Chuck Cadman

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, six and a half years ago a six year old girl was murdered by her sixteen year old neighbour who was on probation for sexually molesting a child one year earlier. The murdered girl's parents knew nothing about the danger that was lurking in the townhouse next door.

Again, how can the minister possibly justify protecting the identity of predators?

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the publication of names within the proposed youth criminal justice act.

The proposed act provides judges with the discretion to issue a ban on publication for even those who commit murder and sexual assault. We are not talking about protecting the identities of nice people.

Why is the minister proposing to protect the names of such violent offenders and what possible reason could she have for keeping the name of a sex offender from the community?

[Young Offenders Act, March 15th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to initiate debate on my private member's legislation, Bill C-260.

It is a simple bill in that it consists of one minor amendment to the Young Offenders Act. I have used the words simple and minor to describe the content and the construction of the actual legislation.

The ramifications of the legislation are I believe a little different and quite important. They address an issue which Canadians have demanded be addressed for years, that the parents or guardians of young offenders be called to account when they fail to discharge their responsibility to supervise.

This amendment changes section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act from a simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid offence.

Should this bill be accepted and passed, offenders of section 7.1 would become subject to either imprisonment of up to two years or the normal summary conviction penalties. As I am sure members are aware, the Minister of Justice introduced long awaited new youth justice legislation last week.

Furthermore, members may be aware that the legislative change proposed in Bill C-260 has been incorporated into the new youth criminal justice act. One must assume the Minister of Justice and her government see merit in the changes proposed.

Members may therefore be wondering why I have chosen to proceed with this amendment now. Quite simply, I do not anticipate that the new youth justice legislation will be implemented for some time yet. I have heard possibly by year's end at the earliest, but even that may be wishful thinking. I believe this amendment is important enough to be incorporated within the current youth justice legislation, the Young Offenders Act.

I will now take a moment to outline the reasons for this proposal. Section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act permits a youth court judge or justice to allow an accused person who would otherwise be detained in custody to be placed into the care of a responsible person who undertakes in writing to be responsible for the attendance of the young person in court when required, and to ensure compliance with such other conditions as a youth court judge or justice may specify.

The young person also undertakes in writing to comply with the arrangements and to comply with any other conditions that the judge or justice may specify.

In simple terms, instead of keeping a young accused in custody, the law permits an individual, usually a parent or guardian, to undertake to properly supervise the young person until the charges are decided. This is essentially just another form of custody. It is bail.

The court wishes to ensure that both the young person and the parent or other responsible person agree to abide by the conditions of release. A signed undertaking, a contract, is agreed on.

There are of course other provisions that permit changes to the terms of the undertaking or even cancellation of the release.

A parent need only apply to the court to be relieved of their responsibility should they find that they were unable to fulfill their obligation. If that were to occur, the young person would be returned to custody unless another person were to come forward to sign a new undertaking.

The problem that occurs and the reason for introducing this legislation is that some parents or guardians enter into these undertakings and then wilfully fail to provide proper and sufficient supervision. This failure can then result in additional repercussions to the young person and may even result in additional criminal charges should the young person proceed on to other criminal offences. It is this type of situation where parents or guardians shirk their legal responsibility that the bill seeks to address.

I will provide an example. Suppose a young person gets involved with the wrong crowd and ends up with others causing some form of physical assault late one night on an innocent citizen on the streets of a community. The police are called. An arrest is made and a charge is laid. We can all probably understand why a youth court judge might be hesitant to detain this young person for this type of offence, especially if it is a first offence.

I am sure we can also understand that the same judge would wish to ensure the young person does not get into further difficulty prior to the resolution of the charges. The judge may want to order the young person to stay away from the influence of other accused. The judge may want to order that the young person refrain from being out on the streets late at night. In other words, the judge may impose a curfew.

Suppose the young person's parent then agrees to provide a written undertaking to supervise this young person to ensure conditions are fulfilled such as staying away from a listed number of individuals and being at home during a set period of night hours.

What if the parent has been part of the problem all along? What if the parent has never properly performed parental responsibility toward their young person? What if the parent signs the undertaking or so-called contract with the court and then deliberately neglects to control or supervise the young person? Is this type of situation not a serious problem within our justice system?

