Myron Thompson

[Corrections, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last year I was asked by constituents to investigate whether male prison guards stripped female prisoners during the recent misguided and ill conceived raid in the prison for women. I was assured at that time that no male prison guard took part in the stripping of female prisoners and that only female officers were present.

My question is for the Solicitor General. Now that a videotape clearly shows that male officers were present, will this minister please tell me why his department officials lied to a member of Parliament?

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member I would like to say how much I appreciate his family values and the importance and emphasis he puts on schools and the function that they have to perform. I compliment him on his speech in that manner. He did a very good job.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on something that crosses my mind when we talk about what we are going to do with regard to these problems. Over the course of the last 20 or 25 years or whatever we talked about causes. The causes, we have to search them out.

I remember the drinking age being 21 and how that was lowered. That simply meant that it was lowered even lower than the illegal drinking age. Instead of 18 and 19 year olds illegally drinking, now it is 14, 15 and 13 year olds.

I think of pornography. There was a time we did not have any. Now it is running rampant. We have a lady in Alberta who is fighting hard to get rid of pornography, peep shows, nude dancing, all these things which we know contribute to the minds of our youth in a very negative way. It is a cause.

If you walked down the street and called a policeman a pig when you were a young man, what would happen? You would not do it out of fear, but more so out of respect. Now it is common practice. Yet there is no recourse, no way in the world that they are supposed to do any thing. We do not meet violence with violence. We listen to all of this bad mouthing-causes.

It seems like every time I address it the one thing that comes up is a wall that is put in front of me. If we want to do something about these causes, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that stops us so many times. When we decide we want to do something about a problem we have to remember the rights. I think it is a hindrance in our judicial system in that regard with young offenders.

Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the YOA is not the cause of crime. I do not think there are any qualms about that. I know we have been accused of saying that it is the cause but that is not the case at all. There are a number of causes. I agree with the hon. member there are causes that have to be addressed. We must address the causes in any way we can. We involve the provinces, social service and every aspect we can.

When we are trying to eliminate the causes and are doing a good job and somebody crosses the line and breaks the law anyway by committing murder, we say that the YOA is not doing its job of performing justice. The word justice is missing from our system in a number of ways.

I received 15,000 letters in one day that I will be delivering soon to the Minister of Justice. There are another 5,000 to 6,000 letters that I received in my riding and in Ottawa. I am sure every member has received letters that ask us to do something about young offenders. The government continually sits over there saying that it is all right, that Canadians like what they are doing, and that the act is good. That is baloney.

When will the government recognize what people are saying out there? It should pay attention to Canadians. The Young Offenders Act is not satisfactory to Canadians. Why does the government continually deny that? I know the member receives the same letters I do.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask the hon. member. I would like to comment on the 14 per cent of crimes being committed by youth; 12 to 17 year olds if I am not mistaken make up 14 per cent of the population, so that balances out pretty well.

Recently I went on a ride along in several places with police throughout the country, not just in one or two places. I witnessed the police dealing with youth on a few occasions. On many occasions there were no charges brought forward. Rather, the police dealt with the situation. They contacted parents and charges did not follow.

If charges were being made at a ridiculous pace to include school fights et cetera, I would have thought from those nights I was involved that there would have been a real increase in crime. However, there were no charges brought forward. I wonder what basis he has to show this House that is happening, that school yard fights are being reported. Where does he get his information?

I know at my school in my district of many schools, never once were the police ever called. That was until 1992. Never once were they called for a school yard fight. As far as I know, to this day they have never been.

He said that some provinces throw them in the clink for four to ten months and then just let them go. I would like to know what provinces these are and where he got his information.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on a very well delivered speech. He said some great words.

I too have had lots of experience with youth over a 35-year period. Could he explain or comment on his views of the young offender under the age of 12 at that time? How real was it and how informed and knowledgeable was that age of child, anywhere from 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or whatever the age might be as compared to the idea now that they are not accountable?

I would like his comments on the people who were under age 12.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding this. A 17-year-old murders an individual, such as the mother in Edmonton. Someone else, who happens to be one year older, does the same thing. For him it is an automatic life sentence for first degree murder because he is one year older.

Why should there be a difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old? Why should a 17-year-old who performs that kind of act receive three years, which is very possible, and an 18-year-old who performs that kind of heinous act receive a 25-year sentence?

I am struggling with the difference. Why do we not take 16 and 17 year olds and say they are in adult court, period? Why include something that says unless it can be proven that it would be more to their benefit to be in juvenile court? Are we trying to create more work for lawyers? That is probably one of the motives, but I would not dare suggest it.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the House understands that I agree we need to address those things but it should not be through the justice department. I am trying to differentiate between the two.

I also asked the member about 16 and 17 year olds and about how it is making a difference when I see it making no difference whatsoever. I would like him to respond to that part.

[Justice, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell Canadians about a sterling record of incompetence of the justice system which released this offender on parole once and on mandatory release three times beginning in 1963:

Six thefts, one B and E, one weapons possession, one attempted robbery, escaped custody, two auto thefts, one possession of dangerous weapon, one assault, one theft and then another escape, one car theft, one possession of dangerous weapon, parole violation, contributing to juvenile delinquency, theft and escape from custody, B and E, theft over $200, mandatory release and mandatory release violation, common assault, mandatory release and mandatory release violation, assault and theft under $200, indecent assault and failure to appear, forcible confinement and two counts of buggery, mandatory release and release violation.

Two counts of sexual assault finally ended this litany of crime.

I wonder if the parole board would consider mandatory supervision one more time for this habitual criminal. Mr. Gibbs promised to clear up boondoggles such as this in the parole board.

We on this side of the House are watching and wish him well.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of comments I would like to make with regard to what the member has said. I would like to get his comments back.

The government seems to be quite pleased with the idea that 16 and 17 year olds are going to be charged in adult court. Then it has thrown in a little extra clause which says unless it can be proven by the defendant that it would be more beneficial for them to be in juvenile court.

To me that means that every 16 and 17 year old who gets charged as an adult will appeal and want to be charged as a youth. I would not blame them for wanting to do that. That means more court time and more nice little jobs for lawyers to take on to help fill their pockets a little more and it does not change anything. Now we are charging the youth and if they feel they ought to be in adult court, then we have court trials to fight for that. I do not see where that has changed anything. Either 16 or 17 years old are in adult court or they are not. I cannot believe the government would come out with that kind of wishy-washy legislation.

I really wonder why so many members from the justice department are constantly concentrating on the social aspect of problems. We have a social department. I want to see good prevention programs. I want to see good rehabilitation. I want to see all the things that these people want to see, but the justice department does not want to address the part called justice. It continually wants to talk about low income families, the poor mistreated child, the victims of society. It does not address the justice part. Victims of this country are so anxiously awaiting to hear what we are going to do in terms of justice. I have not heard that yet.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I forgot for a moment that you were there. I will not do that again. But as you say, it is very easy to get worked up.

I have attended over 19 public meetings. I have personally interviewed thousands of people and I have listened to them. I did not encourage them in any way, fashion or form. I asked: Are you familiar with the proposals? They said yes. I asked: Are you in favour? There was an overwhelming no. This is mostly grassroots. I do not have time for a lot of the elite, as do some of the ministers. I am talking to grassroots individuals throughout the country. They do not want it. It is loud and clear from every indication.

Check the petitions that are tabled and tell me how many petitions are in favour of this and how many are against. Mr. Speaker, you will be pleasantly surprised.