Allan Rock

[Young Offenders Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that in the course of our campaign for office last fall and in statements that I have made since the election we have made it clear that we believe the maximum punishment for the crimes of serious violence should be increased. We have said there is a need for greater sharing of information about those convicted of violent crime who are young offenders where community safety is at stake. We have also made reference to a variety of other changes which will be reflected in the bill we will introduce within the coming weeks in this House.

We have also made it clear that some of the more fundamental questions about the statute will be the subject of study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At the same time as we introduce a bill for immediate changes we will ask the committee, for example, to look at broader questions such as the age application of the act. It will come back to us after consulting with knowledgeable people on those issues.

Some of the items the hon. member has mentioned will be covered in the statute that we are going to introduce to change the act in the short term and many other important questions will be addressed by the standing committee in its longer term analysis.

[Young Offenders Act, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government too has been listening to Canadians about the Young Offenders Act. Indeed, when we arrived in Ottawa in November consultation with Canadians, launched by the last government, was under way. We extended that consultation until mid-January. We received hundreds of submissions from interested individuals and groups across the country, all of which we have taken carefully into account.

We discussed the issues involving the act with the provincial and territorial ministers of justice and attorneys general in late March. We have also engaged in broad consultation outside the parameters of those meetings.

I can assure my hon. friend and the House that the changes we will introduce will reflect those consultations and will address the needed changes in the Young Offenders Act.

[Department Of Labour Act, May 27th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can report that there is no split within this party on the changes being made to the Young Offenders Act.

The fact is that we are acting on campaign commitments in introducing the changes that are contained in the bill that will be put before this House within the coming weeks.

So far as the national registry is concerned, I am constrained to correct the impression left by the hon. member that that proposal is in some way being derailed or delayed. The fact is that we will be releasing today or tomorrow the discussion paper which was referred to in the House on the steps to be taken to create the registry. In consultation with Canadians, members of the House and our provincial counterparts, this government is going to design and put in place, probably through an adaptation of the existing CPIC technology to begin with, a registry of child sexual abusers that will be available for use in the fall of this year.

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the decisiveness of the government will be shown with the legislation we will bring forward here. But as I have made clear to the House on past occasions, we intend to deal with the Young Offenders Act in two ways. First, is the introduction of the legislation that will contemplate specific changes and which we are going to ask this House to consider for immediate implementation.

Second, I am going to turn over the statute in its entirety to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with a request that in this the 10th year of its operation that statute be looked at thoroughly from one end to the other, that the committee hear witnesses, hear the concerns of Canadians, speak to those most affected by this legislation and decide once and for all whether in current circumstances the Young Offenders Act remains the best model for juvenile justice for Canada.

Those are the two steps we are taking. The first is a bill for specific changes at the outset and, second, a thorough review in the course of the coming months through the standing committee.

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government remains on track. As we said from the outset we intend to introduce during June changes to the Young Offenders Act. I expect if we have the co-operation of all parties we can enact them into law very quickly.

[Child Sex Offenders, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the protection of children is the paramount concern of this government.

[Child Sex Offenders, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the plans of the government remain unchanged. We do expect that the discussion paper will be available before the end of the month and we intend, as I said I believe in April, to have the register in place at least by adapting the CPIC computer system in the fall of this year.

The Solicitor General made clear yesterday that his ministry and mine are at work with interested parties including the provinces in making the arrangements to make it possible before the end of the year by adapting the CPIC system to have a reliable registry of those convicted of sexual abuse of children so that we can ensure public safety in this important respect.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I respond by saying absolutely, I fully agree.

There is an organization in my riding called the George Hull Centre for children and families. It is a collection of professionals, psychiatrists, counsellors and social workers who direct their efforts intensively toward intervention with high risk children and families in trouble.

I visited that centre a month or two ago to meet the people and talk to them about their work. They made that very point very persuasively, that unless we intervene effectively with children at risk at the earliest stages then we are ignoring a problem which will blossom into an expensive and tragic one with the passage of time.

