Vic Toews

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite the interest and concerns that Canadians have expressed over the failure of the Young Offenders Act to deal effectively with youth crime, the Liberal government seems to be at a loss for finding a solution to this problem. Today the only solution the Liberals are willing to impose is closure. I am very disappointed in the response as there are serious issues that remain to be debated.

The Minister of Justice introduced the legislation into the House, but unfortunately the new legislation contains very little, if anything, that will address the ineffectiveness of the Young Offenders Act. The lack of substantive change is not surprising, given the lack of consultation and the failure to listen to the many Canadians who have reasonable solutions to offer.

In a substantive way, the closure being imposed today by the Liberals is symbolic of the seven years of not listening to the people of Canada and to the concerns that they have over the Young Offenders Act.

I appreciate some of the comments raised by members of the Bloc. There certainly are issues that need to be discussed. However I would suggest that the Bloc need not worry about this bill sending anyone to jail. The bill is so convoluted that I would be surprised if the youth will ever get out of court and out of the clutches of judges and lawyers. They will certainly never see the inside of any type of rehabilitative program that could assist them. In that sense I certainly agree that the law is not a good law.

I also would express some sympathy in the Bloc's desire to ensure that the programs that it already has in the province that are working should be allowed to continue under the act. There should be a measure of flexibility to account for different programs and different issues that we face in different parts of the country. We can do this without taking the drastic and radical step of suggesting separation. I think the confederation is flexible enough to take into account some of these differences. However, given that the Liberals are imposing closure in the matter, there are a few things that need to be discussed.

The first is the specific issue of notification to school and child welfare authorities in respect of young offenders. The Canadian School Boards Association, the Canadian Association of School Administrators and the Canadian Teachers Federation have called on the federal government to make the disclosure of this information mandatory. I also received letters from a number of local school boards in my riding and across Canada which called for parliament to support the amendment to Bill C-7.

I heard the concerns expressed regarding a possible failure to keep the information confidential. These organizations and the people who are in these organizations, our school administrators, are well acquainted with the requirements of confidential information and how to utilize that information in a legally appropriate way so as to assist other students and, indeed, the young offender himself or herself in the context of the school.

I met with representatives from the school boards. They impressed upon me the need for school authorities to be informed if there were, for example, dangerous offenders among the students. They are not asking for a broad publication, but simply that the school authorities know so that that information can be taken and used for appropriate purposes.

The amendment would not only provide for safer learning environments, it would also enable schools to direct necessary assistance to those young people who were in the process of rehabilitating themselves back into society.

These school boards want to be real and effective partners with the government in the process of keeping our young people safe and secure. However, the federal justice minister refuses to take the step to help school officials provide such a safe learning environment. She has said repeatedly that the provision already exists in the proposed youth criminal justice act and permits provincial officials to provide this information.

However, it should be pointed out that the present Young Offenders Act already provides for this discretionary sharing of information in these cases, but as we all know that process has failed. The new bill simply reintroduces past failures. The minister ought to listen to reasonable people across Canada who want to provide every possible support. The executive director of the CSBA has said “Without an amendment requiring information sharing we simply can't do our job”. She says “Our surveys indicate that information sharing has been inconsistent—sporadic at best”.

One of the other significant shortcomings of Bill C-7 is its failure to make provisions to assist youth under the age of 12. I have raised this issue in the past but the government has done nothing to remedy these shortcomings, to put in place a system that will prevent under 12 year olds from becoming repeat offenders and indeed hardened criminals.

While the minister attempts to justify this failure on the basis that the provincial child welfare system would deal with children under 12 who are involved in criminal activity, it is clear that the child welfare system on its own, without the assistance of our youth courts, is not equipped to deal with children whose criminal conduct brings them to the attention of the authorities.

It is evident from recent statements by the Minister of Justice that the real reason for Liberal reluctance to improve the proposed youth crime legislation is the financial commitment that would be required in order to assist children under the age of 12.

