Bill C-25 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act

This enactment amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding deterrence and denunciation to the principles that a court must consider when determining a youth sentence. It also clarifies that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply.

[Sylvie Godin, Vice-President, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, good morning.

I am Sylvie Godin, Vice-President of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse of Quebec, and I am accompanied by Ms. Claire Bernard, legal adviser at the Research Branch.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec and the Youth Protection Act, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse of Quebec is entrusted with ensuring the protection of the interests of the child, and of ensuring through all appropriate means the promotion and respect of the rights that are granted to children under the Youth Protection Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It is thus the commission's mission to ensure that the amendments to the legislation governing the criminal justice system as it applies to adolescents are in compliance with the rights that are recognized to them. The commission discharges its mission by ensuring that the international commitments that Canada has made in the area of child rights are respected, pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other applicable treaties.

The commission's analysis of Bill C-4 is informed by the convention, as well as the recommendations which the Committee on the Rights of the Child addressed to Canada in 2003, pursuant to the examination of Canada's second report on the implementation of the convention and the general observation the committee made public in 2007 concerning the administration of the justice system applicable to minors.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Canada fully integrate into its legislation, policies and practices the provisions and principles of the convention, in particular the articles concerning the child's superior interest, the measures relating to deprivation of liberty, the rights of a child who is suspected, charged or convicted of a criminal offence, and rehabilitation and reinsertion, as well as the other international standards applicable in this area.

More specifically, the committee urged Canada to ensure that no person of less than 18 years of age be judged like an adult, whatever the circumstances or seriousness of the offence committed; to guarantee that the opinions of children be duly taken into consideration and respected in all legal proceedings concerning them; to see to it that the right to privacy of all children in conflict with the law be fully respected; to take the necessary measures, for instance alternate measures to the deprivation of liberty or parole, in order to considerably reduce the number of children being detained, and see to it that detention is only imposed as a last resort and for as brief a period as possible, and that in any case, children always be detained separately from adults.

Moreover, in its general observation in 2007, the Committee on the Rights of the Child addressed guidelines and recommendations to all of the states parties to the convention, so that their system of administration of justice applicable to minors be in compliance with the convention.

Our comments will thus discuss the amendments proposed in clauses 3, 4, 7, 25, 8, 20 and 21 of Bill C-4.

The bill proposes an amendment to section 3 of the act so as to make the protection of the public the priority objective of the act. The Committee on the Rights of the Child recognized that “the preservation of public safety is a legitimate aim of the justice system”. However, it “is of the opinion that this aim is best served by a full respect for and implementation of the leading and overarching principles of juvenile justice as enshrined in CRC”. Moreover, Canada itself recently pointed out in the context of its contribution to a report produced by the Human Rights Council on the Administration of Justice, that the Canadian criminal law applicable to minors guarantees that detention is a measure of last resort and that rehabilitation and reintegration must be taken into account in any decision. The principles of rehabilitation and reintegration must constitute the priority objectives of the law and not only be means, as the bill proposes.

Clause 4 of the bill proposes broadening the possibilities of resorting to pre-trial detention. The commission reminds us that according to the rights guaranteed to children in international law, detention must be a measure of last resort and it must be as brief as possible.

In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child firmly pointed out that “the juvenile justice system should provide for ample opportunities to deal with children in conflict with the law by using social and/or educational measures, and to strictly limit the use of deprivation of liberty, and in particular pre-trial detention, as a measure of last resort.”

Clause 7 of the bill suggests the addition of two new principles to the principles of sentence determination, information and deterrence. Although this is no longer a matter of introducing a general deterrence principle applicable to all juveniles, as was the case in Bill C-25, the fact remains that the specific objectives of information and deterrence contradict the objectives of rehabilitation and reitegration which must remain at the heart of the criminal juvenile justice system. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the protection of the best interests of the child means that: “the traditional objectives of criminal justice such as repression and retribution must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with child offenders. This can be done in concert with attention to effective public safety.” Indeed several studies conclude that measures aimed at deterrence are ineffective.