I know time is very short but let me just say to the hon. member that I fully agree with the sentiment he has expressed that when we create the crime prevention council we may not have a lot of money for it immediately but the hon. member will find in me a strong advocate for making it effective by funding it properly and by using I hope at least in part the proceeds of crime and if need be private funding from the corporate sector.

We must co-ordinate and refocus efforts across the country toward prevention in the fashion that the hon. member has described.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, dealing first with the concern that the hon. member refers to, I acknowledge and I respect the concern and I make every effort to communicate that to Canadians and indeed to members of this House.

I do not suggest for a moment that there is not concern out there. There certainly is. I think that the changes we are going to propose reflect this government's awareness of and response to that concern.

I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that in the campaign document on which we saw an election last fall we expressly said that changes were needed to the Young Offenders Act, including longer maximum sentences for crimes of serious violence, adjustments to the transfer provisions and a greater sharing of information between police forces, school boards and other appropriate authorities as well as greater treatment and rehabilitation efforts and other specific measures.

This is not something to which we come at the eleventh hour. It is an awareness that we reflected in our campaign documents and these are changes to which we are committed.

I acknowledge the concern and I respect it. The changes we will propose not only to the Young Offenders Act but to the Criminal Code and in the crime prevention council will be intended to address those concerns.

I do think, though, as I said in my speech, that it must be kept in perspective. The perspective to some extent is furnished by facts and some of those facts are statistical. The hon. member has referred to some statistics of his own in response to mine and I can only tell the hon. member that the best information available to the Department of Justice is reflected in the statistics I gave which include for example that 14 per cent of those charged with violent crimes in 1992 were in the age bracket 12 to 17 and that is an increase over 1986 of some 6 per cent.

The hon. member has different statistics, as least they sounded inconsistent when he gave them, and perhaps we should compare our sources and find out just how one explains the disparity. Regardless of the statistics, surely we have enough evidence for concern and its concern that we are going to address.

My hon. friend asked about two other specific matters that I would like to deal with. The first is what can we tell the public about concrete changes we propose. I tried to do that in the course of my remarks and perhaps too obscurely. In the course of my speech today I mentioned that we perceive the need for longer maximum sentences for crimes of serious violence; that we perceive that for some 16 and 17-year olds charged with crimes involving serious bodily harm or death adult court might be the more appropriate place for the trials to occur.

I mentioned as well the sharing of information, by which I mean that when a young offender has been convicted of a crime of serious violence the community should protect itself by being aware of that fact. We should provide responsibly for the dissemination of that information from police forces to school boards and others who need to know for the protection of society. I mentioned victim impact statements in the youth court among other things.

I offer those as some indication of the directions in which this government intends to go in the changes it will introduce.

Let me address the other thing that the hon. member raised which is process. The hon. member asked how is it that we can reassure Canadians that these changes and the initiatives of which I spoke are going to be undertaken at a reasonably early time.

I propose, as I mentioned, to introduce this legislation in June. In the regular course of events it will be referred to the justice committee for consideration and then it will be brought back to the House for debate and for a decision.

I see that process as something quite separate from the long term review. A long term review may take six or eight months of committee hearings during which they will entertain witnesses, they will gather evidence and take the views of Canadians and they will report back in due course after a methodical and intensive examination of Canada's juvenile justice system. That may not be back before the House with recommendations until some time next year. That is separate and apart from the short term bill, the concrete proposals for specific changes in the statute that I will propose in June.

I fully expect that legislation will go through the process of the committee and back to the House without delay, without awaiting the longer term review.

With the collaboration of parties opposite, this week we passed a piece of legislation in two days and sent it to the Senate for consideration. I am not suggesting that is going to happen with this bill, but I use it as an example of parliamentary action which is directed and which is effective in producing early results.

I see the bill which I will propose in June being considered and returned here for a decision I hope by early in the fall so that it can be put into place. Then, in the fullness of time, the committee will conclude its methodical examination and report with its recommendations.

I hope that responds to the points made by the hon. member.