Canadians far and wide have long called for more responsibility and accountability on the part of parents or guardians of young offenders. In instances such as I have just described, we have cases where parents or other adults sign an undertaking with the court to be responsible and accountable. Should they not at least be held accountable to the level of a dual procedure offence?

If the young person merely breaches a condition of release then the parent may face a summary conviction procedure for their failure to comply with the undertaking to supervise. If the breach of the release condition leads to the commission of a serious offence by the young person, that same parent might be subject to an indictable proceeding. Like all hybrid offences, the crown has the option. Of course the judge, as always, has the final decision on the appropriate punishment should the charge be proven.

Some individuals opposed to these proposed changes to the legislation might argue that we may not want to exacerbate the situation between a young offender and their parent. If the young offender breaks the conditions of release and the parent is found to have wilfully failed to uphold the promise to properly supervise, that parent may end up facing more severe repercussions through this change to a dual procedure offence.

Some may worry that relations between the youth and the parent may become further strained. To this I say that if the parent wilfully participates in ignoring a court imposed condition, then the parent should be held accountable as it is obvious that the parent is a major part of the problem in the first place.

A parent, by definition, should be setting a proper example for the child. An improper example is certainly being set when an adult signs a court order, ignores the consequences and wilfully supports the young offender with inappropriate and illegal activity. Of course the parent should be made to account for this failure.

My amendment to the law is merely one step to broaden this accountability. It may be a large step toward protecting citizens and communities once we impress on delinquent parents how serious we consider their failures to control their children placed in their custody at their own request until the original criminal charges are heard.

I would be remiss if I did not inform my colleagues that this relatively unknown section of the Young Offenders Act is of particular relevance to my family and me.

I think that by now some are aware that back in 1992 my son, Jesse, was murdered by a young offender late one night. Jesse was 16 years old at the time. He and two friends were heading home after getting off a bus near home. They were attacked at random by six strangers, without provocation. A young offender, who was free in the community on a section 7.1 undertaking, knifed him in the back. One of the conditions of release into his father's custody was a dusk to dawn curfew.

Obviously the young offender was not complying with that condition on that night. He had also failed to appear in court some three weeks earlier, another failure to comply.

In my opinion, the parent who signed that undertaking to supervise wilfully failed in his responsibility before the court and my son paid the price. That young offender was convicted of the crime and is serving a life sentence in a penitentiary.

The House will note that I stated that it was in my opinion that the adult offended section 7.2, as it has never been determined in court. That is the injustice of this case. I do not know if the situation would have ended up any differently, but the failure of the adult to properly supervise and control that young offender certainly did not help Jesse. It may well have failed to help that particular young offender as well. Who knows, perhaps compliance with the undertaking to supervise might have been enough to keep that young person at home that night.

All I know is that particular adult promised the court he would properly supervise the youth. He promised that the youth would attend court. He promised that the youth would abide by a curfew condition. He failed to fulfil those promises and a young life was snuffed out at 16.

Some have said that this amendment seeks to blame parents for the crimes committed by their children. That is utterly ridiculous. The young person is solely accountable for their own criminal activity. For the purpose of this legislation the parent is guilty of the offence of failing to comply with an undertaking. Even if the young person does not go on to commit another offence beyond a breach, the parent is still accountable for the failure to comply with their own promise to supervise. They have broken a contract.

Others suggest that some parents are unable to control their children. If that is the case, then they simply have no business entering into such an undertaking. I do not suggest for one minute that a parent or guardian should be expected to chase their son or daughter down the street or physically drag them into the house at two o'clock in the morning should they decide to breach their curfew. What I do expect, however, is for that parent to pick up the phone and notify the police of the breach. By doing that the parent has acted in a responsible manner. The parent who merely shuts the door and goes to bed is clearly demonstrating a wilful failure to comply with their undertaking to supervise.

I believe that members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs understood the significance of this bill, so they made it votable. As I said at the outset, although the content of Bill C-260 is contained in the new youth criminal justice act, I seek to amend the current Young Offenders Act, as the new legislation is still a long way off.

I fervently request and seek the support of my colleagues in this place for this initiative. I do so for all concerned. It is in the interest of the safety of our citizens and our communities. It is in the interest of our youth who are most often the victim of young offender crimes. It is in the interest of young offenders who are afforded the opportunity to return to our communities while they await resolution of their initial charges.

