Allan Rock

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon. member on his speech.

If I may say so respectfully, it was a very helpful analysis of the issues we face in respect of this legislation and in the debate today.

As we discuss this resolution, Canadians have made it clear that community safety and crime issues are high on their agenda. Concerns about youth crime particularly in light of the tragic events in recent months have made this subject one of particular importance for the House of Commons.

I know that members of all parties would want me to observe at the outset that when we speak of youth crime and young offenders, we speak about a small segment of young people in Canada today. By far the vast majority of young Canadians are dedicated toward improving themselves and leading productive lives as citizens of this country.

Nonetheless, members of the public have expressed growing concern about how the Young Offenders Act works and how it deals with youth who do commit crimes. I believe in the act; I believe in its fundamental principles and the model of juvenile justice it creates for Canada. And while I believe in the focus on both public protection and youth rehabilitation, I recognize and this government recognizes there is a need for changes in the act now.

As I said, I will be introducing a bill to amend the act in this House in June. This bill will reflect the commitments made during the election campaign to improve the act's provisions as they pertain to youth crimes, particularly violent crimes of a serious nature.

Let me just say, however, that amending the legislation is not in itself a solution to youth crime in Canada. To say so would be to mislead Canadians.

It must be clear that progress in dealing with youth crime means not only initiating more effective criminal justice responses but it also means crime prevention in a broad and constructive sense. It means addressing the causes of crime as well as an acceptance of the need to address the culture of violence in which our children and youth are growing up in Canada today.

In my capacity as Minister of Justice I co-ordinate on the Prime Minister's behalf the efforts of nine ministries of government which are addressed to the question of violence in Canadian society. It is a broad effort which includes ministries as disparate as: Heritage Canada, with responsibility for broadcasting and which deals with violence on television and in movies; the Ministry of Health, which deals with programs for young people, programs for pregnant women, and government undertakings to ensure the provision of social services in the health context to deal with some conditions that breed crime in this country; and the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because the criminal justice system fails so profoundly in dealing with the needs of the aboriginal peoples.

These efforts are made in recognition of the fact that we must not only make the Young Offenders Act more effective, we must also adopt a wide ranging approach to the entire question of crime and youth crime in particular.

I am fond of speaking of the root causes of crime. I respond to questions in the House about crime in that way and I stress a two track approach to the challenge of crime in Canadian society: Amend statutes like the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code to ensure they send a stern message that there is to be accountability, that there is punishment and it will be certain and effective. At the same time acknowledge and communicate that the criminal justice system by itself is not going to be able to overcome this problem in our society.

If the answer to crime was simply harsher laws, longer penalties and bigger prisons then the United States of America would be nirvana today. Surely that is an abject lesson for us all that that approach alone will not and does not succeed. Surely it is plain that the causes of crime must be addressed.

When I am asked about the causes of crime, I surprise no one when I refer to dysfunctional families, to the abuse of children, to the fact that some children do not have a hot meal once a week, to the fact that schools and their curricula have become irrelevant for many children. Young people in large numbers feel they do not have a stake in our economic system and have no future to look forward to. They lose an interest in preserving and enhancing the status quo because for them it is something in which they have no part.

Therefore I say that the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry have as much to do with crime prevention as the Minister of Justice. We are only ever going to be able to have long term and effective results if we create a society in which we minimize the conditions which breed crimes.

Almost 30 years ago Lyndon Johnson became President of the United States of America. I was reminded recently by someone who made reference to a study done I believe it was by the Eisenhower Foundation, in respect of the great society. This was the program of legislation President Johnson introduced in 1964 or 1965 by which the Government of the United States of America undertook a broad initiative in terms of education for young people, strengthening of the health care system, headstart programs for the disadvantaged, the kind of integrated comprehensive approach of which I speak today.

The study done some 25 years after the programs of the great society were introduced demonstrated the effect of those initiatives and the positive consequence of putting the emphasis on that aspect of government as well as criminal justice.

