Jay Hill

[Petitions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition requests that current laws regarding assisted suicide be enforced and no changes be made to the law which would sanction or allow suicide or euthanasia.

[Petitions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition prays that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament provide a remedy, to intervene and bring forward a national public registry of past and present sexual offenders to better protect the children of our communities.

[Petitions, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting several petitions today on behalf of my constituents of Prince George-Peace River.

The first petition requests that Parliament oppose any legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine family, including the provision of marriage and family benefits to those who are not family as defined in the petition.

[Firearms Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech on Bill C-68. I share some of her concerns about northerners, how they will react to increased regulation, universal registration,

and in particular her comments on how aboriginal hunters will view the added regulations and restrictions being placed upon them.

My question for the hon. member deals with Bill C-34, the Yukon self-government bill, which was passed in this House last June. It was my understanding that Bill C-34 gave control and prohibition over firearms and explosive devices to the new levels of native governments in the Yukon.

Has the hon. member researched that at all? If so, does it mean they are in effect exempt from the new regulations in Bill C-68 once it is passed? If they are exempt because of the clauses in Bill C-34 which give control over firearms to the native governments, does she feel it right that some Canadian citizens should be exempt from Canada's laws based strictly on race?

[Young Offenders Act, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are listening on this side of the House. Hopefully our constituents are listening at home as well.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments about Bill C-37, the reforms to the Young Offenders Act. He said that if we had any suggestions he would welcome them and that we should bring them forward to the government. We have been trying to do that at every opportunity in the debate on the Young Offenders Act and the specific bill.

It is high time young people who commit violent repeat offences are held accountable. We talk about that often. We should quit blaming society, family or peer pressure for their crimes; they have to be held accountable.

I wrote down from the hon. member's speech that he does not believe incarceration and rough treatment are the answer. Some people would differ when it comes to repeat offenders and offenders who commit horrendous violent crimes.

I would like to refer to a newspaper article and ask the hon. member if he would agree with this type of treatment and indicate whether it has some potential in Canada. I refer to an article about the Toulson Boot Camp in Maryland, U.S.A., which states:

Offenders between the ages of 17 and 25, sentenced to five years or less, can sign up for the six-month boot camp program at Toulson. And then you're home-free on parole.

The program at Toulson is modelled on the U.S. Marines' boot camps and about half the instructors are former marines. It emphasizes discipline and accountability.

So lifting a log isn't about lifting a log. It's about teamwork and overcoming adversity.

And moving a rock pile isn't just moving rocks. It's about being responsible for your actions and putting effort into work.

Toulson is a little different than other American boot camps, however.

That's because, in addition to the strict military regime and physical training, inmates also get job training, schooling (more than 70 per cent receive their high school equivalency diploma before they leave) and strictly supervised probation.

Boot camps without such measures find 50 to 70 per cent of their ex-cons end up back in the clink-the same rate as for conventional U.S. prisons where inmates can do whatever they want all day.

According to statistics compiled by Toulson officials, only 20 per cent of inmates released from the boot camp have reoffended.

In light of those statistics-he has asked for suggestions-would that perhaps be something that Canada should be looking at to put some of the violent repeat offenders into a structure such as that one and hopefully we would have a better success rate than we have had in our rehabilitation programs of the past?

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting today two petitions signed by 193 of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River.

They feel that no amount of gun control has ever succeeded in preventing criminals from acquiring guns for illegal means. Therefore, they ask Parliament to support laws that punish criminals using firearms and to support, recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms and abolish any existing gun control laws that have proven to be ineffective.

I fully endorse these petitions.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be granted as much time as was granted my hon. colleague who just rose with his comments.

I have a couple of comments. The hon. member from the Bloc finds himself a thousand miles away from Reform thinking. That is very obvious and all I can say is thank goodness for that.

The hon. member likes to quote statistics. I notice that most members seem to be using statistics that support their case. I guess we will continue to do that as long as this debate lasts.

I am referring to the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics which say: "Since 1992-93 the number of property cases has decreased by 5 per cent"-this is referring to young offenders' statistics-"while the numbers of cases in all other offence categories have either increased or remained near the same level. The number of cases involving violence has increased by 8 per cent".

We can all quote statistics. We can all say the problem is getting worse or better, depending on what side of the House we are on and what side of the argument we are on.

The point I would make to the hon. member is this. The people who are demanding justice the loudest are the children themselves, the good kids. We tend to forget that. Some seem to think that if Reformers get up and say that we have to get serious with these young offenders that we are somehow attacking youth.

