Allan Rock

[Justice, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member feels strongly about this. I respect his concern. I also respect the work he does in the justice committee in this connection.

In terms of the increase in the number of crimes, one should approach those statistics with some caution. Yes, youth crime is up and, most troubling of all, violent youth crime is up. However, three-quarters of the so-called violent youth crime are level one common assaults, pushing and shoving and scuffling in the schoolyard which 15 or 20 years ago would never have come to the attention of police. Because of the change in the system, the reporting practices and zero tolerance they are turning up as statistics.

There is a challenge to face. The hon. member is a hard working and respected member of the very committee at work right now to

find ways to improve the Young Offenders Act so that we can better deal with that challenge. I urge the hon. member to continue in that important work so we can get on with improving the act.

[Justice, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a deep commitment to crime prevention. We believe the way to have a

strong and effective justice system is to have tough criminal laws that are enforced carefully and to respect the importance of crime prevention through early intervention.

Some two years ago the solicitor general and I created the National Crime Prevention Council, which has been at work at our request developing a national strategy for crime prevention and preparing a catalogue of best practices in place throughout the country to share with municipalities wishing to start crime prevention programs.

The conference in Vancouver attracted international participants and we learned a great deal from their experience.

Crime prevention means recognizing the connection between social justice and criminal justice. That sometimes means spending money and doing things to intervene to get at the causes of crime to prevent it.

I hope the day is not far off when the government will act on the recommendations of the Horner committee, an all-party committee of the House, which four years ago recommended we devote 1 per cent of our total federal budget for courts, police and corrections for crime prevention. We are working toward that goal. I hope the day will come in the not too distant future when we can announce it.

[Airbus Planes, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that matter is before the court. I do not think the subject matter of this question is necessarily before the court and therefore I feel at liberty to respond.

It is a very important principle in the administration of justice that attorneys general ought not to be directly involved in police investigations. The reason the department wisely did not consult me and ask me to go over the letter to Switzerland or to review the state of the investigation, to decide whether it should proceed to the next step is that politicians and police investigations do not mix.

Politicians should not run police investigations. That is an important principle of law. It is an important principle of government. It is fundamental. If I were directing police investigations, this House of Commons would be the first place to call me to account.

That is the reason the Department of Justice wisely did not involve me. In fact, in documents that were made public under access to information late last year, it became clear from internal memoranda that the Department of Justice officials consciously decided not to involve me out of respect for that very important principle.

[Airbus Planes, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, it is true that after consulting with the solicitor general I met on his advice with members of the RCMP in late 1993. In early 1994 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrote to me saying that after having looked at the information I had given them they had come to the conclusion that a further investigation was not warranted and they were not proceeding.

As to the origins of the investigation into the so-called Airbus affair that is now ongoing, I have no idea how or why that began. The RCMP tell us according to public statements it commenced sometime in 1995. I can tell the hon. member that I did not initiate it. I do not know who did initiate it. I am sure the police have their sources and their reasons. It is up to the police to conduct police investigations.

[Justice, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, no amount of emotive language, no accusatory tone and no misstatement of the facts will be sufficient to overcome the simple facts of this matter.

The simple facts which confront the hon. member are these. Mr. Ted Thompson went to see the chief justice. He followed up with correspondence to which the chief justice responded. That correspondence was put into the hands of counsel for the three parties in the revocation cases as soon as it came to the notice of the officials of the justice department. A motion was then brought before the court. That motion resulted in an argument and judgment has been reserved.

In the meantime I have taken steps through the appointment of a third party with an impeccable reputation to look at the facts and make a report which I will put before the House.

Those are the facts and the hon. member should pay attention to those facts before holding forth here for narrow partisan purposes.

[Justice, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have come to expect far better than that from the hon. member. His question is quite outrageous on any number of grounds.

First, he misstates the facts. Second, he ignores my response in the House last week. Third, he speaks in a conclusory fashion about three motions still pending before the federal court.