Clause 25 of the bill proposes obliging police forces to keep a file regarding extrajudicial measures taken with regard to any adolescent. From the perspective of respecting the rules of international law, this change is not problematic as such, on condition however that the provisions governing access to that register and the use of the information it would contain not be modified.

A change suggested in another clause of the bill however, clause 8, concerns precisely the use of the information involving one category of extrajudicial measures, i.e. extrajudicial penalties. The court could in future impose on a juvenile a sentence of committal to custody in light of prior extrajudicial penalties, whereas currently it can only take into account prior convictions.

[Irwin Elman, Provincial Advocate, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (Ontario)]

Thank you.

I want to say that I feel very privileged to be here, particularly in light of the last discussion, about witnesses and time. I feel very privileged because I know many Canadians have a real interest in the work of this committee and this bill, including young people themselves.

As you know, I am the provincial advocate for children and youth in Ontario, and I am joined today by one of my advocates, Lee Tustin, who I can tell you is one of the foremost experts on the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the country and has done some work on it. She's also modest. I hope our presentation can be helpful to you.

I want to begin my comments by saying something about process. As you know, when the YCJA was created there was quite a process of consultation and participation at all levels, including the House of Commons committee. What was created was a youth justice renewal strategy. That became the YCJA in 2003, with several years of studying, consulting, and talking to people before making any changes to our youth justice system. I would guess that even in that process few young people were consulted about what they thought might be helpful in terms of changes. Yet there was a consultation process.

In 2008 Bill C-25, which had changes similar to Bill C-4, was introduced without any prior consultation. I'm told by other provincial advocates, as I wasn't in my position at the time, that round-table discussions were held throughout the country on Bill C-25 after it was introduced. I've heard again today and I think I've seen on websites that the report from those consultations has not been made public. Certainly I haven't seen it, or any of my staff. I think that certainly is curious when you're contemplating Bill C-4, which again I feel has not had any true consultation. This is true particularly because the consultations haven't been open and public, and my understanding is there has not been consultation with young people who might be affected by the bill you're speaking to.

I think it's really important that young people and the people who work with your legislation be consulted. I spent the last 25 years working with young people in child welfare and youth justice systems, and I can tell you that the most important things I learned did not come from a lecture or professor I was listening to or from a book I read. It came from the lived experience and wisdom of young people. I urge you, before you make any decisions, to find out what that lived experience and wisdom can say to you. People are saying this act is to some extent about public safety. I want to remind you that young people are every bit as much members of the public as I am or you are, the same way your children are members of the public, and they have a right to be consulted too.

I also understand there's been some discussion of the Nunn commission report about how protection of society should be a primary goal of the act and that a tool should be given to courts to ensure that the protection of society is taken into account. But the Nunn commission also said the Youth Criminal Justice Act is sound legislation, and the report expressed concern about deviating from the sound underlying principles that are enshrined in the act. This is exactly why I think we need a true consultation process before we change what basically seems to be, as people are saying, a sound piece of legislation.

Even some of the questions I've heard you asking today, and I know you have limited time.... It strikes me that to consider changing a piece of legislation fundamentally without knowing some of the information that you need to know—for instance, statistics with regard to racialized members of our community entering into the youth justice system—is a little bit, and perhaps this is too harsh a word, irresponsible without knowing and understanding. So I urge you to take your time and consult widely.

I've thought a great deal about what I wanted to say. I know that I'm one of a group of characters you're going to meet, and probably because of my position and where I've worked, you could probably guess the kinds of things I'm going to say. I want to get beyond that.

Recently in Ontario, we've had quite a debate about a particular youth justice facility outside Toronto. Because we've been on one end of the debate raising the voices of children and youth, particularly youth who have been involved in that facility, people have said there is--and these are their words, not mine--the “hug-a-thug” group, and somebody referred to it as “bleeding hearts” earlier. And then there's the “law and order camp”. I think the polarization of those two camps is particularly difficult, and I want to find another way of having a discourse about youth justice. I think it comes from the voices of young people themselves. My act, which governs what I'm supposed to do, tells me I'm supposed to elevate the voices of children and youth, in this case in conflict with the law.