We are trying to defend the youth who are the good citizens, the model citizens, the ones who are afraid to go to school, scared to walk down the street after dark because they could be attacked by some gang because the gang is not being properly dealt with by the system. The system is failing these young people.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his thoughts on my presentation and for his question.

I will try to address my answer to the issues he raised in the same order that he did. As to the transfer of 16 and 17 year olds under Bill C-37 to adult court, he is quite correct. The onus is on the individual, on the young offender, to apply and give reasons why he or she should be kept in youth court.

As a previous speaker noted, there is also the facility that came forward by way of an amendment when it was at committee stage where the prosecutor and the defence attorney can get together and make that decision before it comes to court. This leaves the whole thing open to exactly what we have seen in cases of plea bargaining. It is of real concern to us.

As I stated in my speech, 16 and 17 year olds should not be given that option. At 16 years old, these children know exactly what they are doing. They should know the consequences of committing that crime. Therefore there should be automatic transfer with no chance to be tried in the same youth court that would try a 12-year-old.

As far as the comment about the sentencing provisions of Bill C-37 that double the sentence, my understanding is that Bill C-37 only doubles the sentence for murder.

As I said also in my speech, the sentence goes from five to ten years. I personally believe that for first degree murder, 10 years is not long enough. It certainly is not when one looks at the maximum. It can be six years in closed confinement and four years in open.

As to the comment about the community service, certainly I support that concept. I referred to it in my speech as well. We have to have all the forces that can be brought into play. That is not the answer in all cases.

The wilderness camps are not the answer either. Closed confinement is not the answer for everyone. We have to look at a wide range. However, the concern that members are hearing from Reformers is that there are those individuals out there who constantly flaunt the law.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with a case of three young offenders last spring in Edmonton who broke into a young family's home. They knew the family was at home. The young mother woke up and disturbed their burglary. They could have ran. She was no threat to them. However they had absolutely no respect for law or even for human life. They cold bloodedly murdered her. They stabbed her to death.

That is why Reformers say we have to get tough with these people. We have to send a message that our society is not going to condone that type of behaviour.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my thoughts and concerns on the Young Offenders Act and Bill C-37 to the debate.

I would like to begin by sharing a letter from a constituent who writes:

Last week my neighbour's son was physically assaulted in the hallways of his high school, not by a teacher or a fellow student but by a youth gang member who walked in off the street. The kids call him the "enforcer". Apparently my neighbour's son had asked the wrong fellow to stop spraying rocks when he spun out of the parking lot. This less than courteous driver had gang membership connections and sent for the "enforcer" to beat him up.

I realize that changing the Young Offenders Act won't solve all our problems, but it would be a very good start. All of society has to take responsibility for putting an end to violence through long term teaching and learning in our education system. We must begin to give the message that the rights of victims will be protected more than the rights of criminals. The youth of today are laughing at our judicial system.

The RCMP advised my neighbour to press charges even though he said it would take up to 18 months to go to trial and the kid would only get probation. This type of youth thinks probation is something to brag about. We need to do more than slap wrists. We have to stop this senseless violence.

Surely the government can act to change the present state of our judicial system. An overhaul is long overdue. The rights of the average law-abiding citizen of Canada need to be protected now.

As for my neighbour's son he is on a waiting list for a head scan as they feel the bone fragments in his head could cause permanent damage. The doctor said this was not a school kid fight but a serious attempt to do permanent damage. How many more young leaders of the future have to be maimed or killed before changes to our laws are made?

That sentiment is echoed by many letters. I am sure I am not the only MP to receive those types of concerns from constituents.

This one school yard incident illustrates much of what is wrong with our youth justice system today: youth gangs, physical assault, fear in the school yard, misplaced value systems, increasing levels of violence among youth, lengthy delays in our youth detention centres before going to trial and overcrowded courts, lack of respect of youth for the justice system, and inadequate penalties for repeat and violent young offenders.

When I speak about school yard violence I have to relate it to my own situation. We can all appreciate that as we grew up we were confronted with bullies. I know in my case my father said: "At some point in time you just have to stand up for yourself. The only language bullies understand is to meet force with force, or you will just keep getting pushed around".

I have a young son who will be 12 years old pretty soon. I hear in the news about young children getting stabbed at school or getting kicked in the head. I see some members opposite laughing about this. I do not understand how they find it humourous. I am very concerned about when my son will come to me for advice on what to do about bullies in the school. I do not know if I should tell him to stand up for himself against a bully who might bring a knife to school the next day and stab him or kick him to death.

Something has to change. Bill C-37 begins to address some of the problems but I do not think it goes nearly far enough. We cannot afford to tinker with our justice system. We must look at what works and what does not work. We must have the strength and the confidence to change what must be changed.

