Chuck Cadman

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-79.

Victims of crime are finally going to see a start of some significant initiatives toward rights and privileges. It has been a long struggle but the government appears to have finally recognized and accepted the necessity of rebalancing the scales of justice to more adequately reflect the interests of victims of crime.

First I would like to acknowledge and compliment the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. He definitely got the ball rolling in this place. Throughout the 35th parliament he and his Reform colleagues pressured the government to introduce a victims bill of rights.

It was he who moved the Reform supply day motion of April 29, 1996 which was successful. This place voted to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as it was then called to draft a victims bill of rights. The Minister of Justice was also to initiate consultations with the provinces to arrive at a national standard for a victims bill of rights.

At the time of the debate, the Minister of Justice, now the Minister of Health, acknowledged the severe shortcomings of our legislation in regard to victims rights. He stated: “Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”. He promised specific victim legislation by the fall of 1996. He did not fulfill that promise. In fact it was not for two more years that the government put victims rights on its agenda.

In June 1998 the justice committee finally got around to conducting a review into what changes to the legislation were necessary to acknowledge and respect victims of crime. In October 1998 the justice committee submitted its report “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. It was a good report. It essentially had all-party support.

The Bloc submitted a short minority report but it essentially encouraged the government to respect the provincial jurisdiction within our Constitution in the area of victims issues. Even the Bloc did not have much complaint over the recommended changes to the federal legislation. Those changes merely enhance the role of victims in our criminal law process. The actual financial, physical and psychological assistance programs for victims would still remain a provincial initiative.

For one of the few times in this place, all participants seemed to be onside. The co-operation among the various political parties at the committee table was refreshing and appreciated.

Bill C-79 is merely the response to the committee report. It is long overdue. Victims have been waiting for far too long for many of these rather simple rights. There has been little reason for the government to delay as long as it has. Hopefully this legislation will be a start to rectifying the historical injustices to innocent members of our society who through no fault of their own happen to become victims of crime.

For years the government has fallen all over itself to safeguard the interests of criminals. Victims in many respects have been completely forgotten. Perhaps this legislation is an indication of change. There must be a more proper balance between the rights of the criminal and the rights of the victim.

As I have said, the committee report was an example of how parliamentarians could work together to produce a valuable product for all Canadians. The report contained 17 recommendations. Bill C-79 really only addresses about seven of the recommendations.

Recommendation No. 6 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to require consideration of the complainant's safety concerns prior to judicial interim release decisions, more commonly referred to as bail. There are a number of provisions to protect society as a whole or to protect specific portions of our community such as school children, et cetera, but there is a deficiency when it comes to considering the safety concerns of the specific victims of crime. It is the victim who is most likely to be the subject of intimidation regarding providing evidence and it is the victim who is most likely to be the subject of additional victimization. It only makes sense to consider that particular victim's concerns.

Paragraph 3 of the legislation requires a police officer to consider the safety and security of any victim or witness prior to releasing the accused from custody. Paragraph 4 of the legislation requires the officer in charge to make similar considerations. Paragraph 8 of the legislation places similar controls over the judge. The safety and security of any person, but particularly a victim or witness, must be considered.

Recommendation No. 7 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to facilitate exclusion orders and to prohibit cross-examination by an accused personally during proceedings involving specific offences where the witness is under the age of 18, rather than the current age of 14. The committee found that persons under the age of 18 were more easily intimidated by accused persons when permitted to cross-examine these young members of our society and, in effect, subjecting these victims to be victimized again.

Paragraph 2 of the legislation appears to fulfill this recommendation. Section 486 has been amended to change the age from 14 to 18 years. The judge may appoint counsel for the purpose of conducting the cross-examination.

Recommendation No. 8 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to permit a judge to ban the publication of identifying information concerning a victim, a complainant or a witness in certain circumstances. Concern was expressed over respecting the dignity and privacy of victims. Concern was expressed over hesitancy for complainants to come forward as witnesses should they not wish to have their identities revealed to the public.

Subparagraph 2(3) of the legislation appears to fulfill this recommendation. The judge or justice is given power to ban publication of information that could identify a victim or a witness if necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Recommendation No. 9 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to permit victims the right to read their impact statements into the record either personally or by other means provided the accused has received a copy of the statement in advance. As I have said before, the opportunity to present a victim impact statement in court helps the victim to feel that they are an important part of the justice process, not merely a spectator. It gives them a measure of closure in that they have had the opportunity to impress upon the court just how they have been harmed by the offence. It gives them an opportunity to impress upon the offender just how they have been damaged by the actions of that individual. It gives them the opportunity to hope that their words may cause the offender to reflect upon their misconduct and perhaps move them on the road to rehabilitation.

This recommendation was of special significance to me. As some may know, my son was murdered six and a half years ago. I was not permitted to present my impact statement orally. I have been working for this change, among others, ever since.

Paragraph 17 of the legislation appears to fulfill this recommendation. The court shall permit the victim to read victim impact statements.

Recommendation No. 10 proposed changes to require impact statements to be provided to the offender or counsel and to the prosecutor as soon as practicable after a determination of guilt. Concern had been raised over the fact that victim impact statements were to be provided to an accused as soon as it was filed. They were often used as evidence during the trial through cross-examination to attack the credibility of the victim, even though they were not permitted as evidence until the sentencing portion of the hearing, if any. To provide fairness, this recommendation proposed notice to the offender as soon as practicable after the finding of guilt. They cannot and should not be used until sentencing so they should not be available to the defence until sentencing. There will be ample opportunity at the sentencing for the defence to challenge the statement.

Paragraph 18 appears to fulfill this recommendation. The clerk of the court shall provide a copy of the report to the offender or counsel and to the prosecutors. We, as proponents of victims' rights issues, are fair. We certainly recognize the necessity to provide the offender with notice of the contents of an impact statement.

Evidence must not be presented in surprise although the rules of disclosure currently allow the defence to do just that, but that is a fight for another day. In this case. the offender must be provided the opportunity to lead contradictory evidence, if any.