I spent, and have spent in the last year or two years, quite a bit of time in youth justice facilities in Ontario speaking to young people, meeting them when the veneer of their lives is stripped away, meeting them in these facilities. When I meet them, I don't know why they're there, but I'm talking to them. They're kids. As somebody said, they're every bit as much children or youths as is the child of anybody sitting around this table. You get to understand that they have hopes and dreams. And you get to understand that they are our future. You ask them what they want to do in the future, and they want to be a plumber, a doctor, a parent. They're somebody's sons or daughters. They are people.

To understand the issue with that in the forefront, with them in the centre of this room, you might make different decisions about the act you're contemplating. I really believe that. It also provides us with common ground, because I believe that people in my so-called “camp”, people who are the characters coming to tell you what's wrong with that, believe as much as you do that we want the best for our children and youth. We want public safety too. Speaking about these young people and understanding them will allow us to act differently, I think. That means also listening to them.

I want to say something else, and I'm thinking about what they might want me to say. In one of the places I was visiting--and it's happened many times--I was with young people in their unit, and suddenly there was a call for a lock-down, what the institution called a “code blue”. So all the young people had to go to their rooms, and they were locked in. This is not atypical from any other province. After they came out, I was able to talk to a young person again, and I said, “What happened?” He said, “Well, we were locked down. We have three CDs we're allowed to listen to on our unit, and one of the CDs was missing, and they needed to lock down all the units in the institution--not just this one--to try to find the CD.” It seemed curious to me. By the way, when they tried to find the CD, there were strip searches. They take everybody's clothes off, one at a time. They go in the rooms and look for the CD.

I'm not criticizing, and I don't work in the justice system, and maybe they're thinking--and I think they were--that the CD could be used as a weapon, and that it was a matter of safety. But I asked the young person how often this happened. “Well, two or three times a week”.

It occurred to me that if at any moment the guards who guard the Parliament Buildings could come in here and tell us to go to our rooms, take our clothes off because they had to look for something that was missing.... If that happened three times, and we didn't know it was going to happen, but we just got used to it happening, we might even think we understood why it was going to happen. When you're in custody in that situation, that's a common situation, and it's just one common element of what it means to be in custody. That's punishment enough in terms of what we need to do to young people if we're going to think we're punishing them. But--and young people will say this--it doesn't do a lot. It's common sense when you think about it.

When you think about your children, it doesn't do a lot in terms of rehabilitation and possibilities for reintegration. So the fewer young people, our children, we can put in that situation.... It's kind of obvious that we shouldn't be doing that.

That's the piece I wanted to say. I also wanted to say a little more about some of the pieces in the act, and I think that with Lee, during questions, we can speak specifically to those.

To me, the declaration principle that people have talked about that shifts the philosophy is really important, because I believe it blatantly ignores parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is also mentioned in the act and which the Canadian Parliament and Ontario's legislature have adopted.

I know there's been some discussion here to the effect of what good is that convention anyway, how enforceable is it, and that maybe that's the reason not to worry about it so much in the act. But what a message that is. It's particularly ironic when we're considering youth justice legislation and are honouring what we as a society say we need to commit to as people, and are teaching our young people how important laws are, that in regard to an act and a convention that Parliament and provincial legislatures have agreed to, we say that because it can't be enforced, it doesn't matter. What an irony it is to take that position.

My time is up. There is so much I wanted to say. There is a group of young people here from children in care. Yesterday they were speaking to Senators Pépin and Munson, talking about their struggles to make it through the child welfare system, how difficult it was. They had made it or were making it, but some of them were in group homes too. Under this legislation, they could be charged and end up in custody and have a completely different path, if they threw a glass at someone in a group home because the abuse they had suffered was triggered by something in that home. I want them to be remembered here too.

I know I'm out of time, but that's my message.

Truth in Sentencing Act

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about Bill C-25 for some time already, and I just want to point out that the Bloc Québécois was, once again, miles ahead of the government on this issue.

For several years now, we have been urging the government to eliminate the remand custody credit. I was looking for the right term. I also had “one-sixth of the sentence” in mind because the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill a few years ago that would have eliminated the one-sixth practice for offenders. The reason it took me a minute is that the Bloc Québécois introduces a lot of bills about justice in an effort to ensure fairness.