The Canadian Alliance has proposed that we provide the courts with the power to allow them to provide to these children the same rehabilitative measures offered by the act to those over 12 years old. Working together with provincial child welfare authorities in a co-operative and co-ordinated fashion, the youth courts could supervise these children and ensure that we save them from a life of crime.

The most significant issue aside from legislation and the lack of substantive reform in this new bill is that the minister has refused to financially partner with the provinces on a 50:50 basis. When asked why, she has said that the federal government does not have the money. This is a federal program, a federal initiative, and yet she expects the provinces to pick up, in effect, 75% of the cost of her program. The minister is asking us as local taxpayers to pick up the cost that the federal government will not pick up.

Although there is some initial funding over the first number of years, the funding, as is well known with other federal programs, becomes discretionary. As we know all too well, the funding will eventually diminish if not disappear.

Last, the bill is a complex bill. Mr. Rob Finlayson, a committee witness from the province of Manitoba and assistant deputy minister, said on April 25 of this year:

On the complexity in proceedings and drafting, the complexity of the YCJA is perhaps the first thing that strikes a person who attempts to read it. This complexity has two undesirable consequences. It makes the act extremely difficult to understand, and it will create delay and cause court backlogs.

Mr. Finlayson, the assistant deputy minister, has a long history of working in the courts and indeed at one time was in charge of youth prosecutions in the province of Manitoba. He understands the issue. Canadians understand the issue. Why does the Minister of Justice not understand this problem?

[Justice, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if she says she has done more for domestic violence, she is correct. This is an example of it.

When the Liberals introduced the faint hope clause they promised, as she said, it would only apply in exceptional cases. However statistics show that four out of five murderers never serve a life sentence.

Will the minister show some common sense and repeal the clause so that victims are protected and murderers serve their sentences?

[Justice, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in Alberta in 1986 Mr. Al Dolejs brutally murdered his two young children. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years. Now, only 15 years later, he is eligible for parole under the Liberal faint hope clause.

His ex-wife is fearful for her life, but it appears that Liberals are more interested in protecting criminals than victims. Why will the minister not bring forward legislation to protect victims like this unfortunate woman?

[Income Tax Act, May 28th, 2001]

That is agreeable with me, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the act is to permit mechanics to deduct the cost of providing tools for their employment, if they are required to have these tools according to the terms of their employment. It allows for a full deduction of costs up to $250 and the capital cost for tools over $250.

The riding of Provencher is a mainly rural riding, yet this was a very big issue in the last election. Steinbach, which is the largest urban centre in my riding, is known as the automobile city because of the number of automobile dealerships. There is also a number of agricultural service centres and implement dealerships, all utilizing the services of mechanics who require tools for their trade. These are hardworking, strong work ethic individuals who want to work and who are also looking for fairness. Canada needs these skilled workers, and this is one step toward attracting more workers to this profession and keeping the existing mechanics working.

I noted with some concern the comments of the Liberal member. His comments were essentially attempting to put up roadblocks rather than assisting in the resolution of the problem. We should not be looking at technical problems because these are problems that we can overcome. We do not need excuses. We need reasons.

The Canadian Alliance supports measures that might in any way lower the tax burden on Canadians. This is one such measure. Since industry is expected to train and educate its workforce, the government can play a role by removing impediments that discourage job seekers from pursuing the training and education needed to find employment.

It has been noted that mechanics have been known to spend many thousands of dollars, certainly in excess of $15,000 or $20,000. Of course, depending on the exact requirements, it could even be in the range of $50,000 or more. They cannot declare these employment related expenses while many other professionals can.

This is an issue of equity. Others, for example artists, chainsaw operators and musicians, can use the tax act to write-off the cost of their tools. The Liberal member knows it. Every member in the House knows it.

I urge the House not to simply set this bill aside again as it has done so often. I urge members on both sides of the House to vote in favour of this commendable bill.

