Chuck Cadman

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 7 with the following:

“subsection (1), bearing in mind that the principle set out paragraph (1)( a ) is to be considered the paramount principle set out in that subsection.”

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following:

“pears to be ten years old or older, but less than sixteen years old and, if the context”

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43 on page 4 with the following:

““violent offence” means an offence under section 235 of the Criminal Code or an offence set out in Schedule I or II to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.”

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 40 on page 4.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 42 on page 3 and lines 1 to 11 on page 4.

[Bill C-3, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to see why Canadians have so little respect for politicians.

For the past number of months the justice committee has heard witnesses from across Canada on Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act. These folks have tried to convince the committee to change the bill. I thought they were successful. The committee ended up with approximately 260 amendments.

However, through the ineptitude of the rules, coupled with the government majority on the committee allowing one individual to prevent any discussion on these amendments, months of committee time has been wasted. The bill is to be reported back to the House in exactly the form it left over a year and a half ago.

Those who testified cannot be impressed that the justice committee was unable to make the changes. Canadians cannot be impressed that the committee has done nothing with this legislation.

As a member of parliament I am most disappointed that when we send a bill to committee for review and potential improvement it is not done. We have a problem when an individual who has not seen fit to present any amendments of any real substance to the legislation is able to prevent all other parties of the committee from doing their jobs for Canadians. I am outraged and Canadians should be outraged.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I too wish to welcome the Speaker and my colleagues back to the House after hopefully a summer of relaxation.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-334. This initiative by my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast would amend the criminal code to permit the relatives of a deceased veteran to wear any decoration awarded to that veteran.

The amendment stipulates that the relative can wear such decorations only on the right side of the chest and would only be permitted to do so on one day of the year, that being Remembrance Day. To do so at the present time would be in contravention of the criminal code.

The current law was written in the 1920s. I can certainly understand why it made sense then. Legitimate veterans of World War I did not want those who did not serve to be able to buy decorations and wear them for personal gain, status or to perpetrate fraud.

The reality of today is that the vast majority of these veterans have passed on. The coming decades will see the passing of the majority of those who served in World War II and Korea. Their decorations for the most part will be relegated to basements and attics, if not lost altogether. They will turn up in flea markets and junk shops where they will be seen as nothing more than just another bauble, their true meaning lost forever.

I do not think this is the way we want to honour the memory of those who are responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today. I will go so far as to say it is offensive, undignified and a dishonour to their memory. They are priceless and should be viewed that way.

This initiative is not intended to diminish the service, the sacrifice or the valour of the recipients of these decorations. It is meant to recognize and perpetuate the memory of their achievements. My hon. colleague has taken this initiative at the request of the relatives of veterans. They fear that the decorations awarded to their family members are being forgotten.

Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand have recognized the need to amend their laws pertaining to this matter and have acted accordingly. I find it somewhat perplexing that Canada has not followed suit. Are we so arrogant as to imply that Great Britain with its long military heritage and tradition is by simply allowing relatives of deceased veterans to proudly parade their decorations on Remembrance Day somehow degrading the memory of those who were all that stood between freedom and tyranny? Are we telling Australians and New Zealanders that we harbour more respect for our veterans than they do for theirs?

If I might be permitted to speak in some very personal terms, my father was a veteran of World War II. He did not serve in what some might mistakenly describe as one of the more glamorous capacities of military service. I use the word “mistakenly” because I have yet to meet any veteran who sees anything glamorous about war.

What I mean to say is that my father was not a fighter pilot or a gunner. He was not a paratrooper or a tank driver. He was not a frogman or a commando. No. My dad drove a truck. He was a convoy driver. He signed up in 1939 when the war broke out and mercifully returned home to Canada when it ended six years later.

He met my mother in Holland when Canadians liberated that country. The site of last spring's ceremonies, the town of Apeldoorn, is my mother's home town. It is where they met. She followed him to Canada in 1947.

My father's brother, my uncle, also served in Europe for the entire war and married a Flemish girl.

In the early 1950s my father did a short hitch with the Royal Canadian Air Force and my family spent two years in northern France. As a child, I played in the forests and fields that had been battlegrounds less than a decade earlier. I visited the still fresh cemeteries in France and Holland. To this day I remember standing before the imposing monument of Vimy Ridge. I vividly remember the bayonetted rifle barrels protruding skyward from the dirt of a backfilled trench.