Recommendation No. 11 proposed changes to oblige the sentencing judge to determine whether the victim had been provided an opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement and to grant an adjournment for that purpose where satisfied it would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Paragraph 18 of the legislation appears to fulfill that recommendation. The court inquires of the prosecutor whether the victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a statement.

One of the primary problems with victims' issues is that no one can forecast becoming a victim of crime. As such, victims most often have little idea of what rights, privileges or provisions are available to them. It is one thing to provide victims with rights. It is quite another thing to ensure that the victim is made aware of those rights.

Recommendation No. 11 was made by the committee to ensure that the victim was made aware of the right to present a victim impact statement and the opportunity to prepare and submit the statement. Bill C-79 meets this test. The court has discretion whether to adjourn the proceedings to permit the victim to prepare a statement if satisfied that the adjournment would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Recommendation No. 13 recommended that the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act be amended to allow for the automatic imposition of a mandatory minimum victim fine surcharge that could be waved by the court to avoid undue hardship to the offender. Paragraph 20 appears to fulfill this recommendation in respect of Criminal Code cases.

The government has refused to initiate similar provisions with respect to young persons. In the recent legislation introduced in the youth criminal justice act, the government has essentially left victim fine surcharges to the provinces. If the provinces do not provide leadership in this area the court may impose a surcharge. The government has left this type of provision in spite of the Minister of Justice's comments that the practice of leaving it to the courts has not worked. Judges have had that power for years but they either refuse to use it or forget about it when imposing sentences. It was because of this problem that the justice committee recommended a mandatory minimum surcharge or a sort of reverse onus clause. It requires the court to automatically assess a fine surcharge but leaves it up to the defendant to argue economic hardship. The justice committee was attempting to provide sufficient financial resources to assist the provinces to provide sufficient resources to victims of crime.

We will be attempting to have this amended in the current legislation or in the new youth justice act.

As members can see, Bill C-79 addresses a number of recommendations of the justice committee report. The recommendations that have been addressed have been relatively simple and not too painful. None of them really require any additional funding from the government or in actual fact the taxpayer. None of the accepted recommendations impact on the rights of the accused to any great extent. Yes, the accused may be held in custody if there is a decision that the victim or witness is at risk of further harm. Yes, the accused may no longer personally cross-examine young victims in cases such as sexual assault. Yes, the victim is being provided with enhanced rights to present a victim's impact statement. Yes, there is a better method of obtaining fine surcharges to provide assistance to victims.

All of these are long overdue and are not a particularly burdensome imposition on our accused or our criminals. They all make common sense. It is indeed a wonder why we have waited so long to bring them into being.

I will now move to comment on recommendations that have not been addressed by the government. Victims have waited for years to finally obtain substantive recognition and respect for their interests. The justice committee heard from a number of victims and victims' groups both in testimony and in a one and a half day round table forum last summer. There was a co-ordinated response from the committee of the necessity to act and act now. Unfortunately, this same sentiment is not as present with the government.

In recommendation No. 5, the justice committee proposed the tabling of an omnibus bill to address needed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Bill C-79 only addresses the Criminal Code aspect. The minister has used the excuse that the justice committee is presently reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so the government will await that report before deciding whether to initiate reforms to that legislation in regard to victims' rights. The minister has also claimed that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is the responsibility of the solicitor general. My first thought is the old problem of the chicken and the egg. Which came first?

We have a victims' rights report. It addresses the needed changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is after years and years of waiting. It is difficult for me to accept having to wait some more months, perhaps many months, before the government might bring forth the needed victim legislation as it pertains to our prisons and our parole system.

It is difficult to understand why the government does not just do the job necessary. Why does it always have to seem to need to be forced to introduce legislation that is best for its citizens? Why does it play political games to procrastinate and to prolong the suffering and disregard of innocent Canadians who just happen end up as victims of crime?

For the minister to claim that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act comes under the responsibility of the solicitor general may be acceptable to the general public but we all know that it is the Minister of Justice's department that puts together legislation of a legal nature. Yes, the solicitor general has overall responsibility but he and his predecessor have had the committee recommendations the same time as the Minister of Justice. Surely the Corrections and Conditional Release Act response to the committee report could have been completed in the same time as the Criminal Code portion. In fact the more substantial portion of the report dealt with changes to the Criminal Code.

There were essentially four recommendations dealing with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These changes were relatively simple. They were of the same nature as the changes to the Criminal Code. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the solicitor general's area of response is not now before the House. That is a travesty to victims of crime. It is unacceptable.

A number of recommendations had to do with developing a victims of crime strategy, co-ordinating federal-provincial responsibilities, establishing a national office for victims of crime and creating an advisory committee on victims of crime. All of these aspects do not really require legislation.

The Minister of Justice has announced that she will be creating the national office within her department. We have seen little evidence of how it is to operate. We hope it develops into more than just a public relations exercise or a haven for patronage appointments. It cannot be allowed to develop into just another bureaucratic department.

As a member of the justice committee, I know that this recommendation had more to do with creating a substantial initiative to properly assist victims toward obtaining justice and closure for their unwanted and unfortunate involvement with crime. This national office and any advisory committee must provide concrete solutions and resolutions to victims' issues. Canadians are looking for action, not some more bureaucratic delay, not more red tape and certainly not more excuses.

I am concerned about the definition of victim. It has been added to the definition section of the Criminal Code and merely states, “includes the victim of an alleged offence”. For the purposes of section 722 there is a broader definition of victim. This includes a person to whom harm was done or who suffered physical or emotional loss as a result of the commission of an offence. Section 722 is restricted to victim impact statements.

During the anticipated justice committee review of this legislation, I will be interested in hearing why a broader definition, similar to what is included in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, has not been used. Without getting carried away and making everyone a victim of any crime, there may well be sufficient argument to ensure true victims are not excluded merely because of the wording of the legislation.

I will conclude my submission with a couple of stories which I hope will drive home to my hon. colleagues the shoddy treatment some victims of crime are subjected to.

