Geoff Regan

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this brings up a very interesting challenge for society, because how do we legislate good parenting? On the other hand, how do we penalize parents who have maybe been good parents when, in spite of their best efforts, one of their children has engaged in criminal acts, particularly in violent criminal acts?

I do not believe that this permits simple solutions. It might be attractive to say to throw the parent in jail or to penalize the parent in some severe way and that would solve the problem. I am not convinced that it will. I am not convinced that this suggestion encompasses the reality that is out there, the reality of parents who have been good parents or of parents who have done their best but who may have limited ability, for whatever reason, because of their own background, to provide the parenting we would like to see them provide, to provide the level of parenting we would like to see ideally.

It seems to me that the idea of penalizing the parent is one that is not well founded. At the same time, yes, we want to ensure that parents do a good job. Perhaps there is some way that provinces could improve parenting training and perhaps there are other things that could be done.

Clearly for children who are under the age of 12, where there are consequences under provincial laws, in some cases a child may be taken away from his or her parents because of this kind of situation. However, to say that we can impose on one person a penalty for what someone else has done is so contrary to the fundamental principles of our justice system and of our legal system historically that I think it makes no sense. I do not think we can we can go that far or accept that kind of a leap in that direction.

I think this bill does provide a good balance between the challenge of bringing the youth to justice quickly and the challenge of making sure that the accused's rights are guaranteed.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked about justice and I have talked about meaningful consequences. I think that when we talk about meaningful consequences, we talk about holding people to account and about the strong impact.

In fact, a moment ago I mentioned something that relates directly to this. I talked about adult sentences being given to people who are 14 years of age or older and who are found guilty of serious crimes. Clearly that is deterrence. Clearly deterrence is part of this bill and part of what the provisions provide.

Perhaps the member does not find it in this particular phrase, but it talks about “holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person” et cetera. Those consequences are publicly known. The fact that there are these consequences becomes public. The person's peer group is certainly going to be aware of these consequences. That is clearly a deterrent to further actions of this kind.

At the same time, there not only needs to be deterrence but also treatment and rehabilitation. There cannot be the imbalance of having one and not the other. There has to be that combination. That is the challenge before us.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today regarding youth criminal justice. The bill will replace the Young Offenders Act. It is a key part of the Government of Canada's youth justice renewal initiative, an initiative that is very important.

I had occasion recently to speak with a person involved in the issue of restorative justice. We talked about the importance and the challenge of ensuring that justice is swift while at the same time guaranteeing the rights of an accused person. That is a difficult balance. We want to see matters brought to justice very quickly.

It is important for any person, but particularly young people, to understand there are consequences to a criminal act and to know what the consequences are. It is important that such acts be dealt with swiftly. Their consequences must be swift and the person responsible be held to account. They must face the victim if that is appropriate. They must face the community and confront the fact that their act has had a negative and terrible impact on the community. That is important.

If young offenders are to overcome and get beyond what they have done, recognize they have done something wrong and grow and learn and change, they must be confronted fairly quickly with what has happened. That is why restorative justice is a step in the right direction, and I am glad the Department of Justice is working on it.

However the other side of the challenge is that while justice must be swift we must ensure the rights of an accused person are protected. As a judge said many years ago, it is better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. That is one of the golden threads of our legal justice system in Canada.

The new act will incorporate some very important new considerations. It will incorporate the initiative's new approach to youth justice and it will form the backbone of a major restructuring of the youth justice system. This restructuring has been going on since 1988. Let us look at the key elements of the new bill and the principles it applies.

The preamble of the bill underlines the values, rights and responsibilities both of society and of young people in relation to youth crime. Clearly we do have rights and responsibilities on both sides and our values are important. What we are trying to do, obviously, is to teach or to inject those values, so to speak, into young people. We are not always talking about people who are absolutely devoid of values. Often we are talking about people who have strayed from those values, who have learned the basics but perhaps have made an important and fundamental error, in some cases a very serious error, and have strayed dramatically from those values. However, in some cases, yes, they are people who do not appear to show any of the values that we think are important as a society.