My father's explanations as to what this was all about had a profound impact on me. Neither of my parents spoke much about the war. They did not have to. My mother's traumatic experience of years under the Nazi occupation was evident in her reaction whenever she heard someone speak with a German accent.

I remember once as a teenager bringing a schoolmate home. He was the son of recent German immigrants. He was tall and lean with sharp square features, blonde hair and spoke with a heavy accent. My mother was very gracious to him but after he had gone she asked me not to bring him around anymore if she was at home. She had no problem and no objection to me associating with him but to be in the same room with him was just too much for her. I learned something that day about the impact of war on people.

As for my father, his demeanour every November 11 was silent testimony to his innermost thoughts and feelings. My dad did not receive any special decorations for distinguished service or valour above and beyond the call of duty. He just got the same service medals given to thousands of other Canadian soldiers.

When he passed away in 1996 my only request of my siblings was to take those medals home with me. They are a constant reminder to me of who my dad was and the debt of gratitude I owe to him and to the tens of thousands of others like him. They also serve as a tangible reminder to me of the oppression and terror suffered by my mother and millions of others under Nazi tyranny. I am sure that many other children and other relatives of veterans could tell very similar stories.

I do recognize that opinion is divided within our veterans' organizations on this issue and I certainly respect the views of those who oppose the wearing of war decorations by any other than those to whom they were awarded. Perhaps that issue could be addressed at the local level through regulation or by some other means. These things could be discussed at committee.

Personally, why anybody would want to deny a spouse, a child or grandchild the opportunity and privilege of publicly acknowledging their deceased relatives' contributions by parading his or her military service decorations on the one day set aside for their remembrance is beyond me in the first place. However, to label that spouse, child or grandchild as a criminal, thereby lumping them with killers, rapists and thieves, is beyond reason. It is ludicrous.

I have heard it said here this morning that it is not up to the House of Commons to decide who should and should not wear war decorations. It is in the criminal code and it is only this place that can deal with the criminal code. What Bill C-334 does is it removes the aspect of relatives of deceased veterans wearing war decorations on Remembrance Day from the Criminal Code of Canada. Persons other than relatives would still be covered under the statute, as would anyone wearing the decorations on any day other than November 11.

I encourage my colleagues in this place to support sending this initiative to the standing committee.

[Young Offenders Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-297, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, has been around this place for a number of years now. It was first introduced as Bill C-260 in October 1997. In fact it was my first effort as a private member.

In May last year the government attempted to kill this private member's bill through a hoist motion. Fortunately the government subsequently reconsidered to withdraw its motion. The bill was allowed to proceed to a vote where all members of the House could exercise their voting rights. On May 25, 1999 it passed second reading by a vote of 164 to 75. My friends in the Bloc, most of the NDP and some Liberals voted against the bill but the vast majority of the House voted in favour of it. As is the process, the bill was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

With the prorogation of parliament it was reintroduced as Bill C-297 in November last year. According to the rules of the House it was then placed in the same position as previously and referred back to the justice committee.

On March 27 the bill was deemed to have been reported back to the House without amendment. We are now at the third and final stage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate that you know the particulars of Bill C-297, I will briefly state them for the folks who may be watching the debate through the benefit of television tonight. There are some very serious misconceptions in the public, in the media and among some of my colleagues in this place about just what this bill proposes.

The bill itself is relatively simple. It merely changes a sanction section of the Young Offenders Act from a simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid offence. What this means is that the crown attorney has the option, and I repeat the word option, of proceeding by summary conviction or by indictable offence. Indictable offences, of course, are reserved for the most serious of circumstances. The maximum sentence in this case is two years. In other words, offenders will receive provincial and not federal time at the top end; that is, the maximum.

What is the offence that is covered by this sanction, we may ask. It has to do with section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act that covers the offence of wilfully failing to comply with a court undertaking to supervise a young person. As we all know, some young people come into conflict with our laws. Occasionally some of these young persons are considered to be a danger to the safety and security of the rest of our society and are held in custody until their case may be resolved.