My son Jesse's best friend was at his side when he died. Can anybody here even begin to imagine the trauma? Jeremy's parents attempted to get him some help but were told the waiting list was months long. Five months later, on the eve of my son's birthday, Jeremy acted out by committing a very minor offence himself. As an offender he received help within days. What does that tell us?

Two weeks after our own tragedy, Laurie Woods and her roommate were brutally stabbed to death.

To make a long story short, Laurie's mother Pat anticipated the possibility of requiring counselling. When Laurie's dad Bob inquired about financial compensation for counselling, should it be required, some thoughtless bureaucrat promptly told him that his wife did not qualify because she did not personally witness the killings.

Family members of homicide victims witness the event every night in their nightmares. Bob and Pat are friends of mine. A short time later we along with others were successful in getting the rules in British Columbia changed. Granted these are provincial issues but I think the point is made. The issue must be approached at all levels.

I do not intend on being entirely of gloom and doom. The legislation is a start toward victims rights provisions. It has been far too long in coming. Even the government's response to the justice committee is only half done. We will still have to wait for the changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Hopefully Canadians, and especially victims of crime, will not have to wait too much longer for the government to fulfil the needs of these individuals. Today is a start. There is still a long way to go.

[Victims Rights, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians, and especially victims of crime, finally receive some legislated form of victims rights. It is unfortunate that we have had to wait so long for these relatively simple reforms to our criminal law. For six years the Reform Party has been pressuring the government.

In response to a Reform motion by the member for Langley—Abbotsford and supported by the majority of the last parliament, the former Minister of Justice and now Minister of Health promised legislation would be introduced in the fall of 1996. It was not.

Last October the justice committee made 17 recommendations toward improvements to victims rights.

Today, at long last, we have finally heard from the Minister of Justice. Six years; why did it take so long? And, still we are only half way there. The government still has much to do in the area of corrections and conditional release.

On behalf of victims, I seriously question the government's priorities in respect of victims rights.

[Division No. 363, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga East for her words. I know how much this means to her. I know her persistence in trying to get it through for a number of years.

Does she have some thoughts on the impact this kind of legislation would have? Should we eventually get this kind of legislation, what does she feel the impact will be on Canadian society as a whole?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's propaganda about the new youth criminal justice act talks about adult sentences for young persons age 14 and over. What it does not want to talk about is section 745.1 which mandates that 14 and 15 year olds sentenced as adults for murder are eligible for parole at five to seven years when anybody over 18 must serve 10 to 25 years.

Does the minister actually want Canadians to believe that a murderer who gets parole after as little as five years is really getting an adult sentence?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on a summer evening a number of years ago I was sitting in our living room when I heard the sound of sirens. Now, that is not an uncommon occurrence on a Saturday night in the town where I live. However, later on I heard that there had been a drive-by shooting in which a teenager had died. The car in which he was a passenger was stopped at a red light when another car pulled up alongside. A teenage passenger in the second car leaned out the window and fired point blank.

The next day I mentioned the incident to one of my children who had spent that night at a friend's house not too far from the shooting. He told me that he had heard the fatal gun shot. I remember thinking “Just what is our community coming to?” I also remember thinking about the parents of the victim. A few days later the suspected killer was himself killed in an act of revenge. Again, I remember thinking about the safety of our streets.

A couple of months later on another Saturday night a family friend was visiting from the Queen Charlotte Islands. After dinner, as I was sitting in my living room, our son Jesse sauntered down the hall, paused at the top of the stairs, said goodbye to his mother and our friend in the kitchen, glanced toward me, and with a “See you later, dad” bounded down the stairs and out.

Jesse was a drummer and his rock band had been asked to play at a house party. He was excited. It was their first gig. Our daughter, who is three years older, left shortly afterwards, leaving us to a quiet evening of conversation.

At 11.15, shortly after our friend had left, Jesse phoned telling me that he and his two buddies were on their way home. They were waiting for a bus. An hour later the phone rang again. My wife answered the phone. She swore. It was the hospital. They wanted us there right away. Jesse had been stabbed.

A panicked five minute drive, hospital staff avoiding eye contact as we ran through the doors, and then the words no parent should ever have to hear: “We're sorry, we tried, but there was too much damage”.

A single stab wound to the back had pierced his heart. He was 16. That was October 18, 1992, on my father's 81st birthday. Jesse would have been 23 years old tomorrow.

Jesse was the victim of a random, unprovoked attack on himself and his two friends by complete strangers. He died in the arms of his best friend at the side of the same road, about a quarter mile from the spot where the earlier shooting, the one which he had heard, had occurred a couple of months previous. His attackers were part of the same loose-knit group of thieves and thugs involved in that shooting. In fact, it later came out that his killer, also 16, idolized the shooter and saw him as a martyr.

There was an arrest within days. The police informed us that the accused, because of his age, and unless the crown could successfully argue that he be tried as an adult, would be facing three years in secure custody followed by two years in open, most likely community supervision and then free with no criminal record.

Mr. Speaker, you have no idea just how devastating the knowledge is to a family that is still reeling from the murder of a loved one that there is a philosophy in this country which holds that three years of incarceration is an appropriate sanction for intentionally taking the life of an innocent stranger in a random, unprovoked attack on the street.

Two days after we buried Jesse a six year old girl was raped and murdered in Courtenay, British Columbia. Eventually her 16 year old neighbour was charged. He also faced a mere three years of secure custody and two in open.

That was my introduction to the Canadian criminal justice system and the Young Offenders Act. I am neither a lawyer nor an academic, but after 20 months in the courts ourselves, six and half years of involvement with other families and individuals who, in the words of a dear close friend, now belong to a club that none of us wanted to join, and the same amount of time listening to Canadians at shopping malls and soccer fields, not conference rooms and lecture theatres, I think that I am reasonably qualified to speak to this issue.

In fact, it was the refusal of the justice committee to allow me to appear in open session when it was in Vancouver in 1996 which pushed me over the edge and prompted me to seek election to this place.