First, Ted Thompson went over to see the chief justice on March 1 without, to my knowledge, telling anybody at justice, certainly not me. Second, the entire matter is under the scrutiny of the former chief justice of Ontario, who has agreed to interview the people involved, look at the record and make a report. I have already said I will put that report before Parliament. Third, the last thing in the world anybody in justice wants to do is jeopardize the three revocation cases before the court. We have already asked the court not to stay them, notwithstanding anything that may have happened in this matter because there is no connection between the two. That matter has been argued and is under reserve in the federal court.

I invite the hon. member to look at the facts, be careful the way he puts his position and at least adhere to what is already on the record.

[Justice, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. member to say the government has done nothing about young offenders. I believe the hon. member did not complete his sentence. Surely what he meant to say is that we have done nothing about the Young Offenders Act that he has supported.

In Bill C-37 we made important changes to the Young Offenders Act which strengthened it, particularly in relation to violent crime. It will stand on the record of Parliament for the people of Canada to remember in the next election that the party opposite did not support those measures.

In so far as those under 12 are concerned, I have asked the committee expressly to look at that issue. I have given it a variety of models to consider. I have asked it to consult, to listen to the experts, to look at the evidence and to come back with recommendations.

In so far as the safety of the public is concerned, the hon. member, like so many of his colleagues from day to day, seems to think we can make the streets safer or solve the problems of violent crime simply by amending words in a statute sitting on a shelf in a room somewhere in Ottawa. If we are to do anything about crime we have to follow the strategy the government has in place which is not only to have a strong criminal law but to follow through on crime prevention.

[Justice, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to approach with caution the proclamations made by ministers in Ontario. They are doing what they do best, talking tough about crime and pointing the finger at another level of government.

The reality is if the Government of Ontario had followed through on the provincial obligations under the administration of the Young Offenders Act it would be working a lot better than it is today.

In so far as the hon. member's question is concerned with respect to the age of those to whom the act applies, I will await the recommendations of the committee. I have asked it to look at the evidence, not the rhetoric, not the politicians. I have asked it to look at the evidence and come back with recommendations on what ages the act should apply to. I have already told the House we will pay attention to those recommendations.

I want the hon. member to recall that it is this minister of this government who, in Bill C-37, proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act which would mean that 16 and 17-year-olds who are charged with crimes of most serious violence would be tried in adult court. Those members voted against the changes.

[Justice, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it my first obligation to show sufficient respect for the procedures of the House and its committees to await the report of the Standing Committee on Justice.

This week the committee is holding hearings in Toronto. It is before that committee that the ministers of the Ontario government have expressed the position summarized by my hon. friend.

I have asked the committee to report back this year with recommendations on changes to the Young Offenders Act, including the age of those persons caught by the act, including the range of penalties and including the broader question as to whether the Young Offenders Act represents the best approach to juvenile justice. I have asked the committee to take an open minded and comprehensive look at the whole system. Out of respect for the committee and its work, we will listen to those recommendations, we will act.

[Young Offenders Act, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we take this matter very seriously. It is neither fair nor right for the hon. member to say that nothing has been done.

Bill C-37, which became effective on December 1, introduced important changes to the Young Offenders Act. We doubled the maximum penalty for first degree murder. We said that 16 and 17-year olds accused of crimes of serious violence will be tried in adult court unless they can satisfy the courts otherwise. The onus rests on them. We have provided for information being freely shared among police, school officials and others. Those changes are important and are already having an effect. As to further changes in the act, we will wait for the recommendations of the committee on which the hon. member sits.

The other thing we have to bear in mind, which the hon. member forgets, is that as difficult a problem as youth crime is, it is not going to be resolved by changing the words in the statute. That alone is not going to be enough. Until the hon. member works with us in our efforts on crime prevention and getting to the causes of crime, we will never be able to make the streets of this country safe.