Jack Ramsay

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for presenting his feelings and thoughts on the bill. He is a member of the standing committee on justice. I have always accepted his interventions with a great degree of interest and respect.

The Young Offenders Act has created such strong responses over the years from the people of Canada. They signalled the changes they wanted so strongly to the government and to the justice committee of which I was a member when we travelled about the country and listened to them. However, this bill is couched almost entirely in terms of what the legislation will allow the courts to do. It does not grant authority to the courts to move 16 and 17 year olds who commit serious offences into adult court. It says that the trial will occur in juvenile court and then the crown prosecutor will have the opportunity to argue that an adult sentence should apply.

The courts in this land are under the gun right now from certain circles, including members of the House, for being judicially active. Even the business of releasing the names of those who have been convicted of violent offences is not something that is directed by the legislation or by the elected representatives of this country. It is going to be left in the hands of the courts to decide based upon the circumstances, regardless of what the people want, whether or not the names of those convicted of violent offences will be published.

I wonder if the member, being a former crown prosecutor and I understand a good one, would be prepared to comment on this aspect of the bill. Is it not leaning to greater complaints, whether right or wrong, of judicial activism? The courts are going to be left with having to make a decision that the legislators, in this case the Liberal government, have refused to make and implant within the legislation. Rather than the legislators telling the courts what we want done on behalf of Canadians, again we are going to leave it in the hands of the judges of this land.

Would my hon. friend be willing to comment on this aspect of the bill in light of the criticism some of the courts are receiving concerning judicial activism? This is simply because legislation is being passed by the government, legislation that is so open ended that the judges can go in a number of different ways. In this case it is contrary to what we have heard Canadians say they want done about the Young Offenders Act.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to what my colleague from the NDP has said with regard to this bill and I always appreciate his comments. I sat on the justice committee with him for a short time and I was always impressed with his clarity of thought, although at times we differ from a political point of view.

He touched upon the fact that we cannot separate the role of the justice system from dysfunctional families and the problems in society that lead to youth crime. I would like to ask the hon. member this question. If poverty contributes to youth crime, inasmuch as we have seen, according to the statistics, that there has been a dramatic increase in youth poverty since the Liberal government took over in 1993, does he suggest that the policies of the government have contributed to the extent to which youth crime has either grown or remained constant during this period of time?

[Young Offenders Act, October 20th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to to amend the Young Offenders Act to transfer older offenders who commit violent offences to adult court, to limit the application of alternative measures, to allow for certain young offenders to be designated as dangerous offenders, to establish public safety as a dominant consideration in the application of the law respecting young offenders, to remove privacy provisions and to make certain other amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising today to reintroduce my private member's bill amending the Young Offenders Act. I drafted and presented the bill during the last parliament, many months before the justice minister introduced a youth justice act.

My private member's bill resulted from the testimony and written submissions given to the justice committee from key stakeholders in the field of youth justice who persuasively argued for substantive and meaningful changes to the Young Offenders Act. Numerous witnesses made it very apparent to the justice standing committee during its 1996-97 cross-country hearings that they wanted meaningful legislation in which the protection of society was a priority.

My bill makes the protection of society the first and guiding principle of the criminal law as it pertains to youth. I sincerely hope that my bill is drawn and makes it to the floor of the House during this sitting of parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate today and I want to thank the hon. member for his comments.

When the charter of rights was introduced I do not think that anyone would have believed that prisoners would receive the right to vote based upon the charter. I do not believe that anyone in Canada would have believed that bogus refugees, as soon as they land in Canada, would have all of the protections of the charter of rights and freedoms. I do not believe that the people of this country, at the time the charter was brought in, would have believed it if someone would have said that it would be used to strike down the abortion laws of the Criminal Code of Canada. I do not think the people of Canada back in those days would have believed that this government would bring in a bill that would allow for benefits to be transferred to Canadians based upon a sexual relationship, and Bill C-78 has done exactly that.

When we look at the whole institution of marriage and its definition, when we listen to people who scorn or attack the motion, saying that it is a moot question or a waste of time, and when we look at the history of what the charter has done to society in this country, we have reason to be concerned. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has touched on many of the concerns.

I have a very brief question for him. Bill C-78 provides for benefits based on a conjugal relationship. Pierre Elliott Trudeau told us that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation and took the state out of the bedrooms of the nation back then. I believe that Bill C-78 has put us right back into the bedrooms of the nation. In order to secure the benefits as provided for by Bill C-78, we have to prove a sexual relationship. I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition containing the names of over 4,200 signators who claim that they are horrified by pornography that depicts children and are astounded by the legal determinations that possession of such pornography is not criminal.

Therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament will take all necessary measures to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

[Justice, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister told the standing committee that Leonard Peltier was extradited to the United States for the murder of two FBI agents on evidence other than the fraudulent affidavit provided by Myrtle Poor Bear.

Will the minister tell the House what other evidence the justice department relied upon in the extradition of Mr. Peltier to the United States?

[Petitions, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in addition, I present today the concerns of a number of my Crowfoot constituents who petition parliament to reduce all taxation by at least 20% and abolish the GST.

[Petitions, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 36, I am pleased to present two petitions to the House today.

First, over 200 petitioners appeal to the House to amend the Divorce Act and protect the access and custody rights of grandparents who are in danger of being denied their grandchildren because of divorce.

[Taxation, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last year a 61 year old lady in my riding earned a total income of just over $11,000. This is less than the accommodation allowance granted members of parliament. In addition to paying her Canada pension and employment insurance premiums, this lady had to pay over $650 in federal income tax. The government also took another $9.77 in surtax charges, leaving my constituent with just over $10,000 to live on.

Why is the government taking over $660 in taxes from a citizen whose income is dramatically below the poverty line? Why is this person paying any income tax at all? Is the government in such desperate need of money that it is willing to do this kind of thing to low income earners?

Is it any wonder that Canadians and Canadian businesses are on the verge of a tax revolt.