Last Friday in this place the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley said that following my appearance before the justice committee a number of years ago a government member commented to the effect that victims bring nothing to this debate other than sentiment. I make no apology for that. For far too long our legislators and our courts have chosen to ignore the real human impact and human cost of crime, especially youth crime and violent crime.

I once heard that a Vancouver lawyer wanted families of homicide victims barred from courtrooms because they cried too much and might influence a jury.

Mr. Speaker, as you may guess, I have looked forward to an opportunity like this for some time now. The Young Offenders Act will hopefully be assigned to the garbage heap of history before too long. It has been a failure and Canadians have had to suffer its consequences for far too long. It was never a priority of various governments over the years. Obviously it was not a priority of the present government. The minister, upon taking the job, claimed that introducing new young offender legislation was to be one of her major priorities, but how much of a priority was it when it has taken almost two years for the legislation to come before us? What do we have? We have a new name. We have new spin-doctoring from the government. We have new claims of being tougher on crime, but we really have the same old thing wrapped up in a nice new package.

For every step forward there is a step backward. Ineffective legislation does Canadians a disservice. It does our youth an even bigger disservice as they are most often the victims of youth crime. Of course youth involved in crime are dealt a very questionable hand when the citizenry become so disenchanted with the law that they take it out on the offenders by ostracizing them or refusing to help in rehabilitation.

What has the minister been doing for the past two years? In the fall of 1997 she promised Canadians that changes would be made to the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion. She was working on it. Over the winter of 1997 and early 1998 she claimed that she was not going to deal with the legislation in a simplistic manner, but was going to deal with a complicated issue in the proper manner. Then, under great fanfare, with all the splash of press conferences, fancy overheads and colourful brochures, the minister came out with her youth justice strategy; not legislation, just proposals. She was going to get tough on young criminals and promised legislation by the fall of 1998. Of course we did not get it. The minister claimed that she needed more consultation with the provinces.

It soon became apparent that what she really had to do was to shake loose some federal dollars to pay for her proposals. One would have thought she would have had this in place upfront.

Instead of getting long overdue changes to address youth crime, Canadians had to wait for the government to pony up the bucks. This was done to some extent with the February budget. We now have legislation. I suppose the government is hoping that Canadians are so worn out from pushing and pressuring for something they will be happy with anything. I assure them that we are quite prepared to flesh out the legislation. We are quite prepared to see what can be done to finally give Canadians what they have been seeking for years, but we will not be holding our breath.

The government has shown on numerous occasions its unwillingness to listen to reason. I only need to mention the funding for hepatitis C, debt reduction, breaks for overtaxed Canadians, conditional sentencing and two tier justice whereby the government is trying to promote one form of justice for aboriginals and another for the rest of Canadians.

The youth criminal justice act fails to deliver what Canadians expect. We will propose amendments. We are in this for the long haul and we will not let the issue slide as the government would like it to do.

The minister claimed that she would deal with this complicated issue and would take the time to deal with it in a proper manner. While we can certainly agree that she has taken her time, we have to question her claim that it was complicated.

When going through the proposed legislation clause by clause we found for the most part that it was the old Young Offenders Act rewritten and presented in a different format. When particular provisions appear to have been tightened up there is almost always a corresponding opportunity for the provinces or the courts to provide exceptions and to maintain the status quo.

What actually makes it complicated for the minister is her attempt to appease all the different philosophies within her government. Some want tougher legislation. Others think everything is just fine the way it is. Still others want it to become even more lenient. Some actually believe that society is to blame for all our crime and criminals are merely those that society has failed. No wonder we have problems in the criminal justice system.

Then we have the minister claiming that she needed time to consult with the provinces. She had to understand what the various regions of Canada were seeking in the overhaul of our youth laws. Obviously the minister has little faith in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The committee spent many months conducting hearings from coast to coast. The committee listened to the provinces. It spent almost half a million dollars to provide a comprehensive report with a number of recommendations toward significant changes to the laws. I guess that was not enough so I will accept that the minister wanted more consultation.

Was it reasonable consultation or was it merely a stall because the government was having trouble satisfying its caucus? I suspect that there was not adequate consultation. I cite comments by the Minister of Justice for Alberta. He wrote to the federal minister to complain about this very issue. He states:

Despite your assertion to the contrary, there has not been sufficient consultation with respect to the proposed replacement legislation for the Young Offenders Act.

The government failed to include the major concerns of at least some of the provinces. Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario are on record as agreeing to a number of significant changes. First on their list was the reduction in age of criminal accountability in selected cases to address the serious offences committed by children under 12 and for those in this group who exhibit a pattern of offending.

Calgary Chief of Police Christine Silverberg criticized the government's changes as not going far enough with violent children under age 12. The Winnipeg police inspector in charge of youth crime, Ken Biener, stated:

—she missed the boat completely in failing to adopt the recommendation to allow 10 and 11 year olds to be arrested and face the courts.

It should be of no surprise that this was not included. Not only did the government ignore their partners in the youth justice process. It also ignored the justice committee and its reports which included a very similar recommendation.

The minister attacks the Reform Party for wanting to include 10 and 11 year olds within the youth justice process. She characterizes the proposal as barbaric. She refuses to accept that our present system is failing to properly address and help these younger members of our society. She refuses to permit these young offenders to obtain all the benefits of rehabilitation and reintegration.

Instead, she leaves them in this vacuum where they do not get the help and the support they need. She refuses to acknowledge that the provinces want reforms in this area and the police need support in their effort to deal with violent 10 and 11 year olds. She refuses to even acknowledge that members of her caucus have publicly supported the inclusion of 10 and 11 years olds in the youth justice system. She refuses to acknowledge that the Liberal majority on the justice committee of the last parliament, chaired by our late colleague Shaughnessy Cohen, supported the inclusion of 10 and 11 year olds within the legislation.

We have all seen what happens to those few Liberals who challenge the views of the party management. Fortunately for all of us Shaughnessy did not suffer that fate.

There is another example of failing to consult. These provinces had demanded an amendment to apply the victim fine surcharge to young offenders.