[Justice, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have another project for the minister. The solicitor general advised the House that a national sex offender registry was a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

First the commissioner of the RCMP and now the Minister of Justice acknowledged the need for federal action. Will the solicitor general bring forward the necessary federal legislation to protect all Canadians from sexual predators regardless of where they live in this great country?

[Justice, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner disagrees with him and yesterday the Minister of Justice had the courage to admit that the existing CPIC registry did not effectively protect Canadians from sexual predators.

On behalf of the potential victims of sexual predators, will the solicitor general join today with the Minister of Justice to take every necessary step to create an effective sex offender registry?

[Justice, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week during committee testimony the commissioner of the RCMP confirmed that the federal CPIC system was unable to perform the function of a national sex offender registry. Legislation and funding are required.

Will the solicitor general today commit to introduce legislation as a first step to create that effective national sex offender registry?

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as a politician and justice minister in Manitoba I saw the top of the problem. I did not get to see what was happening on the street and why things were breaking down, but I think that there has been a reluctance on the part of politicians to address the issue and a reluctance in society generally to deal with the problem.

I speak outside the context of the urban riding in Winnipeg that I represented where the reality of the drug problem was much more evident. I look now at the wonderful riding of Provencher that I represent and see a reluctance sometimes to deal head on with the issue because it does not appear to affect the riding. Drug and alcohol problems arise in some rural areas. People move into urban ridings where drugs are more accessible and anonymity protects them.

We simply push the problem off but it grows. The most telling issue is when we speak to parents who previously may not have had any concern about the drug problem and suddenly one day realize that their child is addicted, that their brother is addicted or that another member of their family is addicted. Then the reality and the horror of drug addiction come home.

We have seen this trend in the nation. Whether we brought on the problem ourselves or whether we are victims, we need to deal with it. The legal framework, the enforcement policies and the social policies do not seem to be curtailing the problem. The problem is being fuelled and we need to address it.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, one colleague from Regina who will be speaking to the motion had occasion to attend at the Toronto drug court. Generally speaking I know he received some favourable impressions and will be speaking about them.

I commend that member for taking the initiative to look beyond the box, the way we have traditionally approached the particular problem. I trust his comments and the experience he gained will not only assist us in our deliberations today but perhaps help guide the committee.

In the area of drug policy I recognize that there will be a lot of controversy. We have to be very hesitant to condemn those who speak about new innovative ways. We have to seriously analyze and evaluate these programs. We cannot just let them go on and pretend that by simply creating new programs we are making changes. There is a responsibility on us if as a House we fund some of these programs. We have a responsibility to evaluate but I will not condemn those who, having looked at the wreckage of the drug policy over the past three decades, now say we have to do something else.

This is not only an issue of street workers or social workers against police. I think we would find division in all these professions, but all these individuals are trying to help the very unfortunate people who are addicted to illicit drugs.

We need to encourage innovation that does not absolve us from the responsibility of evaluating what has gone on. Part of the problem is that we have not been evaluating what has gone on, but my colleague from Regina will be giving a little more detail in that respect.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I cannot speak to the details of the concern of the member for Langley—Abbotsford about the particular expenditure of funds. In the area of drug addiction and drug treatment it is very important to ensure that money is being used effectively. I do not know whether the concern was that the money was not being used effectively.

I have spoken to the member who introduced the motion. I know this matter concerns him very deeply. He has spent a lot of time on the street with police forces looking into the situations and conditions involving drug addicts and prostitutes. I do not think he brought the matter forward in a frivolous way.

If our policy is in some way inadequate, I as a member of the Canadian Alliance would like to hear from Canadians. We need to be responsive to them on this issue. If we need to spend money in certain areas in an effective way to break the cycle of drug addiction and the downward spiral of some of our core areas, I am prepared to re-examine policy.

I come to this issue with an open mind, in recognition that past drug policies of Conservative and Liberal governments have failed. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not pointing fingers. I want the contribution of all members to this very important debate, not just in the Senate but in the House of Commons.