We have two very good colleagues, the member for Hochelaga and the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, both of whom are experts in matters of justice. Our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was once Quebec's public safety minister. Now you understand why it took me a minute to remember. The Bloc Québécois has introduced so many excellent bills on justice that it is easy to get them mixed up.

The Conservatives do not give us many reasons to celebrate when it comes to justice, but Bill C-25 is one, at least. The Bloc Québécois has strongly supported the measure in the bill since 2007. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about this for over two years now, which is a long time. On June 15, 2007, the Bloc Québécois proposed a series of recommendations about important changes to the Canadian justice system. These measures called for a more balanced justice system that is adapted to new realities, has a real impact on crime, and most importantly, avoids following the American model based on repression, a model whose negative outcomes are all too visible.

We are seeing this a lot particularly with this dogmatic, Conservative government, which is trying, through every possible means, especially with minimum sentences, to copy the American model, which simply does not work.

Earlier my colleague said that Canadian prisons were full to capacity. I invite him to go the United States to see what it is like there. He will soon realize that, compared to them, we should not feel so bad. American prisons are packed and the crime rate there is extremely high. There are many other reasons, apart from how the justice system itself operates. The gun registry comes to mind, something the Americans do not have. The free flow of firearms is also a serious problem in the United States, which means that a lot more crimes are committed with firearms there.

Earlier I mentioned some of the remarkable qualities of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He recently explained to all the members of the Bloc Québécois that Canada has, if I am not mistaken, about 100 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, while the United States has about 736 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. As we can see, copying the American model would be a serious mistake.

I must say, Quebeckers worry when we see the Conservative government acting in this way, whether we are talking about minimum sentences, the gun registry or its overall, general views on crime.

The Conservatives say they are tough on crime and they say so in an aggressive way. They are trying to show that they know what they are talking about. Yet police associations across Canada are criticizing this government. They are saying that, apart from a few photo ops with police officers, there has been no real, concrete action. There is still a serious shortage of police officers. The Conservative government boasts about hiring them and making huge investments, but apart from some nice announcements and empty promises, we have seen absolutely nothing.

Let us look at how Quebec manages public safety and justice.

Our approach is much more comprehensive and focuses more on integration and prevention. Quebec's approach is to ensure that the criminal does not commit crimes rather than arresting criminals once they have committed crimes, as the Conservative government would have it. That is the objective of Quebec and especially our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

Quebec, represented by the Bloc Québécois, has a very good understanding of justice issues and does a good job of defending them. The proof is that in Quebec only about 40 crimes involving firearms are committed each year, which is an extremely small number. We have a very low crime rate. There is little crime in Quebec. I am extremely proud of that and, above all, it is the result of the way we manage public safety and justice.

The Bloc Québécois has presented measures that reflect the values of Quebeckers. These measures are primarily based on prevention, rehabilitation, social and economic integration, and a better distribution of wealth.

As I was saying, unfortunately, all too often, people who are going to commit crimes are poor. A study was published—whether or not we agree with it—which stated that during a recession, the crime rate increases because people have a great deal less money. We can readily deduce that there may be a correlation between poverty and the crime rate. The poorer people are, the greater their needs and, unfortunately, the more they will commit crimes, not because of need—because one never needs to commit a crime—but because it may be their only way out.

Therefore, we have to do more than just put people in jail. We have to help them with education, job searches and job creation. We have to try to take these people and put them back into the labour force by giving them a hand up and thus ensuring that we lower the crime rate.

Our proposals included streamlining the parole system, stepping up the fight against organized crime and providing better funding for the national crime prevention strategy.

Simply put, when a person is arrested for committing an offence under the Criminal Code, he must be brought before a judge as quickly as possible. At this stage, the crown attorney must inform the defendant of the charges against him. While the defendant is awaiting trial, the judge has two options: he can release the defendant, with or without conditions, if he feels that the defendant is not at risk of reoffending, or the judge may order that the defendant be detained until sentencing, if the defendant is dangerous.