My amendment is simple. It is solely to make adults more accountable and responsible to properly supervise when they promise to do so before the courts. Is that really too much to ask?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the age of application has been at issue for decades. In 1962 the justice department recommended that 10 and 11 year olds be included. The government refused citing economic and political considerations.

Is the government letting politics getting in the way of public safety? There is an extremely low number of 10 and 11 year old offenders. Do they not deserve to be saved by our criminal justice process and to get the help they need?

What political considerations caused the minister to fail to comply with the wishes of Canadians?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in jailing 10 year olds, but there has been no change.

Canadians have been demanding a change to cover 10 to 15 year olds. The justice committee recommended that 10 and 11 year olds be held criminally responsible for their crimes, not sent to jail. In order to rehabilitate these children we have to get them within the system before it is too late for them.

Why did the minister refuse to listen to the demands of Canadians to get these kids into the system so they can get the help they need?

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 508 as presented by the member from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We appear to be united on this issue. Maybe there is some hope for my hon. colleague yet.

The motion says that, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

This motion is essentially calling for the federal government to fulfil its original commitment to maintain its 50% share of the costs of enforcing the Young Offenders Act.

It is my understanding that as little as a decade ago the federal government managed to keep up to the commitment of providing half the cost of this legislation. This was a promise made when the Young Offenders Act was brought into force in 1985. It is also my understanding that the federal government has been slowly chipping away at this commitment to the extent that it now provides something close to 30% of the bill.

I realize that in the recent budget the government appears to have committed itself to providing some $200 million in what it calls new funds toward youth justice. Let us remember, however, that in spite of months and months of promises we have not yet seen this government's new youth legislation and justice initiatives.

There is little doubt that there will be additional costs involved. There is little doubt the provinces will be required to commit additional funds toward the new legislation should it ever come into being. I anticipate that the newly committed funds will in no way approach the federal government's original commitment.

The failure of this government to maintain the 50:50 split no doubt came into discussion when the Minister of Justice was negotiating with provincial justice ministers over co-operation toward new youth justice initiatives. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice was threatened with complete provincial withdrawal from the funding of youth justice because of the continuing shortfall of funding on behalf of her government. She would certainly not want to have a recurrence of the Bill C-68 situation land in her lap where some of the provinces have withdrawn from firearms control financing and have left it up to the federal government to operate. Our provinces can only be pushed and downloaded on so far.

Speaking of being pushed too far, I will take a moment to mention this government's actions with conditional sentencing and its impact on the provinces. The federal government's bill became too high in the area of corrections. So what did it do? It brought in conditional sentencing to permit criminal offenders to serve their time at home. Now violent and even repeat offenders are able to escape from serving any time in our institutions. This freed up beds and kept the costs from escalating for our corrections systems, but it did not necessarily reduce the costs to the provinces that have to continue to monitor, police and enforce the conditions placed on offenders serving their time at home. Costs were downloaded to the provinces. I would think the provinces would want to make sure the federal government does not burn them in the same way with its new youth justice strategy.

I have been actively involved in youth justice issues for a number of years now. I have participated in various youth diversion programs. I have been actively involved with our crowns, our courts and our communities in my home province of British Columbia. There are significant demands for additional funding to properly operate a successful youth justice program. Indeed, virtually all aspects of the youth justice program are presently short of appropriate funding to properly do the job.

Youth diversion programs are by and large operating primarily on the good intentions of community volunteers. While these folks are extremely dedicated to the young people in their communities and do wonderful work, often a few dollars will do much to soothe many of their frustrations. It is difficult to have a young person repaint a neighbour's fence that has been covered by graffiti when there is not even enough money to buy the paint. It is difficult to arrange counselling sessions or group discussions when there is no money with which to rent a room. We cannot expect volunteers to continue to support programs from their own pockets indefinitely.

We are all aware of the shortfalls in funding for programs for young people placed under secure custody. They are often released back into the community with no education or treatment to modify their unacceptable and criminal actions. If society continues to show little interest in helping these young offenders they will have little interest in helping themselves. It all comes back to proper funding.

The statistics make it quite clear that young offenders often become adult offenders. If we spend effectively on our young offenders now, we will benefit in the long run because we should not have to investigate, charge, convict and sentence time and time again. If we properly treat the non-violent first time offender we will for the most part avoid escalation into more serious criminal activity.

