Bill C-65--Street Racing, Gun Registry, Parental Involvement Needed--Youth Criminal Justice Act

Hansard Oct. 18, 2005: excerpt -- Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing)

Criminal Code

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. [. . . . ]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will ask a pointed question and I would like to get some answers straight to the point.

Knowing personally what Mr. Cadman's intentions were in regard to solving the problems that exist with these issues, when I look at the legislation I would like to ask the member who just spoke why, when the government is dedicating this legislation to Mr. Cadman's memory, did it go to such effort to water it down from the version that Mr. Cadman presented to the House on a number of occasions?

Just why is it watered down? And I ask the member to please not use the charter excuse.

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this bill.

It is a regrettable time in the House of Commons. Just a few short days ago, members opposite voted against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. It is a regrettable time when justice issues are so watered down that in actual fact it renders things very ineffective, especially in memory of the member of Parliament for Surrey North, who spent so much of his time fighting for justice issues.

I listened to the comments by members opposite. They talked about the private member's bill being less enforceable. The comment made by the member who just spoke was that he wants this to be enforceable. I have a problem with that when the gun registry money cannot be shut down to put front line officers on the street. The government is totally out of whack when it comes to the justice issues.

Could the member opposite please comment on, number one, how in the world this enforcement would occur when we do not have the police resources to take care of the everyday things that are happening? Number two, again, why this bill was watered down when the former member of Parliament was so zealous and so adamant about the specific things that needed to be in it?

(1025)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much support the bill, but I do have a question about one aspect with regard to linking the street racing activity to a consequence of some aggravating circumstance causing death or criminal negligence.

I think the question that the public may want to address is with regard to the offence of street racing itself, even in the absence of causing bodily harm or some other criminal negligence. I am wondering whether or not the issue of the repeat offender in terms of the street racing issue, which raises a risk to the public at large in terms of the event itself, should not also have been a focus of the bill to the same extent. [. . . . ]

(1030)

[. . . . ]

Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code, street racing, and to a make consequential amendment to another act. This is another bill that I am sure has the best of intentions to put forward some frameworks to address the street racing problem in our country.

Today I want to put some comments on the record about the credibility of what is happening in the House of Commons. I speak as a former justice critic for the province of Manitoba and as the mother of a police officer. I feel the government has had over a decade to make things right, to make our streets safer. The government has failed miserably on all accounts.

In our city of Winnipeg, Manitoba many honourable police officers are trying to suppress crime. The problem is the laws at hand and the lack of resources, accountability and concern for the victims of crime.

We have had bills on trafficking of persons and on the age of consent. We have had pleas time and time again in the House of Commons to shut down the gun registry and put those resources toward front line police officers.

Once again we are hearing eloquent speeches from the Liberal members across the House. They say that they will get tough on crime, that they will honour the spirit of Mr. Cadman's private members' bills and that they will make things happen. This is something that is hard to believe. People across Canada are becoming very alarmed with the criminal acts happening in our nation and with the lack of consequences for these criminal acts. [. . . . ]

(1345)

Bill C-65 is nothing but a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's past bills. Although it does provide for mandatory driving prohibitions, the inclusion of street racing and aggravating factors for sentencing, it fails to include the clauses on repeat offenders, which were an essential part of the Cadman bills.

I want to go over those particular points, those particular amendments that I feel should be included. They are:

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than one year;

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, if one of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), for life:

(c) for a second offence, if neither of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4) during a period of not more than five years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, and not less than two years;

(d) for each subsequent offence, if none of the offences is an offence under section 220 or subsection 249(4), during a period of not less than three years plus any period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.

In other words, these clauses are basically an increasing scale of punishment, restating Chuck Cadman's intent in the bill. [. . . . ]

CPC MP Mr. Andrew Scheer: Gun Registry

Mr. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Speaker, I love talking about the gun registry. As long as the Liberals keep defending it, the Conservatives will keep being elected in Saskatchewan. There is nothing defensible about the gun registry.

Let me address a few of the member's points. First of all, the fact that it may be checked by police officers around the country is meaningless. Try to picture an RCMP officer or a city police officer who checks the gun registry and it says that there are no guns present in this house. The registry says that no one in this house owns a gun because no one in the house has registered a gun. The officer says that he will then take off his bullet-proof vest, leave his guns in the car, and sidle up to the door and just walk in because he now knows, 100% for sure, that there are no guns in that house. Does the member really believe that there is any police officer in this country that would do that? Of course not. Maybe that Liberal member might do that, but I doubt he would be on the force very long if that is what he did.

Second, about the cost that is $20 million a year. Let us try $85 million a year. Only a Liberal who said that the plan would only cost $2 million would think that he is somehow being fiscally responsible by charging Canadians $20 million or $85 million. Only a Liberal would think that way. [. . . . ]

CPC MP Mr. Vic Toews: Youth Criminal Justice Act -- Parental Involvement Needed

Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I can give the member one specific example. It is a matter that is near and dear to her heart, and that is the failure of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to provide responsibility and accountability to those offenders who in fact have breached the law.

In the Youth Criminal Justice Act we see a trend by the government to separate the parent from the child. I think we see it in many other circumstances with the government, but we see the destruction of that relationship. In order to ensure that a child remains on the straight and narrow, it is so important to keep the influence of the family on that child.

I recall when I was prosecuting under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, we could not prosecute a case unless one of the parents was in court. The parents had to appear in court. They had to explain sometimes why their child was involved in the criminal acts.

Now the parent has no say at all under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In fact, the only one who has a say in the child's well-being is the lawyer. That is to whom the judge looks and says that whether or not the parents agree with this course of action, it is the lawyer who determines what is in the best interests of the child. That is specifically in the youth criminal justice jurisprudence.

I have had conversations with many parents who have stated, “I wanted my child to go in and accept responsibility so that we can get this past us and work with this problem”. In fact, the lawyer said, “They will never be able to prove it and we'll get this young offender off”.

We believe that the family should be involved in the justice system and in helping a young individual. Instead of creating a legal barrier between a parent and child, we want to reconnect the two so that there can be accountability, responsibility and in fact ensure that the child is on the proper path.
(1615)

---