If the judge chooses to detain the defendant, the period leading up to sentencing is called time served in remand or time in custody. After the trial, the judge must give an appropriate punishment to the guilty party. That is the sentence. The Criminal Code and related jurisprudence set out some criteria to guide the court.

I digress, but earlier I spoke a little about minimum sentences. These minimum sentences dismiss the criteria in the jurisprudence, and remove the judges' ability to think freely and use discretion in giving a fair sentence to any criminal.

As it stands, to determine the punishment for someone found guilty of a crime, the court must take into account all the time the individual spent in custody since the crime was committed. Although it is left to their discretion, judges not only generally take into account time in custody, but also apply the two-for-one rule. This means that time in custody counts two-for-one, and in some cases, judges have even gone as far as counting it as three-for-one.

This calculation method stems from the fact that few if any programs or activities are available to inmates during the trial period. Moreover, their detention conditions are poor and correctional facilities are overcrowded. Since the bill was introduced, we have discussed at length the serious shortcomings in overpopulated penitentiaries.

We do not want to leave this out of this debate, because it is an extremely important issue. However, we are first and foremost legislators, and we have to make the law that makes up the Criminal Code. We must also develop and introduce laws and then pressure the government for the necessary financial and human resources. We must ensure that this bill is fully enforced.

This calculation method stems from the fact that penitentiaries are overcrowded. In addition, time spent in pre-sentencing custody is not taken into account in calculating eligibility for full parole or statutory release. For all these reasons, judges tend to give two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody.

On March 27, 2009, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-25 for first reading in the House of Commons. The bill has to do with sentencing. The principles of sentencing are found mainly in part XXIII of the Criminal Code, in section 718 and the sections that follow.

The bill is intended to eliminate any possibility that a judge will give two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. Clause 3 of the bill sets out this principle by limiting the credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody. As well, and only if the circumstances justify it, the bill allows a credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in custody, unless the person was kept in custody because of his criminal record or a breach of probation. In that case, no greater credit may be granted, regardless of the conditions in which the offender was held during his trial.

With respect to that measure, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that in some specific and very exceptional situations, it may be appropriate to subtract time served before and during the trial at a rate of a day and a half for each day in custody from the sentence. If that results in a reduction equivalent to 50% of the days spent in remand, in some cases, that would not discredit the justice system. There are cases involving conditions of detention ill suited to the person's health. In all cases, when a judge reduces the sentence in consideration of time served in pre-sentencing custody, the judge must justify that decision, record the reasons for it in the file and detail how the guilty person's sentence was calculated.

For more than two years now, the Bloc Québécois has recommended that this rule be eliminated, so we are pleased with this measure because the reason for this practice no longer reflects the reality of today's prison system. Along with the fact that legal cases are getting longer and more complex, this practice supports the popular notion that sentences are too lenient, discredits the administration of justice and frustrates victims and their families, who sometimes see the offenders turned loose shortly after sentencing.

People often get the sense that we are too soft on some criminals. I understand some of the victims. I also understand how the parents, friends and colleagues of victims who have been brutally murdered feel when the criminal goes free. The murderer may be sentenced to 10 or 15 years in jail, but gets out after serving barely 4 or 5 years.

The loved ones of victims might feel the justice system is faulty, since criminals are released much more quickly. Of course, that is all because of the two-for-one time. Here is an example. Now, if an accused spends six months in pre-sentencing custody and is sentenced to two years in prison, his sentence will likely last only one year. This bill would fix that anomaly.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is always prevention. We have to attack crime at its roots. As I said at the beginning of my speech, justice is not simply about sentencing. It is not enough to be tough on crime, as the Conservatives like to say. That creates problems, because they have blinders on that prevent them from seeing the rest of the problem and the seriousness of the situation.

There are factors that push an individual to become a criminal. I do not believe that a person is not born fundamentally bad, but that they become bad, unfortunately, because of misfortunes, problems or bad luck. We must try to prevent crime. We must do a lot of prevention and education. We must find and target the factors that push these people to commit crimes, and try to eliminate as many as possible.

That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that Quebeckers and Canadians can live peacefully and safely. On June 15, 2007, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended a number of measures.