The justice minister was recently quoted as complimenting Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta for their efforts in the use of community sentencing options instead of custody to sanction our troubled youth. All provinces should be encouraged to follow and expand on the present successful programs. To do so, however, additional funding will be necessary to set up and operate progressive options. How will the provinces be encouraged to do so unless the federal government makes significant moves toward fulfilling its end of the bargain?

As it has been said time and time again, it does little good for this government to talk the talk, it must walk the walk. It must re-establish its 50% commitment to youth justice and it must ensure it never again lets itself fail in its responsibility to our future generations.

I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for putting this motion before the House.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act respecting citizenship.

This legislation has been a long time coming. For years Canadians have been waiting for improvements to the citizenship act. As far back as 1987 the government announced plans to bring in needed amendments.

Even when this government was elected in 1993, it announced its intention to overhaul our citizenship laws. It asked for advice from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and its report, “Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging”, was presented to this House in June 1994. This government has now taken almost five years to study and consult some more. What do we have? A few of the key recommendations of the standing committee. We have a bill that fails in many respects.

We all know of the difficulty our courts have with the issue of children born in Canada while their parents are here illegally. Does this legislation put a stop to this abuse by illegal immigrants using this loophole to gain entry to the country? No, it does not. As things stand, we can have terrorists enter this country fighting deportation, perhaps even extradition, and during their time here they can conceive a child. Under section 4(1) of the bill the child acquires citizenship at birth if born in Canada.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule but they are limited to children of foreign diplomats, etc. The exceptions definitely do not cover the children of illegal immigrants, whether refugees or otherwise. This is fundamentally wrong. But just why is it wrong?

It is wrong because it creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through because the child, when born in Canada, automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. That child has the right to remain in this country. The parents may well be in the country illegally. They may even be highly undesirable. They may even be dangerous criminals or terrorists with dark objectives either within Canada or elsewhere. But when these parents have a child while they are in Canada, they gain an important lever toward their fight to remain here.

Because their child is designated as a Canadian citizen with the right to remain in this country, it is extremely difficult to deport or extradite the parents and thereby deprive the child of those parents. There is usually and quite understandably much public sympathy.

Instead of addressing this obvious problem in the legislation, the minister has chosen to ignore it and hopes it goes away. It will not go away. The problem will continue to plague our courts and the immigration system. Besides being a complete abdication by this government in its responsibilities, it creates unfairness in and severe criticism of our immigration process. All immigrants become tarnished because some are able to beat the system and gain entry through this loophole.

Some potential and highly desirable applicants for citizenship have to wait in line or perhaps are denied entry because these queue jumpers fill our quotas prematurely. It makes much more sense if we limit citizenship to children born in Canada to lawfully landed immigrants. Those children born to parents of questionable status should take the citizenship of their parents at least until the status of their parents is resolved.

I will now comment on section 6(1)(b) of the legislation. It states that citizenship shall be granted to persons who have been lawfully admitted and have been permanent residents residing in Canada for at least 1,095 days. But there is no legislative scheme to measure how to determine whether the 1,095 requirement has been met.

We are all very aware of various examples whereby immigrants enter the country to set up residence only to almost immediately return to their country of origin. They spend little time here as they have significant interests in their home country. They merely want to obtain Canadian citizenship to gain all of its advantages. They want to reserve their Canadian citizenship in case they eventually wish to take up residence in the country. Once again the legislation fails to address this loophole.

Certain individuals are able to take advantage. The result, once again, is that all immigrants become tarnished by the shenanigans of a few. Once again some immigrants fail to gain entry and citizenship because others are able to jump the queue with little intention of taking up permanent residence in the near future, if at all. Again, this is wrong and the minister has closed her eyes to the problem. She must be held accountable.

In more recent years the courts have been fairly inconsistent over this residency requirement. Some judges held that actual physical presence was not necessary. Applicants only had to show a significant attachment to Canada through bank accounts, investments, club memberships, driving licences, etc. Other judges held much stricter adherence to actual residency in the country. This uncertainty in the law seriously impacted the value and validity of our citizenship process. With respect, the amendments as proposed through Bill C-63 do little to address this concern.