Like the justice committee that recommended the same thing in a victims rights report, these provinces saw the benefit of having young offenders supply some of the financing of assistance to victims of crime. However the legislation does not include automatic victim fine surcharges. It merely provides the opportunity for the provinces to bring in their own legislation.

I also note that a number of provinces were seeking a mandatory custody disposition for youths convicted of offences involving the use of weapons. Once again the government has chosen to ignore those on the frontlines of the youth justice process. There is no provision for mandatory custody for crimes involving the use of weapons. It makes me wonder whether the government just has a justice committee to use when its reports correspond to the government's own political position.

As for consultation with interested participants, the government meets with the provinces to say it has consulted but there appears to be little intention of meaningful dialogue unless those provinces share the political position of the federal government.

I have mentioned a number of failings just in getting the legislation before the House. The government does not listen to its partners in the administration of youth justice. It does not participate in adequate consultation. It does not even follow its own committee when valid recommendations are made after extensive input.

Instead the government merely goes on and does what it wants to do for purely political reasons. It ignores the priority to do what is right for Canadians, including those youth that find themselves on the wrong side of the law and those youth that are most often the victims of youth crime.

I will now move on to discuss a number of the specific issues covered by the legislation. I will deal with a few positive developments first and then move on to some of the negative aspects that raise concerns.

The minister has decided to formalize the whole matter of police discretion. This will enable the frontline troops, so to speak, to deal with minor youth indiscretions quickly and easily. The occasional scuffle over a street hockey game can be resolved through police caution or warning. It is the same with most childhood pranks. The theft of a chocolate bar from a corner store need not go to a community based committee or even to court.

The minister likes to characterize members of my party as being one dimensional and interested only in locking up offenders. She is wrong. The hon. member for Crowfoot recommended this very initiative in his minority report to the justice committee in April 1997. He included it within his private member's Bill C-210. He understood the necessity to support the police. Many officers were already doing this without legislative authority. Others were afraid to use their discretion. They were concerned that they could be subjected to criticism as they did not have the proper authority.

The government has also made quite a big thing about their interest and the need to deal with non-violent offenders differently from violent offenders. It is regrettable that many in the media have been sold on this idea as being solely a Liberal initiative. It is really nothing new. In many parts of Canada there are already programs known as diversion, restorative justice, alternative measures, community based youth justice committees, healing circles, and the list goes on. All the government has done is to create an all-encompassing term, extrajudicial measures, to cover them all.

Again the hon. member for Crowfoot proposed his two prong form of justice whereby first time non-violent offenders could proceed through a more informal process. They would simply take responsibility for their actions and obey the requirements set out by any community based committee or organization. This was proposed both in his minority report to the justice committee and in his private member's bill.

The government cannot claim credit for this proposal. Reform was not interested in claiming credit. We were only interested in doing what was needed for a proper system of justice. We have had to bring this matter to public attention merely because of government attempts to characterize the Reform Party as one dimensional.

I have been personally involved with dozens of young offenders in a diversion program in my home province for some four years now. I want to publicly acknowledge Lola Chapman for the work she has done in this area. Lola and I have worked closely with the B.C. attorney general to expand the use of these programs. I am in full support of them in the limited circumstances of first time non-violent situations.

Some have expressed surprise, given my personal experience, that I would even be interested in working with wayward youth. We all know that as youth we made mistakes and some, I dare say, may have broken some laws. All most of us needed was to be taken to task for these indiscretions. If we failed to pay attention and moved on to additional crimes or more serious offences then we deserved to be treated in a more formal process. This is the same for today's youth. This is all we are looking for from legislation.

The final area I would like to discuss from a positive aspect is the incorporation of my private member's Bill C-260 in its entirety. Once again there was a massive leak of information about the legislation before it was actually introduced. Part of the leaks had to do with my private member's proposal. However, most of the media reports have misinterpreted this part of the legislation as something new in Canadian law.

These reports indicate that parents will be held criminally responsible for the crimes of their children. Nothing could be further from the truth in both respects. What has me concerned is whether the sources of the government leaks have deliberately misinterpreted this proposal. Furthermore, the government has shown little interest in correcting these misinterpretations. After all, it is now part of its legislation.

I have had to cover the issue on a number of different types of media. I have written a number of letters to the editor to attempt to correct the record. The law has been around for a number of years. My proposal merely enhances the potential punishment. It has nothing to do with the crimes of the young person. It has solely to do with the written agreement or contract whereby the young person is released from custody while awaiting trial.

The young person is essentially released on a form of bail when a responsible adult, usually a parent, signs a legal undertaking to supervise that young person to ensure court imposed conditions are respected. Both the young person and the adult sign the agreement. Both are liable to be charged with an offence if they each wilfully fail to fulfil the agreement: the parent for wilfully failing to supervise as agreed and the young person for wilfully failing to obey the conditions. The offence has to do with the court agreement. It has nothing to do with the ordinary responsibilities of the parent.

There is only the obligation to supervise. When the person who signed the undertaking becomes aware of a breach of conditions there is an obligation to notify the authorities. There is a high threshold to meet before a case may be made that an adult has wilfully failed to supervise as required.

It should be said that the initiative for this came from my own personal experience whereby my son's killer was in breach of a court imposed curfew that night. He had also failed to appear in court some three weeks earlier; another breach of conditions. His father had signed an undertaking to supervise some months earlier.

Obviously I support the legislation in respect of judicial undertakings by responsible persons. I will be interested in seeing how this portion of the bill develops. I will be interested in seeing whether members of the government attempt to claim this initiative as their own, and I do not really care as long as it gets done.

Impressing upon both the parent and the young person the serious repercussions for violating the agreement will protect members of our communities. Hopefully the parent will think twice about signing such an agreement if there is little expectation for the young person to mend his or her ways. Hopefully the young person will think twice before breaking the conditions of release and endangering the position of the parent who wilfully fails to supervise.