This constructive approach is already making a difference. In budget 2008, the Conservative government implemented some of the ideas put forward by the Bloc Québécois. It provided additional funding to the national crime prevention strategy and to crown prosecutors.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have taken a rigid, ideological approach to justice. Although some of the measures introduced have had some positive elements, others have clearly gone too far and have been ineffective, or even counterproductive. That was true of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which focused more on imprisonment than on Quebec's very pertinent success with reintegration and rehabilitation.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservatives said they wanted to throw young people aged 14 to 16 in jail. Personally, after having met with many young people, I find it really sad to see the Conservatives adopting such a rigid, dogmatic approach whereby they want to send our young people to prison.

As I said earlier, we should instead focus our efforts on rehabilitation. We must help these young people understand what led them to crime. We must give them a hand up, instead of foolishly sending them to prison, where they can attend crime school. If these young people come into contact with people serving 20 or 25 year sentences, they will learn the tricks of the trade.

The Bloc Québécois does not understand that. I think all of Quebec had a hard time understanding that during the last election campaign. Quebeckers clearly demonstrated this by sending 49 Bloc Québécois members, rather than Conservatives, to the House of Commons.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. He mentioned something about a committee to further look at something. I want to talk about some time that I spent with the hon. member on the justice committee in the second session of the 39th Parliament. I remember the day was March 11. Last spring the member and his colleagues, along with the Bloc Québécois, tabled a motion at justice committee that basically rendered that committee into a political stalemate where no legislation was discussed for the remainder of the spring.

The legislation that happened to be there was Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That legislation was never talked about because of the railroading of that motion. Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would have allowed for mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who deal drugs or who use guns in the commission of selling drugs. That motion railroaded Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). Those are the kinds of bills that were waylaid.

Does the member honestly think that his born-again crime-fighting party, the Liberal Party of Canada, has any credibility left at all when it comes to saying the Liberals are actually going to get tough on crime? Why should Canadians trust the member and his party?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member raised the question about the justice committee. At the justice committee, the meetings have not been adjourned by the Conservative chair. It is the Liberal vice-chair who has refused to call votes and who has adjourned the meetings. It is not the Conservative chair, so the fault lies there.

The Liberals do not want to conduct the business there either. The only motion they are willing to consider is one that has nothing to do with legislation whatsoever. They wish to have another one of their side show legislative committee inquiry Star Chambers.

However, in the process what bills do those members not want to deal with? What bills are they obstructing? They obstructing Bill C-25, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is long overdue, something which Canadians want to have dealt with, something that was referred to the committee. They want to study something else instead. There is Bill C-26, drug penalties, which has been there for some time and something with which Canadians want dealt. They would rather study something else instead of that. There is Bill C-27, identity theft, again is other legislation. Three items of legislation are before that committee. We would like to see them out of that committee and into the House so we can pass sit.

Guess what? The opposition parties, in their ongoing campaign to delay and obstruct our justice agenda, our getting tough on crime agenda, continue to find excuses to delay that, including having their Liberal vice-chair adjourn every meeting and not allow it to proceed on to the important business of that legislation. That is the problem. It is that kind of delay and obstruction that resulted in over 1,400 total delays to our justice bills in the first session of Parliament.

It is those kinds of delay and obstruction tactics that make it necessary for us to seek the kind of permission, which the rules contemplate, for additional hours because we have a tremendous amount of work to do, a very full legislative agenda. It just seems that some do not want to show up to do that work.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The committee has not had a formal meeting since March 11 where any legislation has been discussed. We have Bill C-27, Bill C-25, Bill C-26, not to mention the number of private members' bills. Before March 11 the committee had been meeting extra hours just to get through the legislative backlog.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We have not dealt with Bill C-25--

Judges Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up and share with you the position of my party, the great force of national liberation that is the Bloc Québécois, on Bill C-31. This bill may seem to be rather technical, but it has to do with the workings of the justice system. Bill C-31, which has been called for by people who play a role before or after the court system, is a short bill with only two clauses that will enable the federal government to appoint superior court judges.