The bill sets out the most important objectives of the youth criminal justice system. The objectives are to prevent crime, to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into society, and to ensure meaningful consequences for offences committed by young people so that they have the consequence of being confronted with their actions, of being brought to account to face the victim and recognize what they have done to someone, and also to face their community and recognize the impact on the community of what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you, by the way, that I will be splitting my time with the minister of state for youth.

The principles of the bill recognize that these elements, pursued together, are the best way to protect the public and promote safer communities over the long term.

Let me talk for a moment about the provisions of the bill regarding sentencing. I mentioned a few minutes earlier, and I want to repeat, what subclause 38(1) of the bill says. I think it is a very important provision of this bill. It is important to understand what the bill is all about and what the idea of sentencing is all about within the new youth criminal justice bill.

Subclause 38(1) asserts that the purpose of imposing a youth sentence is:

—to contribute to the protection of society by holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

That is very important. We have to consider that. Those who feel, for example, that all people under the age of 18 who are convicted of a criminal act should be in adult institutions, in adult prisons, ought to consider the impact of that. Surely if we put a 15 year old or a 14 year old or a 13 year old into an adult prison facility, what we are doing, in effect, is helping him or her to be trained to become a more proficient criminal. Surely that is not an objective we ought to be endorsing or embracing for our youth criminal justice system.

As this legislation states, the key purpose of youth sentences is to hold young people accountable for their crimes. That is vital. It is vital that they be held accountable and have to confront what they have done. If there is any chance for reform or rehabilitation, they must first confront and be confronted with what they have done.

The other key purpose, of course, is to contribute to the protection of society. How can this be achieved? There are a number of goals that the bill sets out. For instance, it sets out that we can achieve these goals through interventions that are just; there must be justice in these interventions. This can be accomplished through community intervention, with incarceration for the most serious crimes. Community intervention may work well in some cases. I think it is important that we give it a try.

We have already seen the idea of restorative justice, whereby young people are confronted by the community and particularly by the victims they have injured and are required to make restoration, not only to the victim but also to the community at large. A crime is an attack not only on one person, on one family or on one resident, but is in effect an attack on our society and on the community in which the attack takes place.

Another important goal is that we ensure meaningful consequences. Clearly the youth must recognize the severity of the crime, and the punishment should suit the crime. These are very important objectives.

Finally, it must promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

It seems to me that the bill goes a long way toward achieving those objectives. Provisions in the bill will encourage community based sentences where appropriate, such as, for example, compensation for victims, community service and supervision in the community.

It will allow the courts to impose adult sentences upon conviction when certain criteria are met. It creates the presumption that adult sentences will be given to young people 14 and older who are found guilty of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault or who are repeat serious violent offenders. That is a very important provision, this presumption of an adult sentence, because it means that for serious crimes they will do serious time. It means that young offenders can expect this if they are involved in serious violent crime.

At the same time, because we recognize that there are different situations in different parts of the country and we recognize that different provinces have had success with different models in relation to these issues, the provinces will have increased flexibility in regard to the age at which this presumption will apply within their jurisdictions.

Lastly, it will create a new, intensive, rehabilitative custody and supervision sentence for the most violent high risk youth so that they get the treatment they need. That is so important. Not only is it important that they be confronted with their actions but, particularly with the most violent youth, there is a real need for serious treatment. These are people who obviously have severe problems and we have a great challenge in order to have a hope that people like this may at some point go back into society. It is important that we find a way to give them good treatment.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I note, in relation to the principles and purpose of youth sentencing, that subsection 38(1) asserts:

The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is to contribute to the protection of society by holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Does the hon. member agree that this is a reasonable and sensible approach to the sentencing of youth criminals? We are talking about people who have been convicted at this stage and are going on to sentencing.

[Basketball, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the X-Men are kings of the court. This past Sunday at Halifax's Metro Centre, St. Francis Xavier University men's basketball team repeated as the CIAU men's basketball champions with an 83 to 76 overtime win against the Brandon Bobcats.