One out of every two young offenders who passes through the system will commit another offence. That is far too high. Obviously our current system is not working.

One significant problem that must be addressed is the enormous time delays between the commission of a crime and the court date. In some jurisdictions it takes from six months to a year. In Prince George it can take up to 18 months, and that is not acceptable. How can young offenders think we take their crimes or rehabilitation seriously when it takes so long to get their cases to trial? All too frequently if left at liberty youths will reoffend while they are waiting for their court appearance.

According to justice statistics in 1993-94, 9 per cent of the youth court cases dealt with young offenders who had not complied or had failed to appear for previous court dates. However, if the youth is held in a youth detention centre pending trial, they are subject to physical, mental, emotional abuse by other more violent young offenders. This is not fair either to any youth.

A lengthy stay in such an environment is not conducive to learning more socially acceptable behaviours. Eliminating trial delays must be a priority so young offenders are placed into programs appropriate for them sooner, whether community service or the so-called boot camps.

Another serious flaw of this bill is that it does not apply to 10 and 11 year olds. Child protection services in most provinces do not have the resources to meet the needs of every child they know is at risk of criminal activity. They know once the youth is finally arrested at age 12, additional resources might be available within the young offender system.

According to a preliminary study on youth gang activity done for the Solicitor General, gangs are recruiting young children to transport drugs, break into houses and rob commercial property. Children under 12 are re-enacting the violent behaviour of older juvenile delinquents in the school yard. Twelve is obviously too late.

We must get these children into the system earlier, giving them appropriate counselling, structure and values before they become set in their criminal ways. They must learn as early as possible there are always consequences for one's actions, if you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time.

Our justice system needs to distinguish between young, first time offenders who commit minor crimes and those who engage in habitual or violent criminal behaviour. Everyone deserves a fair chance to mend their ways, to learn responsibility, accountability and a new sense of purpose.

Many of these first time offenders are trapped in dysfunctional or abusive families. Some are poor or have learning disabilities. They have low self-esteem and are looking for a way out of their cage. Some turn to a youth gang for security. They steal something to boost their own confidence, to impress their peers or simply because they are looking for help.

Our youth justice system must recognize these kids and provide them with a sentence appropriate to their needs to guide them back to the straight and narrow. That does not mean we allow them to blame their background or society for their actions. It does not mean we put them into counselling and ignore their crime.

The first step on the path to becoming a responsible citizen is to accept responsibility for one's own actions. They must be held accountable. If they are sentenced to open custody, part of that sentence must entail reparations for the damage they have done. In some cases it might mean picking up garbage. In others, more difficult work such as planting trees.

If they are going to be successful, community programs must be tailored to the needs and the punishment of the particular young offender. We must differentiate between those who deserve a chance with a lighter sentence and others who have repeatedly demonstrated they have no respect for our laws.

Despite what some advocates would have us believe, not all young offenders who commit non-violent property offences are harmless. Many are already habitual criminals with no moral conscience and a warped value system. They do not understand why they should respect the lives and property of other Canadians.

These youth need to know the punishment for their crimes will not be a slap on the wrist like raking leaves at the local park on weekends. These youth need a stronger reason to think twice before stealing another car. We need to strike a balance between deterrents and accountability, between punishment and rehabilitation.

Under Bill C-37 sentences for young offenders are inadequate and uncertain. It fails with respect to habitual delinquents. For property offences Bill C-37 advocates open custody. If a youth commits a property offence, the onus is now on judges to justify sending them to secured custody rather than to the community.

Currently there are not enough community programs to absorb these youths. The infrastructure is not yet in place. For property offences more emphasis has to be placed on whether the youth is a habitual offender. I do not think a bit of community work will be taken seriously by someone who openly flaunts the law on a continual basis. They should be dealt with very differently than other first time property offenders.

For violent offences Bill C-37 generally prescribes maximums rather than minimums. In the case of premeditated first degree murder a young offender is subject to a maximum six-year sentence in secured custody with an absolute maximum of ten years, including open custody.

This is a substantial improvement over the old five-year maximum but still does not go far enough. With no minimums, a young offender may still believe the sentence for murder will be a few short years. Some people do not believe longer sentences will deter youths. All I can say is ridiculously light sentences sure have not.

We need longer minimum sentences for violent young offenders so they know exactly what they will be facing when they contemplate rape, assault or murder.

When we incarcerate youths today the law says they must be provided with shelter, safety and schooling. There is also some counselling but the rest of the time they are frequently idle without constructive structure in their life.