I will now discuss some of the inadequacies of the legislation, and there are a number. Even though I have been provided with a significant amount of time, it will take a number of opportunities to address all of them. Fortunately we have a committee process to go through. We have amendments to propose. At some time we will be back here to make comments at third reading.

Earlier I mentioned the concern with the government's scheme of extrajudicial measures. It has taken a valuable and progressive means of addressing minor crime and once again opened it up to massive abuse. It did the same thing with adult conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentencing involves serving a sentence in the community under some form of supervision. It may involve some type of house arrest. It may involve some form of restitution to the community through providing service with charitable organizations.

There are many uses for conditional sentencing. What did the government use it for? It used it to reduce the cost of incarceration. It said the jails and the prisons were too full and were too costly. It said that criminals were really not bad people and that mere arrest and conviction were enough to teach them the error of their ways. It said that the courts would not permit violent and repeat offenders to take advantage of conditional sentencing.

However the courts permitted all kinds of violent criminals to obtain this get out of jail free ticket. Killers got conditional sentences. Violent sex offenders got conditional sentences. Pedophiles got conditional sentences. Repeat offenders got conditional sentences.

When Bill C-41 was debated in 1994 and 1995 the Reform Party argued to restrict the use of conditional sentencing to first time non-violent and non-drug offenders. We understood its value but only for a restricted purpose. The government has been consistent. It refused to listen. It maintained only it knew the best.

Recently the Minister of Justice recognized the abuse of conditional sentencing. She requested the justice committee to review the issue. She will likely then procrastinate some more and suggest that perhaps more consultation is required. In the end she will do what is political. She will take much of her direction from the Prime Minister's Office. After all, he was a justice minister in the dim past and he is undoubtedly another expert on conditional sentencing, even though it was unheard of at that time.

Getting back to youth legislation, extrajudicial measures can easily become more of a problem than conditional sentencing. Under section 4(c) of the bill they are presumed to be adequate for non-violent offences. The word presume is key. It means that extrajudicial measures will be the rule rather than the exception in cases of non-violent offences.

Let us see how non-violent is defined. It means an offence that does not cause or create a substantial risk of causing bodily harm. This definition would include sexual touching, as there is no risk of bodily harm. Pedophiles cause psychological harm to young children. This definition would include the possession of child pornography, as there is no risk of bodily harm. It would include break and enters into homes, as there would have to be a substantial risk of causing bodily harm in order to avoid this definition.

This definition would include drug offences, including trafficking. Is there a substantial risk of bodily harm for selling crack cocaine in a school? I would hate to have to convince a court that there was this risk when the evidence is limited to one sale to one student, another sale to another student and so on. How could it be proven that there is substantial risk of bodily harm when only one hit of the drug is provided at the time?

Extrajudicial measures will be available to repeat offenders. While clause 4(c) limits the provision to non-violent offenders who have not previously been found guilty of an offence, that clause applies only to where extrajudicial measures are presumed to be adequate. Clause 4(d) permits these measures to be used even if there were previous convictions. It permits these measures even if they were used for the same offender before.

This means extrajudicial measures may be used 100 times for the same offender for any number of crimes. This means extrajudicial measures may be used even though that offender may have been convicted of a previous offence. There is no further limitation. The previous offence may have been manslaughter, sexual assault or murder.

Sometimes I wonder whether this government is interested in putting anyone in prison. This government is responsible for allowing all types of violent offenders to remain in our communities threatening the safety of our citizens. It seems intent on doing the same thing with our young offenders.

Adult sentencing will be available for presumptive offences but even for those where there is an opportunity for the young person to challenge adult sentencing in each particular situation. As well, the judge may only use adult sentencing when of the opinion that a youth sentence is not adequate. Presumptive offences are limited to murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. The definition is very limited. It does not include all types of crimes in which a weapon is used. It does not include kidnapping. It does not even include sexual assault causing bodily harm. These are all seriously violent crimes but they are not sufficient for this government to include in its presumptive offences.

The adult sentence for murder is life imprisonment. For those over 18 parole eligibility is at 25 years for first degree and 10 to 25 years for second degree. For 16 and 17 year olds parole eligibility comes at 10 years for first degree and 7 years for second degree. For those under 16, parole eligibility comes at 5 to 7 years. There is no change.

I attended the trials of a 15 year old and the 19 year old who were convicted for the savage murder of a frail 79 year old widow. She is buried just a stone's throw from my son. The 15 year old masterminded the plot, he was the more violent of the two, he targeted the lady because she would be easy. He had done yard work for her so he knew that she would let them into her home. The judge sentenced the 19 year old to 15 years before parole eligibility. He then complained on the record that his hands were tied by parliament forcing him to set parole ineligibility at only seven years for the young offender, and that has not changed.

I will illustrate further how this government just does not listen. In 1994 my son's killer was handed a parole ineligibility period of ten years, the maximum allowable at the time. When Bill C-37 was before the House in the last parliament it proposed to fix parole ineligibility for second degree murder at seven years. I anticipated a loophole because he was in the process of appealing the sentence at that time. I wrote the then justice minister, the current health minister, with my concerns. No response.

Bill C-37 became law in December 1995. The following spring the killer had three years knocked off his parole ineligibility period not because he deserved it but because the new law was made retroactive if to the benefit of the offender. I commented publicly, saying I told you so. A few days later I received a call from a justice department lawyer asking me what happened. This is what happened. If a letterhead or a call display does not indicate a university or a professional organization, this government does not want to hear from you.

I will briefly mention the second half of the definition of presumptive offence. In practice it will have almost no applicability. To be included within the definition of a presumptive offence an offender must commit three seriously violent offences for which an adult could be sentenced to prison for more than two years. A judge must have made a determination that the offence was a serious violent offence and endorse the information accordingly, twice.

A serious violent offence is defined as an offence that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing serious bodily harm, not just bodily harm, serious bodily harm. Most courts will have difficulty in distinguishing between bodily harm and serious bodily harm.

Would members like to explain to the victim and to the public that a particularly vicious attack only caused bodily harm and not serious bodily harm? Would members like to explain to the victim and the public that there has been only one prior documented incident of the offender causing serious bodily harm? We need two.

