my best to administer at the street level the Young Offenders Act and its predecessor, the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908.
Beyond the lawyer who may have defended a youth at court, I regularly made home visits with young offenders and surveyed the social context of the offender. I worked hard to promote innovative resolutions to varied crises in case management, bringing together public health, social work and psychiatry in the schools to respond to particular needs. This both pre-court and post-court effort was happening long before the Young Offenders Act became law. The reality of administering the sentences and consequences of the Young Offenders Act is far removed from court proceedings. This different world is not comprehended very well by legal drafters and policy people.
I mention this as it relates not only to what should be done to fix the YOA but in respect to the credibility of the message giver. The Bloc accused me of nostalgic fascism when I rose to speak about the Young Offenders Act on May 12, 1994.
I want to remind my detractors in this House and those few lawyers who think they know something about young offenders-it seems that everyone in this House has an opinion about youth crime-that my recommendations come within the context of years of intimate working knowledge of trying to make the system work at the level of basic application.
The Reform Party's proposals are not right wing reactionary, but rooted deeply in direct experience and a careful evaluation of the balance between community desires and specific offender concerns.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is nationally known for his misguided views about offenders. At report stage he was again attributing views to the Reform position on Bill C-37 which had more to do with covering his own guilt about what he and his colleagues did to this country when a previous Liberal administration, which included the current Prime Minister, told Canadians what was good for them and thereby gave us the Young Offenders Act.
I was involved in early consultations when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was being changed to the early version of the Young Offenders Act. Philosophies are varied. I have seen violent youth released because of minor technicalities and flaws in the act. The Young Offenders Act is terribly flawed and will only further harm Canadians if it is kept in its present state, including if the amendments to Bill C-37 are given royal assent.
I tried as a professional to defend the system with the tool box of rules and resources that I had at my disposal. I found the act at times to be very cumbersome, a liberal statement of unrealistic hope over reality, inflexible rules over common sense, a sense of government betrayal to many victims, and a carte blanche to the self-centred predator.
On a regular basis I ran into frustrated parents on both sides. Some parents wanted the law to do something with an offending son or daughter but the hands of the authorities, including mine as a court officer, were tied. Victims were always asking the same questions, why the parents of young offenders cannot be held accountable, why the guardians who are supposed to be doing their duty and who fail to act cannot be held accountable for what they allowed to happen. How many times have we all heard the comment when a young offender is caught: "Where are the parents?"
This government gave its answer to the country and it was in plain, clear English. It could not care less. In December 1994 this bill was at committee stage. At that time the Liberal and Reform parties brought forward amendments that would alter Bill C-37. Every amendment the Reform Party put forward was voted down by the Liberals, not because they may have disagreed with the amendment but because some were afraid to break party ranks. They were afraid to do what was right for the country.
One of our amendments would have included some limited parental accountability to the Young Offenders Act. The proposed change was to clause 13 of the bill. It asked the courts to order the person having custodial care and control of the young person who fails to reasonably exercise foreseeable parental duty to pay and to order such person at such time and on such terms as the court may fix an amount by way of compensation for loss of property, for loss of income or support for special damages for personal injury arising from the commission of the offence where the value thereof is readily ascertainable, but no order shall be made for general damages.
It is now a record for the whole country to see where this government stands. This government is determined to have its own way, to defend the status quo and to continue the old style way of governing this country. The Liberals only listened as they were preparing the red book. They put in the red book what the people wanted to hear but then they quickly forgot what they had heard.
The book promised changes to the Young Offenders Act. More so, it promised to deal with Canadians' concerns. It was 100 per cent smoke and mirrors, I think. Canadians' thoughts were not even brought to the table.
Let us look at what has been accomplished. The Liberals were elected as the government and the people are still suffering under an ill fated Young Offenders Act. By failing to take bold action to correct what was largely not working and introducing legislation just to mollify a restless public and fulfil an election promise with the call "trust us", this government has fallen short and let us down.
The Liberals' efforts are simply a top down, we know best answer to an increasingly aware and justifiably demanding populace. I am most pessimistic about any result from the announced 10-year review.
Members of this House of Commons may not feel the backlash from constituents just yet, but be sure that when they vie for re-election constituents from coast to coast will be asking what Liberal Party members did to improve the Young Offenders Act. When these Liberal MPs have to really defend to their constituents the inadequate improvements electors will look for the party that will truly represent the people and that party will certainly be the Reform Party.
We have a social philosophy of openness and community accountability that the old style Liberal ideology just cannot seem to comprehend. A new Young Offenders Act must be socially resonant. It must clearly demonstrate Canadian society's values and mores. It must be an instrument not only of rehabilitation and treatment but also of deterrence and orderly denunciation. It must reflect mainstream Canadian values.
Parents are concerned for the safety of our children. They are demanding an accountability of the justice system to the community and they want to have a sense of ownership in the process of justice. They are frustrated and angry that the current system seems to operate for and around a select enclave of justice professionals, the criminologists, the legal community, corrections workers, offender care agencies and the police.
Nine pages of this bill relate to amendments around a faulty premise. I say clearly to the minister let go of these outdated notions and stop the tangled bureaucratic response where one line in the act would suffice to simply state that a youth court record and an adult criminal record are one and the same of a continuum to be kept in one computer and handled like all other criminal records.
Society sees violent crime with abhorrence, needing denunciation and a sensible social defence response.
If the violent 16 and 17 year old young offender is kept within the bounds of the Young Offenders Act, the maximum penalty for first degree murder would be 10 years. If that same violent offender were dealt with in adult court, the penalty for first degree murder would be life imprisonment. While 10 years under the new proposal would seem to be sufficiently harsh, the reality is that probably only 6 years would be spent in detention at most, with the remaining 4 years to be spent under community supervision.
At the other end of the spectrum are the youngsters 10 and 11 years old who are flexing their egos and daring society to take them to task. Under the provisions of Bill C-37, they remain untouchable. By the time they are 12 years old, the hard core are street wise and becoming increasingly sophisticated in testing the system. When they finally appear as young offenders, they are already beyond being intimidated by the system. The successive warnings and breaks they receive as young offenders then become meaningless.
They often are too deeply entrenched in the game to see or desire a way out. However I believe that 10 and 11 year olds, if brought under the umbrella of the justice system, publicly denounced and placed in programs of education and rehabilitation, would be much more responsive to efforts to set them straight.
It would provide the legal tools to break the offending cycle and require the social services of public health, social work and education to deal co-operatively and resolutely with these individuals.
The Reform Party cannot support this bill. It does not represent the wishes of my constituents. Some of the members who sit across from me on the government benches represent ridings close to mine. I have received correspondence from their constituents. These constituents do not support Bill C-37 and therefore neither should their member of Parliament.
The one saving grace for this legislation is the second phase that will take place later this year. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will have the opportunity to hear witnesses from all across Canada as part of a 10-year review of not only the amendments to Bill C-37 but the entire Young Offenders Act.
I understand the committee will travel across the country and make itself available for all Canadians to provide input. I want to encourage the chairman of the committee to solicit witnesses from all groups and not stack the hearings with bleeding hearts as was done sometimes during the committee stage.
As well, the Minister of Justice must respect the wishes of those who provide the input for this 10-year review since these are the people who are affected most by such changes. The minister has a second chance to do what is right, namely lower age limits, deal with serious offenders in adult court, eliminate publication bans, put victims into the system and make parents responsible for property crimes committed by the youth.
Let the YOA become a short, clear statement in principle rather than a tangled act that is becoming a retirement plan for lawyers. Bill C-37 is off track and I call on the government to set it right during the 10-year review.