At present, the federal government can appoint 30 judges, and there is a definite backlog in the court system. In the administration of justice, it is not uncommon for a year and a half, two years, two and half years, or three years to go by between the time legal proceedings start and the time a judge or a judge and jury hand down a decision. Obviously, we are not talking about the Supreme Court of Canada. We are talking about superior courts, which hear cases involving common offences under the Criminal Code. They do not rule on technical points of law, like appeal courts. And they certainly do not hand down decisions that speak to our values or clarify the constitutionality or validity of legal provisions, as the Supreme Court of Canada does. Superior courts deal with the cases that should be the least contentious possible.

Bill C-31 proposes to add 20 supernumerary judges, bringing to 50 the number of judges who could be appointed to the various superior courts. With your permission, I would like to take a few moments to explain to my colleagues in this House why trial courts should not be confused with superior courts.

Quebec will one day be a country that will enjoy all the elements of sovereignty, you can rest assured. For us as sovereigntists, when we talk about our plans, sovereignty means three things: keeping our own tax dollars, repatriating all powers to Quebec and, of course, deciding on our foreign policy.

As an aside, yesterday, I confirmed something with our research staff. It is estimated that in 2008, Quebeckers will pay $50 billion in taxes to Ottawa. Imagine how things would be different if the National Assembly could keep those tax dollars. Obviously, we would do some things differently. From the information gathered by our research staff—an excellent and very dedicated staff—I read that the National Defence budget will increase from $9 billion to $19 billion in the 2010s. Can you imagine? The military budget will double, primarily because of military procurement.

Do you think that a sovereign Quebec would have made the same decision? As my colleagues will agree, a sovereign Quebec would have placed much greater emphasis on international cooperation and development assistance. We would have been much more present in Africa, especially francophone Africa, and in Haiti, and we would have developed the cooperation practices that seem to be lacking in this government.

Accordingly, a sovereign Quebec would of course enjoy all the attributes of a separate state. However, that is not the case at this time. That is why everyone listening must understand that Quebec, the National Assembly and the Quebec justice minister appoint judges to municipal courts and the Court of Quebec. The Court of Quebec has two divisions: the civil division and the youth division.

By the way, I find it distressing that a bill will soon be before us, but we in the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting it. As I told the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the day before last, gone are the days when there was at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a climate of frank camaraderie whereby members would give each other a friendly slap on the back or ask one another how they were doing, and there was the notion of caring about one another.

We know that the climate has deteriorated at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We have a chair who refuses to take his responsibilities and preside over the committee. How did we get to this point of no return?

It is like in a couple when it is obvious that a domestic spat will escalate to a point of no return. Of course, I am not speaking of myself. My home life is totally free from any stormy dispute because I am so blissfully in love.

At any rate, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has not been meeting because the member for Beauséjour introduced a motion inviting the committee to look into allegations made in the Cadman affair and conduct an investigation under section 119 of the Criminal Code. Naturally, that is within the purview of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Is it not our duty—and this question is for all my colleagues—to ensure that at all times, institutions and those who keep them running, parliamentarians, are above any suspicion when the media and a book raise allegations of corruption? Whether these allegations are founded or not is up to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to decide. Other committees could have addressed this issue, but for reasons I do not want to get into again, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was unable to.

The hon. member for Beauséjour, a generally respectable man with great self-control, did his job as a parliamentarian by tabling this motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which the Bloc obviously supported. When the chair of the committee deemed the motion out of order, we challenged the chair's decision, in accordance with the House of Commons Standing Orders. However, the chair refused to hold a vote to determine whether the motion would be challenged and he left the chair, leaving a terrible void that prevented the committee from functioning.

That said, I do not want to get off topic. Let us come back to Bill C-31.

The National Assembly of Quebec oversees appointments to municipal courts and the Court of Quebec. The Court of Quebec has two divisions: the civil division and the youth division. I dreaded the thought of having to deal with Bill C-25, which is a very bad bill.

Bill C-25 deals with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Before the five-year review of the bill has even taken place, the government wants to amend two provisions. The Bloc Québécois maintains that—

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (protection of the public).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in response to the tragic death of a Nova Scotia teaching assistant, named Theresa McEvoy, who was killed in a 2004 car crash by a repeat young offender. It encompasses all the Nunn commission recommendations, including those which Bill C-25 failed to address.