Would any of the members opposite like to explain to a victim or the public that this offender caused bodily harm a number of times in the past but he only caused serious bodily harm once so he still does not come within the definition of a presumptive offence?

Adult sentences are also available for offences for which an adult could be sentenced to prison for more than two years and if the young person is 14 or older. The very inclusion of presumptive offences and these other types of offences leaves the courts and our youth justice system with the distinct impression that parliament is serious about the presumptive offences and much less serious about the other types.

In case the listener thinks these provisions for adult sentencing will result in similar crimes receiving similar sentences for both adults and young persons, I point out some other wrinkles.

The overriding principles of this legislation include rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person. There are no words such as deterrence and denunciation. There is to be no punishment for the sake of deterring other young persons from similar activity. There is to be no punishment for the sake of expressing society's displeasure and abhorrence of a particularly gruesome or violent crime.

All young persons must be rehabilitated and reintegrated in a short period of time. This government believes they are all curable and pose little risk to our communities when they are returned.

This whole idea of adult sentencing for those 14 and older is nothing more than a con job. There will be challenges in almost every case against their imposition. Lawyers will be fully and extensively employed. Judges will be permitted to continue in their lenient ways. After all, many of them have liberal tendencies as most of them were appointed by the Prime Minister and his predecessors. The judges have unlimited discretion to determine when to impose adult sentencing and when to impose youth sentencing. Section 72 does not limit this discretion in any way.

The provinces are also involved, as the crown has the opportunity to support youth sentencing or to fail to provide notice that an adult sentence is to be sought. Then there is the overriding principle that these young persons are to be rehabilitated. They are not to be deterred and denounced.

The whole issue of deeming of young persons is of the same nature. The government sells the idea that it will be tough and young persons receiving adult sentences are to be named. The government does not, however, say much about all the provisions that permit the court to ban the publication of names. A young person may apply for the ban. The crown has the option of not opposing the ban. The court has complete discretion to ban publication.

The act is set up so that rehabilitation and reintegration are the primary principles to be applied. There is no requirement by parliament that certain crimes automatically require the naming of offenders so that the public has the knowledge of who is a risk to its safety and security. Even those who 14 and over who commit a presumptive offence like murder or aggravated sexual assault may receive a youth sentence and may be protected by a ban on publication of their names.

Earlier I spoke about the rape and murder of a little girl by her 16 year old neighbour. At the time of the murder he was on probation for sexually molesting a young child. He was allowed to reside in a complex full of children in complete anonymity because of his age. I do not think I need say more about protecting the identity of those who pose a threat.

As I have said, when this government does change legislation it does not like to change much. It prefers to change the packaging and the sales pitch. Canadians end up with the same old thing. In some cases we end up with something far worse. With the youth criminal justice act, the jury is still out.

The government refused to lower the age to 10 for purely political reasons. The issue has been around since 1962 when the justice department recommended this change. The government ignored the recommendation then and it ignored it today. There are obvious difficulties in this legislation such as the extrajudicial measures that may be rectified through amendment. The government is once again unlikely to listen and to admit its error, but we will try.

There are other areas like adult sentencing and publication of names that have so many exceptions and provisions that there is bound to be dissatisfaction and new calls for revision from the public.

The government has an extensive promotional budget and it has significant human resources to sell Canadians on its legislation.

Unfortunately justice legislation, unlike some other forms, takes time to come home to roost. The youth criminal justice act will change nothing. As case after case slips through the cracks the weaknesses will be revealed and disenchantment will grow.

The youth criminal justice act is nothing more than the Young Offenders Act with a face lift and a new name. I have been involved in this debate for over six years and, as I said earlier, I make no apology for the sentiment or emotion I bring to it. It is unfortunate that after years of delay, years of so-called consultations and deliberations this is the best the government can do. Canadians deserve better. More important, because they are most often the victims of youth crime, our kids deserve better.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on his speech and his thoughtful consideration.

I have a short question on the presumptive transfer aspects. Could the member provide some rationale as to why we have a presumptive transfer for murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and attempted murder, and yet nowhere do we see anything on the presumptive transfer side for sexual assault with a weapon or any firearms related offences which are very serious crimes? Would the member care to comment on the rationale for not including those more serious offences?

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I firmly support consecutive sentencing, especially in the area of serious violent offences and multiple violent offences. I would remind the hon. member that it is available now for judges to use at their discretion but it is never used. It is due time for this place to mandate its use in certain cases.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I was wondering about that myself yesterday when I heard the legislation come forward.

I refer to my own private member's bill which is before the House now and which deals with parental accountability under the Young Offenders Act. The minister saw fit to include my ideas, word for word, into the new legislation. For that I am grateful because I firmly believe that if there is a good idea that comes from this place, then it deserves to be implemented, regardless of where it comes from.

I certainly have questions about the issue that the hon. member raised. The member for Calgary Centre has Bill C-284 before the committee right now. It is a lot further along in the system than that which was proposed by the solicitor general. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the government would not just go ahead and deal with the bill of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and amend it if requires amending.

It is quite possible that the solicitor general's image needs a bit of a boost right now. Maybe that is why the government is doing it. That could be my only answer.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the last speaker that I consider one victim of crime just as important as the next victim of crime, regardless of who they are.

I am pleased to speak to the Reform Party supply day motion, which can be referred to as justice day. There has been precious little in the way of justice coming from the government. I will be speaking primarily in the area of young offenders.

The young offenders legislation is a prime example of misplaced priorities by this government. In June of 1997, almost two years ago, the Minister of Justice made amending the Young Offenders Act one of her top priorities. She is on record as acknowledging that the Young Offenders Act is easily the most unpopular piece of legislation.

One would think that recognition of this sort would impress upon the government the importance of bringing forth proper legislation without delay. But did this government appreciate the demands of Canadians? No, it did not.