This is the third national title for the X-Men since 1993 and the third straight win for the Atlantic conference. This championship game caps off a remarkable season during which St. F-X held a 31 and 1 record and marked its 29th straight win on the court. As coach Steve Konchalski put it, his team refused to lose all year long.

I congratulate Coach K., tournament MVP Randy Nohr, and the entire team and staff of St. F-X, home of the top CIAU men's basketball team in Canada..

[Veterans Affairs, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in recent news articles there has been speculation about more money forthcoming to our merchant mariners. These veterans provided priceless service during World War II, and the government has come forward with a compensation package for them.

Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs confirm the government Senate leader's assurances that another $35 million will be provided to fully compensate merchant navy veterans?

[Housing, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the government's priority of helping the homeless, the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association will open a new housing facility in Halifax with the help of nearly $1.6 million from the Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia.

In addition to accommodating 18 residents and a live in staff person, this facility will provide a base for the association's work. Its community support team will provide advocacy and support for homeless people with complex mental, physical and social needs. It will work to help them become part of a supportive, healthy community.

The federal funding for this project is part of the $753 million the Government of Canada has committed to combating homelessness from coast to coast to coast. It is money well spent. It is a sound investment.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 300 residents of my riding who are calling on the government to de-link economic from military sanctions against Iraq.

[Veterans Affairs, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at 8.45 a.m., December 6, 1917, at the height of World War I, the Belgian relief vessel Imo collided with the French munitions carrier Mont Blanc in the narrowest part of Halifax harbour.

Out of a population of less than 50,000 people, over 1,600 died and 9,000 were injured, including 200 blinded by flying glass.

Today there are only nine pensionable survivors still living.

The federal government promised to support the survivors, but their benefits have dwindled over the years to the point where they no longer reflect the cost of living.

I want them and their families to know that I will be lobbying the Minister of Veterans Affairs to ensure they receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

I will work not for only this group but for all the merchant mariners who are owed benefits for their service and contribution to our country.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

The motion tabled today restates the traditional power of the Speaker not to select for report stage debate motions of a frivolous, repetitive or vexatious nature. This is not so dramatic or unusual, it seems to me. Let us consider what the motion actually says:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

What are we doing? We are moving to the system we used to have. We are moving to the system followed by the mother of our parliament and of all parliaments, the U.K. It is not a huge change. We are returning to the original intent of the standing orders we now follow.

It is interesting that this is the same basic concept and rule that is followed by thousands of community organizations across the country who use a very well known rule book, Robert's Rules of Order . I will read from Robert's Rules of Order , the section dealing with dilatory, absurd or frivolous motions. The intent of the rule, which is used across the country by so many organizations, is quite similar to the intent of the motion today. It states:

—whenever the chair is satisfied that members are using parliamentary forms merely to obstruct business, he should either not recognize them, or else rule them out of order. After the chair has been sustained upon an appeal, he should not entertain another appeal from the same obstructionists while they are engaged evidently in trying by that means to obstruct business. While the chair should always be courteous and fair, he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition, even though it be done in strict conformity with all parliamentary rules except this one, that no dilatory, absurd, or frivolous motions are allowed.

As an illustration of a frivolous or absurd motion, suppose Mr. A is to be in the city next week and a motion has been made to invite him to address the assembly at its next meeting, the meetings being weekly. Now, if a motion is made to refer the question to a committee with instructions to report at the next regular meeting, the chair should rule it out of order as frivolous or absurd.

That is the rule that is followed all across the country in all kinds of democratic organizations. We are adopting basically the same concept with almost the same wording.

Members opposite are up in arms about this, suggesting that it will limit important debate. Is it important that we go on for hours voting on questions of whether we should have a comma after every word in a bill or whether the bill should be hoisted for six months or reconsidered clause by clause? Such ridiculous motions are not intended to change the substance of a bill but only to waste the time of the House. That surely is not why we were sent here by our electorates.

In the last parliament members had to vote for days on report stage motions because of the abuse of a loophole in the standing orders on report stage motions.

