Jack Ramsay

[Young Offenders Act, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister must not hide behind the complexities of the Young Offenders Act any longer. The 10 year review is done and the recommendations are in. The minister has had 10 months yet she has accomplished absolutely nothing. If the justice minister is not up to the job, will she step aside and allow someone else to bring in the needed amendments to the Young Offenders Act?

[Young Offenders Act, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that she is not even going to accept the recommendations provided by the justice committee to Parliament, that she is not going to accept the recommendations made by hundreds of people across this country, including the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association.

If she is in charge of her own portfolio, will she stand today and tell us when she will bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act?

[Young Offenders Act, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has become very clear that the reason the justice minister has unduly delayed bringing in amendments to the Young Offenders Act is because she cannot control her own caucus.

My question to her is this. Is she not up to the job? Is that the real reason she is not doing the job that millions of Canadians are asking for? Is that the real reason for this unacceptable delay in bringing in amendments to the Young Offenders Act?

[National Head Start Program, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support private member's Motion No. 261 by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I congratulate him on bringing this matter forward.

The underlying concern it represents for our children, particularly the ages encompassed by the bill from time of birth until age 8, is a concern that will receive support from people across the country. I think it will receive support in the hearts of every member in the House.

When we did the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act we travelled across the country and listened to witnesses, both expert and professional, as well as lay people who had an interest in the whole area of the development of youth, of preventing youth crime and wrestling with the question regarding what to do with the very small percentage of violent young offenders who do create a threat to the lives and safety of members of our society.

During that hearing experts told us that aberrant and over aggressive behaviour could be spotted as early as grades one, two and three in the schools by teachers.

I want to assure my Bloc colleagues that when we arrived in Quebec, we found that Quebec had programs far ahead of some of the other provinces. To set their minds more at ease, in the Young Offenders Act meetings that we are holding across western Canada today, as I stand and speak I make mention of the fact that there are programs in Quebec that ought to be looked at and perhaps emulated by other provinces if they have a real concern about dealing with the early detection and preventive programs.

This is the three level approach that my party has taken to the whole area of the Young Offenders Act. The two areas, of course, lie within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The first is the early detection and prevention where resources are placed in the programs where a teacher, for example, seeing a child having difficulties can refer that child to a program of the provincial government where the child as well as the parents can receive the help they need to keep that young child on track.

We think this is a very worthwhile program, very much along the lines of the head start program that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is referring to in this motion. There are aspects of this ongoing in Canada already. My colleague from across the way earlier mentioned the head start programs in some of the aboriginal communities in Canada.

What we want to do through this motion is create a greater awareness of the need to help the children and the benefit, not only from a societal point of view but from the economic point of view, as my colleague who just finished speaking touched on, we think is extremely important.

We also looked at programs such as the Sparwood program and the Maple Ridge program in B.C., two excellent programs where young children who get into difficulty for the first or second time with the law are diverted from the court system into these community justice systems.

We met last week with Lola Chapman who heads the Maple Ridge program. She gave us some astounding figures that gave me and my colleagues great hope and encouragement that we can keep more of our young children out of the criminal justice system while at the same time catching them at a time when rehab efforts will have the greatest impact on them.

Let me give an example. The figures she gave us started three years ago. At that time in her area there was a juvenile court sitting once a week and approximately 45 to 60 young offenders passed before the court during one day. That is now down to an average of eight per day. That is a very commendable achievement on the part of those very concerned and dedicated volunteers who support the program and work with the young people who are referred to them rather than taking them into the court system. The police and now the crown are able to refer them to this program that has been running for approximately three years.

Miss Chapman spoke about the success rate and I asked her to define what success meant. She said they consider a success to include any young offender who has not repeated within at least a year's time. She also said their success rate was 94%. That is very commendable. The Sparwood program is a little different but still has the same high success rate of over 90% in dealing with young people who have brushed with the law for the first time and who have never returned to difficulties. This is very commendable.

When we look from the federal point of view of how to reduce the number of people entering the youth justice system and what we should really be doing with the Young Offenders Act we are encouraged by these two programs. This is the early detection and preventive program, the best of which I have seen so far in Quebec, and also the diversion program. This program is involved when young people get into difficulties for the first or second time and they are diverted away from court. They have concerned people who will stick with them 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to help and guide them.

In those cases involving restitution in 100% of the cases restitution has been paid and that again is another astonishing figure. It shows the degree of accountability and responsibility that we need to engender in our young people so that when they become adults they have that sense of responsibility with them.

When we look at this whole area of the youth justice system and what we should be doing with the Young Offenders Act, we could introduce and have every community set up its own unique program similar to what the Sparwood and Maple Ridge programs have set up. I understand they are spreading across the provinces and it is into Alberta now.

We could reduce that very small percentage of violent young offenders who threaten the lives and safety of members of society. As the federal government and as federal politicians we have to wrestle with that problem. What do we do with that very small percentage of violent young offenders who threaten the lives and safety of members of our society?

We must not shrink from the use of incarceration. At the same time we must ensure that our educational programs and other rehab programs in the institutions are sound and are getting through to our young people so that the possibility of rehabilitation is very real.

We visited closed custody and open custody facilities. We did not see very much to encourage us with regard to the rehab programs. In most cases they are voluntary and are not compulsory. Young offenders can sit and watch TV or play cards if they do not want to engage in the programs.