Section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act permits a responsible adult to sign an agreement with the court to supervise the young person. The young person is then permitted to leave custody under the supervision of that adult. The young person and the adult sign a form of contract with the court, agreeing that certain conditions will be followed for the protection and security of other citizens. These conditions might include refraining from alcohol use, geographic restrictions, not associating with specified individuals, curfews and any other condition the court deems appropriate. If the adult wilfully fails, and I stress the word wilfully, to properly supervise, as promised to the court, section 7.2 holds that adult accountable.

As I stated previously, the only real criticism of this bill comes from a misunderstanding or an unwillingness of some individuals to accept that this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with parental responsibility to their children. We are not holding parents responsible for delinquent children through this bill. The parent of the child who throws a rock through a window or gets into a schoolyard fight is not affected by this bill. We are holding responsible only those adults who deliberately and voluntarily enter into a form of contract with the court to carry out certain defined duties of supervision. These adults are to be held accountable for their wilful failure to obey that contract.

Those adults who make reasonable attempts to supervise or control their charges will not be subject to prosecution and conviction. Those adults who find they cannot control the young person can always advise the authorities and withdraw from their agreement to supervise. As I have said many times before, all the person who makes an undertaking has to do is to make a phone call to the authorities and advise of the difficulty in controlling that particular youth.

All this bill is attempting to do is to impress upon those who sign an undertaking and impress upon the young person the seriousness of the situation and to hold accountable those who wilfully fail to carry out their end of the bargain with the courts. We are only attempting to protect our citizens from additional crime and victimization by the young person who has been released into our community prior to the resolution of the initial charge or charges.

As has been stated many times by myself and others, including the Minister of Justice, this legislation has been incorporated within Bill C-3, which is essentially a re-writing of the Young Offenders Act. Some may well ask why I am pursuing Bill C-297 when the minister and cabinet through Bill C-3 have accepted the same initiative. The answer, of course, is quite simple: We can never be assured that Bill C-3 will become law.

Simply put, as of now, the Young Offenders Act is the law of the land. Bill C-297 amends the Young Offenders Act. Each and every day we do not have this change to our law results in another day in which the failing of the Young Offenders Act in respect of the criminal breach of an undertaking order is permitted to continue.

The minister recognized the problems of these undertakings when she incorporated my Bill C-297 almost word for word in her youth criminal justice legislation known as Bill C-3. All we are doing with Bill C-297 is bringing into law a portion of Bill C-3 to address the Young Offenders Act, the current law of Canada. Given the history of Bill C-3, we do not know when it will become law. Indeed, we do not even know if it will become law. If and when it does, we do not know if it will remain in its present format.

In fact, yesterday, when I asked the minister if we would have new legislation before an election call, she declined to give a direct answer.

However, we do know that Bill C-297 is acceptable to the Minister of Justice because she used it when she prepared Bill C-3. We do know that the majority of this place voted at second reading to pass the legislation and send it to the justice committee. We do know that the bill was returned to this place without amendment.

It is good law. It is one of the primary reasons I sought election to parliament. I think many members know that I have a very personal reason for proposing the legislation. If it succeeds in addressing justice in even one instance during the anticipated limited existence of the Young Offenders Act, then we as parliamentarians will have fulfilled some of our responsibilities as legislators.

I appreciate that some may question the placing of this legislation on our agenda when the government plans to address the issue with its own legislation. However, that legislation is severely stalled. It may be shelved or radically changed. It may never see the light of day. We simply do not know what will happen to it.

Bill C-297 is on the parliamentary calendar. It is a private member's initiative. I understand it has the support of a significant portion of members. It is my understanding that most, if not all, of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the bill. It is my hope that many, if not all, members of the government will support the legislation as it does exactly as proposed by the Minister of Justice in Bill C-3.

The minister has incorporated my initiative into her legislation, and I thank her for her support. Members of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party have spoken in support of the bill. I urge everyone to carefully consider its aim, its content and its consequences for victims of crime and for the support and respect of our justice system. I urge all members to support the bill.

[Young Offenders Act, June 13th, 2000]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I request consent to split my time with the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.

[Young Offenders Act, June 13th, 2000]

moved that Bill C-297, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be concurred in at report stage.