In December 1999 there were over 42 hours of non-stop voting on 469 report stage motions to amend the Nisga'a bill. Were they really motions to try to improve the or change the bill substantively? No. The vast majority of them were vexatious, repetitive, frivolous motions.

In March 2000 the House spent 36 hours voting on 411 report stage motions to amend the clarity bill. Again they were frivolous, vexatious, repetitive motions.

In September 2000, just last fall, there were over 3,000 report stage amendments to the youth justice bill which would have taken two weeks or more to complete in non-stop voting. Let us imagine members of parliament spending night and day for two weeks standing and sitting in the House to vote on all kinds of ridiculous amendments.

The public in my riding will not stand for that. I cannot imagine that members opposite can expect their electorate to stand for it either. It is enough that we take the time we do standing and sitting in the voting process. It is good that the government is looking at the idea of electronic voting to try to streamline the voting process. Sometimes it goes on and on and on. It could be done much more efficiently. Our time could be used far better than in this very slow process.

I mentioned the youth justice bill. I will refer to some of those motions. There were almost 400 motions in Motions Nos. 2,646 to 3,029 from only 44 members to change the coming into force of the provisions of the act. For example, Motions Nos. 2,654 and 2,655, one member's motions, had a different coming into force proposal for the same section of the act. Another member's Motions Nos. 2,657 and 2,658 had a different coming into force proposal for the same section of the act. Motions Nos. 2,327 to 2,418 included almost 100 motions for the timing of a provision, from 691 days to 792 days, increasing one day per motion.

One member who is no longer in the House, Mr. Turp, proposed different times for the timing of the same provisions. Again they were silly, frivolous, vexatious and repetitive motions, wasting the time of the House and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Motions Nos. 3,030 to 3,133 included over 100 amendments from only 44 members requiring a statutory review of various provisions of the act.

What was the point if not to delay things, be obstructionist, cause problems, waste taxpayer dollars and waste the time of members and the time of the House? The cost of this abuse is completely unacceptable to Canadians who elected us to debate and study legislation, not to spend days and days voting on frivolous, repetitive and vexatious amendments.

Canadians in my riding and elsewhere across the country are not concerned about whether there are 10 commas or 2 commas in a sentence. They are concerned about issues like health care, about the taxes they pay and about economic growth across the country.

The concerns I heard during the election campaign in Halifax West were about the fact that Halifax West was undoubtedly the fastest growing area in Atlantic Canada. We do not have the infrastructure to support the growth we have seen over the past 20 years. We do not have the new schools that are needed. We have children in overcrowded schools and old schools that are becoming decrepit. They need new investment and new schools.

They are concerned about the lack of roads in Halifax West and the need for new roads to support this growing area. They are concerned about the need for recreation facilities and the waste of their tax dollars. The last thing they want to see is members of parliament wasting $8,000 an hour sitting here overnight voting on ridiculous motions. It is the last thing they want to see.

They want us to be working. They want us to be looking at how departments are spending money and trying to make them work better. They want us to try to make government work better. That is the reason we are here. Let us spend our time focussing on what government departments and agencies are doing and trying to make them work better. Goodness knows there is a lot of room for improvement.

There are a lot of details we must look at in our work as watchdogs to get government departments to work better for the public. That surely is our job, not to sit here night after night voting all night long on ridiculous motions that wear us out and make us unable to do our jobs the next day, or whenever it ends.

It is a cost that is simply unacceptable to taxpayers who have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime costs for the House of Commons staff to stay when votes go on through the night.

It is also unacceptable for the staff of the House of Commons, who have to work the extra hours or work overtime. It may endanger their health as well.

We should consider what impact this has on the institutions of parliament and how it degrades parliament in the minds of the public when it is engaged in silly activities that are clearly not constructive or substantive.

I realize that members across the way like to find topics to raise so they can have time to talk about all kinds of issues that are of concern to them. I appreciate that, but surely to waste our time sitting here and voting all night long is not an answer to the concerns of their constituents or my constituents. Surely we all can see that passing the motion will make our parliament more efficient and will help us get to the job at hand.