We all have vivid memories of the minister's continued promises, week by week and month by month, that legislation was coming. She continued to promise that it would come in a timely manner, that she was dealing with it in a timely fashion, that the legislation was complicated and should not be brought forward with a simplistic answer just to appease the citizens of this country. It was painfully obvious that the minister was just making excuses for not having the legislation ready.

We have seen how disorganized the government has been with the new youth criminal justice legislation. We have seen how the government pretends to listen to Canadians but then proceeds in the same manner as it always has. We have seen how the government continues to believe that it knows best about what Canadians should have.

I will not be dealing very extensively with the legislation introduced last week by the Minister of Justice. I anticipate that we will have sufficient opportunity to debate the failings of that legislation, hopefully in the near future. Today we are talking about the failures of this government in a whole host of justice issues.

I would like to provide a little history to the long overdue amendments to our young offenders legislation.

In 1996 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted an extensive review of the Young Offenders Act. Nearly $500,000 was spent. Meetings were held right across the country. The provinces had ample opportunity for input. The message as to what changes were necessary was absolutely clear.

The standing committee submitted an extensive report with a number of recommendations. The Bloc submitted a dissenting report. My hon. colleague from Crowfoot attempted to submit an extensive report in dissent. Instead of receiving his report and studying it to determine whether there was anything left out or anything of value from another perspective, this government played a purely political game and refused to accept his report. It said that it was too long.

The member for Crowfoot participated in the committee hearings as much as anyone. He handled almost the entire workload on the young offenders legislation for the Reform Party. He took the effort to properly critique the legislation and propose practical and positive changes for the benefit of all Canadians, but the government refused to accept his contribution. Only in Canada.

The hon. member for Crowfoot is a very determined individual. He did not give up. He instead introduced private member's Bill C-210 in which he proposed formalizing the power of police officers to use discretion in resolving minor incidents without laying charges. He personally knew about this problem in the legislation as he is a former police officer. He listened to what the witnesses had to say in this regard. He proposed that the legislation differentiate between non-violent and violent crimes.

He understood the value of dealing with first time non-violent young offenders in a more informal manner. He understood that there is neither necessity nor practicality in sending these minor offenders to court and possibly to jail.

He was not playing the political game; he was doing what was right on behalf of Canadians. Of course, he had the full support of the Reform Party with his initiative. However, the government refused to listen to him. It refused to even allow him to submit his report. Unfortunately, his private member's bill was never drawn for debate.

In my previous comments I mentioned that the minister continually promised to bring forth the youth legislation in a timely fashion. She spoke of having to consult with her provincial counterparts. They had ample opportunity to present their views and concerns to the justice committee. They clearly indicated their interest.

One example was in the area of funding. It was made known that the federal government was shortchanging the provinces in the area of funding for youth justice. The funding formula was to be on the basis of 50% federal dollars and 50% from the provinces. Things were getting so bad that Manitoba was threatening to withdraw from the administration of youth justice because its costs were too high and because the federal government was not holding up its end of the bargain. Remember, this was back in 1997.

Did the minister even attempt to restore funding for youth justice in the 1998 budget? No, she did not. Were funds available in that budget? Of course they were. We will remember that the government spent $2.5 billion on the millennium scholarship fund in that budget. The whole $2.5 billion was written off as an expense, even though the funds were not to be spent until future years. It was just a way for the government to claim that it had a balanced budget and that there was no surplus for other things. It just shows the misplaced priorities of the government. It just shows how the minister was unable or unwilling to deal with youth justice legislation on a priority basis. The wheels of justice were grinding slowly.

The government was not even on track. I believe the government was hoping the controversy over the Young Offenders Act would go away. It is to the credit of Canadians that they did not let this happen. They kept up the pressure for change, but the procrastination continued and the excuses for delays continued. The minister kept promising that the legislation would be introduced last fall, but then she realized that she did not have the necessary funding. She had to wait until the February budget. She said that her delays were because the legislation was so complex, that it would not be a simplistic approach.

Last week Canadians finally saw the long awaited legislation. What did they get? They got a new name for the young offenders legislation. It is now to be called the youth criminal justice act. What else did they get? They got legislation that promises to introduce a different system of justice from province to province to province. They got a system whereby very violent young offenders will continue to be protected from identification in many situations. They got a system whereby these violent young offenders will continue to be returned to our communities, where citizens will be unaware of their background and the potential danger some of them may pose. They got a system whereby violent and repeat young offenders will be subject to what the government calls extra-judicial measures, but what is in effect nothing more than conditional sentencing.

The government continues to believe that it and only it knows what is best for Canadians. The justice committee of the last parliament, a committee dominated by Liberals, a committee chaired by our late colleague Shaughnessy Cohen, on the testimony of its own expert witness, recommended that 10 and 11 year old violent offenders be subject to criminal proceedings, and the government refused to listen.

Instead, government members portray members on this side of the House as being monsters who would jail children. The minister claims that child welfare and mental illness programs will look after these unfortunate children. She refuses to acknowledge that those programs are already failing.

These young people are not properly dealt with. They are merely accommodated, when in fact they require immediate assistance to reform and rehabilitate before they venture into more violent and dangerous activities.

The government does these 10 and 11 year olds a serious disservice by merely ignoring them and hoping that other less practical measures can handle the problem. It is just more offloading on to the provinces.

As I have stated, the government is not to be admired when it comes to its handling of the youth justice platform. It has delayed, broken promises and made excuses. It has refused to listen to Canadians and to fellow members of parliament. It has let the provinces down. It does not have an enviable record.

In the upcoming debates on the new legislation we will see many further instances of the failures of the government in the area of youth justice.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member said earlier, I was not heckling. I was just trying to make a point. The member speaks in such glowing terms of the legislation put forward by the solicitor general dealing with pedophiles and pardons, which I agree has to come forward because we need it. I might remind the House that the hon. member for Calgary Centre has private member's Bill C-284 in front of a committee right now which is virtually identical to what the solicitor general is proposing.

I was wondering if he would care to give the hon. member for Calgary Centre a bit of credit for this. Could he also explain why his government does not deal with the private member's bill and bring it in rather than bringing in its own legislation?