Those studies showed that for the beneficiaries of the great society, for those kids who were brought up with the advantage of those programs, the contrast between their lives and the lives of those without those programs was very stark. There was a higher degree of employment, a lower crime rate, a greater degree of stability among families, a greater degree of health. These are demonstrable consequences of enlightened approaches which recognize the linkages between social programs effectively designed and administered in the criminal justice system.

In developing our responses to young offenders we must also keep youth crime in perspective. Let us bear in mind it is adults in this country who continue to commit the majority of crime. Seventy-nine per cent of crime is committed by adults. Adults commit 86 per cent of all violent crime in this country.

While there is no doubt that some youth crimes of violence are on the increase, the increase in youth violent offences is for less serious offences. The number of youths charged with homicide and attempted murder for example has remained relatively stable over the years.

The vast majority of crimes committed by youth are property crimes. Sixty per cent were property crimes in 1992. More than half of those crimes were for theft and most of those involved property with a value of less than $1,000. Only 14 per cent of young people charged in 1992 were charged with crimes of violence, including homicides. That is an increase of only 6 per cent since 1986.

Let us not lose sight of those facts when we propose changes to the law. But we do propose changes and let me speak to those now.

As far as amending the legislation is concerned, we are considering the possibility of increasing the maximum sentences handed down by a youth court for the crime of murder. Judges would also be allowed to hand down longer sentences if they felt such action was necessary to ensure reintegration and to better protect the public. Maximum sentences would include periods of reintegration into the community to ensure that youths receive some supervision and support when they return to the community. This is a determining factor both for the young person and for the safety of the public.

We also believe that the adult system may be more appropriate for dealing with some 16 and 17-year olds who commit violent offences causing the most serious personal harm. In addition, public safety concerns may require that the act be clarified to allow for information to be shared with professionals such as police and schools and with select members of the public when violent offenders are involved.

We are looking as well at longer retention of records in the cases of young people convicted of personal injury offences. Furthermore we acknowledge that crime victims often feel that the justice system fails them. One response to that concern would be to allow victim impact statements to be considered by the court in sentencing a youth, similar to the adult system.

May I observe that too many of Canada's young people, disproportionately aboriginal and minority youths, are ending up in custody. Currently one-third of youth cases with guilty decisions result in custodial sentences and nearly half of those sentences involve property offences.

When we put lower risk youths in custody, we use up expensive and limited resources that are better directed at youth posing a danger to the public. It may also increase the likelihood that those persons will reoffend upon their release. Where appropriate, such youths should be held accountable to communities and to victims through community based sanctions, away from the influence of more antisocial offenders.

I should emphasize that in designing the changes that I will introduce in the House in the coming weeks, I have attempted to take into account the views of the provinces and the territories. The provinces and territories administer the statute. The federal government shares the cost, but it is primarily their obligation to administer it.

At the same time as we introduce the changes to which I have referred, I have also made it clear that the government proposes to initiate a broad public review of the Young Offenders Act in this its 10th year since proclamation. The review which will involve Parliament will be comprehensive in scope. Speaking to the resolution which is before the House today, may I say it is the view of the government that the age at which the application of the statute should begin is a matter which should be considered by the justice committee when it undertakes its broad and comprehensive review.

I hope that with this in-depth review, we will succeed in achieving a much broader consensus on the most effective way of resolving the numerous, difficult problems associated with youth crime.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about the importance of crime prevention, particulary as it concerns young people.

I emphasize, as I have already, that we approach our task from a broad based perspective acknowledging that our traditional response to crime by itself is inadequate. We are committed to a comprehensive and an integrated approach that looks to reducing opportunities for crime, improving enforcement efforts and addressing social factors.

I call upon all members of the House to work with the government to improve the Young Offenders Act so that we can ensure that our youth, the nation's greatest resource, grow up as law-abiding and fully participating members of Canadian society. That is a challenge for all of us.