I will speak only briefly to section 31 of the legislation. I note that infamous creature known as the governor in council will continue to appoint citizenship judges and commissioners. The government wishes to retain positions with which to employ Liberal party members, benefactors and volunteers. They must be paid off through patronage appointments.

The function of a citizenship commissioner is a relatively simple endeavour at a relatively handsome remuneration. Appointments for a period of up to five years are also very attractive. It almost makes me think about becoming a Liberal but in case anyone misheard me, I said almost. I will now move on to section 43 of the bill. Again we see powers of the governor in council. There was once a time that members of parliament made the laws of Canada. We now appear to be moving closer and closer to merely authorizing the governor in council to take over our responsibilities. We are also moving closer and closer to concealing our laws from our citizens.

Have members ever noticed how much easier it is to research our statutes than it is to research the regulations? Statutes are available individually. They are available through the revised statutes. They are available through the Internet, on CD-ROM and they are in most major libraries. They can be tracked all the way through the legislative process to see just how they are developed.

Regulations are another matter. They come out in the

Canada Gazette

and they can come out at almost any time and as many times as the governor in council decides. They may come out without any comment or input from Canadians. There is not the same public disclosure and participation that occurs with legislation developed through parliament.

Let us look at some of the powers that the minister has reserved for the governor in council. In section 43(b) the governor in council can specify who may make an application under this act on behalf of a minor. Surely this could have been set out within the statute. It would likely include the mother, the father and it would likely include the official guardian if the parents were no longer alive or caring for the child and perhaps it would include other family relatives who are acting in place of the parents. Why do we leave it to the governor in council to make up the rules on who may act on behalf of the child?

In subsection 43(i) it will be up to the governor in council to define spouse for the purposes of the act. Can we not define spouse within the legislation? Do we need it done behind closed doors so that the Canadian public does not see just where this government has decided to take our laws?

There are 301 members of parliament with a budget to operate our parliamentary system that is quite staggering. But here we are merely reallocating our legislating powers to the governor in council. No wonder judges across this land are often eager to step into our jurisdiction and do more than just interpret our laws. When we continually exhibit our disregard for our mandated responsibility, should we expect anything different?

Section 43(j) leaves it up to the governor in council to define what constitutes a relationship of a parent and a child for the purposes of determining entitlement to citizenship. Once again I have difficulty accepting why we cannot be making this determination in parliament. Why does it have to be reserved for the decision of others and why does it end up becoming law through regulation, which does not attract the same level of public scrutiny, comment and participation?

It is for these reasons that I am unable to support this legislation. We have a citizenship act that has been long overdue for change to rectify many of its inadequacies. This new version of the citizenship act does not do that. It is being sold as being new and improved, but I see little in the way of addressing our present failings. The minister should be sent back to try again, but that will not happen.

Far too often we in this place continue to follow the dictates of the Prime Minister's office and pass legislation that does not address the interests and concerns as raised by our citizens, and that is a shame because as time goes on the voice of the people grows weaker and weaker in this place.

[Home Invasions, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes judges make questionable rulings and sometimes they make inappropriate comments. Occasionally we hear from a judge with a finger on the pulse of the community. This week a B.C. judge imposed a 14-year sentence on a parasite for his part in a home invasion.

Home invasions have become epidemic in British Columbia. Primary targets are the elderly but entire families have also been terrorized. At least one murder has resulted. Charities are suffering because people are afraid to open their doors. Community crime prevention meetings are packed.

This judge has delivered a clear message by using what in his words is “the only remedy the law now provides a trial judge”. He also said “courts can do their part to preserve a citizen's right to live in security by imposing progressively severer sentences on those offenders who commit this type of crime”.

We can only hope that his colleagues at the appeal court level will show the same commitment to their communities.

[Justice, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the effect of this ruling has already spread out of B.C. and into the minister's home province of Alberta.

I am not talking about whether the rules or laws are still in effect. I am talking about Askov and I again ask her will she assure Canadians that none of those currently charged will go free due to undo lengthy delays in getting to trial?

[Justice, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the B.C. supreme court ruling on possession of child pornography will be going before the B.C. court of appeal today. I commend the B.C. attorney general for getting it there.

However, it is very likely that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and we are still faced with unacceptable delays and cases being held in limbo.

Will the minister assure Canadians that none of those currently charged will go free because of a delay and an unnecessary length to get to trial?