Last summer at a justice rally in my riding one teenage girl told us that she has friends who actually look forward to detention. It was like a vacation for them with three square meals a day and no worries. They do not have to confront the reasons they are there. How can you rehabilitate a violent young offender if they do not understand there are serious consequences for breaking the law? How can they learn an acceptable value system if they view custody as a vacation?

Youth detention centres are expensive. In Alberta it has been estimated that it costs about $45,000 per year to keep a young offender. In Ontario it costs taxpayers $100,000 per youth. At least 50 per cent of all young offenders currently reoffend. For $100,000 a year Canadians have a right to expect better results.

I advocate the concept of the so-called boot camps. We do not yet have enough statistics on the various models of these camps to prove whether they are effective in all cases, but we do know

that the reoffending rate is lower for many graduates of these wilderness or outbound camps, or whatever you call them.

For many youths in these camps, it is the first time in their lives they are placed in a highly structured environment with specific tasks, responsibilities and expectations. They do not have idle time to scheme or intimidate other youths.

Just south of Prince George we have one such camp. It has been around for 23 years and has a fairly good success rate. These young offenders warm up with callisthenics and go for a four mile run before breakfast. They are assigned tasks and chores around the camp, have strict school and study regimes, and almost no idle time.

They are not doing hard labour as critics of some camps might suggest. They are in a disciplined, structured environment, designed to foster more responsible behaviour.

Just this last year Manitoba has also moved toward this style of detention for youth. In Ontario it costs half as much to send a youth to Camp DARE and they are far less likely to reoffend than if they stayed in a youth detention centre.

Another problem with this bill is that it only transfers 16 or 17 year olds who commit violent personal injury crimes to adult court. It does not deal with 16 or 17 year old habitual offenders who obviously hold the justice system in contempt.

In B.C. between April and September of last year 999 of the 1,819 youths sentenced or remanded in custody were 16 or older. They are responsible for more than half the crimes committed by youths. When it comes to 16 or 17 year olds who commit crimes, I am in complete disagreement with this bill.

I believe every 16 or 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. They know when they are committing a crime and I believe they should be treated as adults. They do not belong in the same system as a 12-year-old, nor should they expect the same treatment for their criminal behaviour. This bill provides a loophole to keep even the most violent of older offenders in the youth system. Sixteen and seventeen year olds who commit murder or violent assaults can request that they be kept in the youth system. This bill has created a whole new field for lawyers and will tie up even more valuable court time. I do not think that is right.

I was recently reading an article in Readers' Digest by Mike Royko which originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune . It illustrates the sentiments many Canadians feel toward violent criminals who rape or murder regardless of their age. I will quote a part of the article:

Judge McKay hears criminal cases in Trumball County, Ohio. Recently he had a two-legged beast in front of him who had kidnapped, robbed and repeatedly raped a 12-year old girl. When it was time to sentence the 22-year old villain Judge McKay said:

"When you slithered out of your hole that day and spewed your venom all over this defenceless girl, you made this court's top ten list of the lowest scum this country has to offer. In a way the best sentence this court could give would be no sentence at all because if you left this courtroom I don't think you would be alive 10 minutes. You are nothing but a weed among wheat. When we have a weed, it is my job to eradicate it because if I don't you will choke the wheat. Therefore I am going to take you off the streets for as long as I can".

The judge then ticked off long sentence after long sentence for each crime committed against the girl. "You won't be eligible for parole until you're 92", the judge pronounced, "that leaves only one more count, aggravated robbery. You stole this little girl's bra as a souvenir, probably to brag about it to your friends. I'm going to give you a souvenir of Trumball County justice, and that is a maximum sentence of 10 to 25 on the aggravated robbery for stealing that bra and I hope that in your last 25 years in prison you remember that souvenir. Get this scum out of here".

There are millions of Canadians across this country who are demanding that type of justice for that level of criminal. When a 17-year-old in Canada murders or rapes they should know they are going to face serious, severe consequences. Three meals a day in our current youth detention centres and time to practise more criminal skills does not cut it.

I believe inmates in adult prisons should not be idle either. Reform of the entire prison system is not the subject of this bill.

In summary, young offenders must know they will get caught, they will be convicted and they will be punished. Young offenders must know that justice will be swift and sure and they must know what to expect.

Bill C-37 is a start but our entire youth justice system must be overhauled now. It should include 10 and 11 year olds who are slipping through cracks of underfunded child protection agencies and becoming habitual criminals before the age of 12. It should recognize that all 16 and 17 year olds are responsible for their actions, not society. It is their choice to break the law.

We must commit the resources to implement and monitor programs for first time offenders. We must establish or expand highly structured and disciplined youth detention facilities and programs that teach habitual and violent young criminals respect for our values and laws.