[Alimony, May 12th, 1994]

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the government is considering an appeal and no final decision has been made.

On the question of discrimination, this government has made it clear and the Minister of Finance has said on more than one occasion that we are prepared to discuss and consult broadly with those most affected by this tax policy to ensure that we improve it to the point where it gets the dollars into the hands of the people who are looking after children. Our purpose in all of this is to achieve that result.

[Alimony, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government is considering an appeal of the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Thibaudeau case primarily for practical reasons.

The government wishes to make it clear and emphasize that we do not repudiate the result in the case in the sense that tax equity particularly for single parents and those providing for children is among our principal priorities. As we made clear in the budget documents and as we have made clear in the policies of this party, the government is committed to ensuring we have tax policies which get the maximum amount of dollars into the hands of parents who are looking after children, which is our ultimate concern.

The judgment last week came at a time when the policy is being developed. We are concerned that the situation at the moment in Canada has been destabilized by this judgment in a sense that those who are paying support and those who are receiving it are not certain of their rights. The judgment was unbalanced in the sense that the result dealt with those who received the money but not those who deduct the payments. We have those practical concerns.

Let me say in closing that we are dedicated to a tax policy and a fiscal approach that will properly provide for children and for single parents who look after them. At the same time we are considering an appeal so that indirectly this judgment does not redound to their detriment by causing confusion about their rights.

[Young Offenders Act, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we are going to be tabling legislation in June to deal with specific changes to the statute. That is our intended course.

[Young Offenders Act, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I said as recently as yesterday that we will be introducing legislation in a few weeks dealing with the Young Offenders Act in terms of making changes immediately. Also the statute will be referred in its entirety to the justice committee for a thorough review after 10 years of experience with the act. It is my view the question the hon. member has raised would be best dealt with before the committee during that careful and methodical review.

[Indian Affairs, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to what I have said. I think it was very clear that this government remains committed to the proposition that the charter applies to all Canadians.

As we embark upon the negotiations for the implementation of the inherent right of self-government our intention, our resolve, will be to assure and guarantee that human rights are available to all Canadians including aboriginal persons in any self-government arrangement.

[Indian Affairs, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it plain that the federal government believes that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians, under self-government arrangements.

I emphasize that this government remains committed to ensuring that the individual rights and freedoms of all Canadians will continue to be protected even under new aboriginal self-government arrangements.

[Parole, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and I take it as our shared responsibility to ensure that the system works to avoid risk to the public.

I shall take the hon. member's question as an expression of concern that those efforts be continued. I will work with the Solicitor General in ensuring that the parole system guards against such risks to members of the public.

[Parole, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the efforts in which we are engaged at present is to deal with high risk offenders who give reason for concern about the safety of the community upon the completion of their jail term or their terms of imprisonment.

In that connection I raised with the territorial and provincial ministers of justice and attorneys general in March when I met with them the approach which we said we would take during the election campaign which is to ask the provinces to work with us to amend where necessary the provincial mental health legislation to permit assessments of such persons in the prisons and then involuntary detention under mental health legislation at the end of their criminal sentences so that they can either be treated or detained as required for purposes of public safety.

I am happy to report that I have had constructive co-operation and expressions of support from my colleagues in the provinces and territories. I hope the day is not far away when the legislative base will be present for us to treat the kinds of persons to which reference has been made-and I should say I am not speaking in reference to that particular case but generally about offenders-who create a risk so that we can deal with high risk offenders in a way that will protect the community.

[Violent Crime, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this issue yesterday in the House. I said on that occasion on the facts of that particular case and dealing specifically with the right of a victim of sexual aggression to know whether the perpetrator is infected with a communicable disease is a matter we are considering.

Questions of constitutional law and privacy arise but I want to assure the hon. member, as I assured the House yesterday, that by the fall of this year we will bring forward a decision on that question and let the House know what our approach is. We are giving consideration to making such tests mandatory for the sake of the peace of mind of people like Margo B.