This motion brings an awareness. If that awareness is followed through it will strengthen the early detection and prevention programs at the point where it is so badly needed.

I only have another minute or so but I want to refer to the Sydney mines project outside Sydney, Nova Scotia which we visited. It involves children who have fallen through the cracks, who have had to leave school, have bumped into the law and so on. They are doing a magnificent job in getting those young children up to speed in educational areas. They are getting them on track and are moving forward. There have been enormous successes.

We must divert our resources from the back end to the front end so that we do not have a continually expanding criminal justice system which simply eats away at more dollars and does not attack the real cause of crime.

If poverty is a cause of crime which in many cases it is, then we should look at the high taxation levels which have left one family in every five living in poverty.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberal backbenchers are only allowed to ask those kind of softball questions.

Cynthia Applegarth does not want another cover-up to occur on the Tsuu T'ina reserve. She just wants to know why her sister Connie Jacobs and her son died. She wants to know whether or not the poverty and the social conditions in which they lived contributed to this horrible incident.

Would the government House leader assure the House today that the inquiry into the death of Connie and her son will also include an examination of the social conditions in which the family lived?

[Access To Information Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be guided by the judgment of the Chair on this matter.

I am not sure where I ended, but I will continue my remarks.

On January 26 of this year a Quebec court granted 24-year old Patrick Lucien and 23-year old Evans Shannon conditional sentencing for sexual assault. The judge in that particular case granted these lenient sentences although the crown had recommended prison sentences of five and four years.

I submit that a community sentence under conditional sentencing is inappropriate in this case. It is unacceptable for these two men who took turns raping their 18-year old victim while each one held the victim down.

When questioned about these two cases, the justice minister provided a typical response that we have heard in our request that an amendment to C-41 be made to limit conditional sentencing to non-violent offences. The minister has provided the answer, which is on the record, that she is satisfied to leave this and similar controversies to the court.

The justice minister, as I stated earlier, may be satisfied with this abhorrent use of conditional sentencing but the Reform Party and I believe thousands if not millions of Canadians are not satisfied with this. We want the Criminal Code amended and we are tired of waiting, as we are tired of waiting for the minister's answer to the question I asked on December 5.

Since the parliamentary secretary is present I repeat my question to the government. Will it consider an amendment to conditional sentencing that will deny the courts the use of that particular section in cases of convicted violent offenders, including rapists?

[Access To Information Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 1997, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I asked her parliamentary secretary when the Liberal government would limit conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders. The parliamentary secretary refused to answer the question.

As of today my particular question on conditional sentencing has been outstanding for 45 sitting days of the House.

However, prior and subsequent questions asked repeatedly by myself and my colleagues have gone unanswered since the inception of Bill C-41, the vehicle of conditional sentencing, in June 1995.

For almost three years now we have asked the former and current justice ministers to amend the Criminal Code to restrict the use of conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders. We have ample reasons to be concerned about the releasing of violent offenders including convicted rapists onto our streets. These reasons include the safety of our sons and daughters, our spouses and our brothers and sisters.

Sex offenders have the highest rate of re-offending and therefore pose an enormous risk to the lives and safety of our families. Yet despite our repeated requests, the justice minister refuses to limit conditional sentencing. As a result, rapists and other violent offenders are walking free.

We have numerous examples to prove this fact. However, as my time is limited, I will use the most recent case which has raised the ire of Canadians across the country.

On January 26 of this year, a Quebec court judge granted 24-year old Patrick Lucien and 23-year old Evans Shannon conditional sentencing for sexual assault. Judge Monique Dubreuil granted these lenient sentences, although the crown recommended prison sentences of five and four years respectively.

A community sentence is totally inappropriate and unacceptable for these two men who took turns raping their 18-year old victim while the other held her down.

When questioned about these two cases, the justice minister provided her typical answer. She was satisfied to leave this and similar controversies to the courts.

Well the justice minister may be satisfied with this abhorrent use of conditional sentencing, but the Reform Party of Canada—

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the comments made by my colleague who sits on the justice committee, as do I. I am wondering if he would like to comment on a bit of a sidebar to this bill. As we send our RCMP members overseas, which is rather a new and unique occurrence in the history of the force, I am wondering if he is concerned about the vacancy that is left in this country, where we see some detachments, particularly in western Canada, manned by the most senior member who holds nothing greater than the rank of corporal.

I wonder if he has any thoughts that he might add to his earlier comments with regard to that kind of a situation which is developing as a result of the extension of the work of our RCMP to serve in other countries which, at the same time, weakens the force in Canada.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Medicine Hat on the excellent address he has given on the bill.

He referred to the $45 billion we are paying each year on this huge debt that has been amassed. When we have emergencies like the ice storm, floods and other emergencies, of course those people suffering should be able to turn to the rest of Canada for the assistance that the charitable people of this country are always ready with and standing by to give.

I want the member to respond to the latest crisis we are seeing with regard to the many people who are sick and dying as a result of hepatitis C. It seems we do not have funding available to help those people when they need help while we are spending $45 billion to pay the interest on a debt. Will he relate the whole history of the accumulation of the debt and the demand on the revenue dollar to pay the interest to our ability to respond to emergencies such as the hepatitis C emergency facing us today?

[Judges Act, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, just at the time the member was posing his question he was interrupted. I do not know if I can address his specific question.

My view is that generally speaking our judges, including our JPs and everyone who is called upon to interpret the law and render a decision in a situation such as in the courts must have the support of the people—