I should emphasize the work of Mr. Justice Nunn and also thank Mr. Hugh Wright, the lawyer for the family of Theresa McEvoy, for his assistance with drafting the bill.

Finally, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, for seconding the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

You had made a comment about whether we can get the satellite when we need it. Is this covered under Bill C-25?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

I don't think the Bloc plans to propose any amendments. Does the opposition intend to move some amendments to the cruelty to animal bill? No.

Does the government intend to move any amendments? No.

Tomorrow, the steering committee is meeting to discuss billsC-25 andC-27. We would also ask that those who have not yet done so submit their list of proposed witnesses.

Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you, colleagues. It would be appropriate at this time to move an adjournment motion. So moved by Mr. Petit.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The next recorded division is on Bill C-25 at second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The hon. chief government whip.

The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the House on Bill C-25, which attempts to modify the Youth Criminal Justice Act and take into account the number of provisions that deal with the importance of youth in pretrial custody and also how we can sentence young offenders and penalize them more for the crimes they have committed.

I come from a riding in the Northwest Territories in which the crime rate is very high. Social conditions have been bad in the past and continue to provide us with no end of problems in our communities. It is something each community tries to grapple with and understand.

Many of the problems arise from the transient nature of our non-aboriginal society, the cultural impact of changing societies on our aboriginal people, the harsh conditions under which we live and the failure of the education system to give adequate education to many people, not necessarily the fault of the system, but of the whole society. Many things go on in our society that lead young people in the wrong direction.

As a former mayor in a small community that was 50% aboriginal, I understand many of the issues young people are facing in growing up and making choices. It is not easy. Sometimes it comes from the lack of parental guidance available to them. Sometimes it comes from problems that are physiological in nature. Sometimes it comes from a community that does not have an answer for a young person, does not have a direction to give a young person. We all grapple with these issues and we wonder how we can best serve our young people.

Whenever we look at the legislation like this, our primary purpose is to improve the lot of young people as they move toward adulthood, accept their own decisions and comprehend and understand the nature of their acts.

Basically this is common law experience in Canada for 150 years. We accept that young people do not necessarily have all the tools required for the complex decisions they have to make in their everyday life. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they are led to mistakes. Sometimes they are ill-prepared by their parents to deal with the kinds of choices they have to make. We are all troubled about how we can deal with these things and how we can put them in context.

We think that perhaps stricter sentences will give us an answer, that somehow this will drive the boat to encourage young people to move in the right direction in their future life, that it gives them a very strong message of denunciation that their acts are inappropriate and they should be struck heavily for doing them and carrying that with them for a while, while in incarceration or other forms.

I have trouble with that. I find it does not really work all that well in our society. I find the solutions for young people are more tied to the things we do that are not tied to incarceration,or the criminal justice system. We have seen the kinds of results that can bring.

I was very encouraged. I held a public meeting in a small community by the name of Déline. I mentioned it in the House earlier today with a question to another speaker.

This aboriginal community has had a great success rate in keeping their children in line to avoid many of those pitfalls that are in our society, unlike many other communities. It has a record of five years with no young offender charges in the community. In talking to RCMP officers who supervise and work with the community, they are very pleased with what is happening. They are very pleased the community has taken hold of these young people in many ways.

I like to talk about positive things many times when I talk about young people. We need to have a positive message for young people. That to me is part of the intrinsic nature of young people. They are optimistic and looking forward. Let us give them that chance. This is what the people in Déline have done. They have a very vigorous program of interaction with their young people in their schools. The whole community of 800 people is linked back to the young people. They put the time and effort in with their young people and they get results from it.

They also have opportunities for young people to get the experience of elders. They consider this very important and I think it is very important as well. In our modern society so often we leave our young people with their peers. We are not providing them with the ongoing direction and counselling that they would get in previous generations or in a previous era when they had the opportunity to work with their parents in the fields or in the everyday tasks of a rural and simpler lifestyle.

Now children are alienated from their parents and their workplaces. They are put into a modern society that does not deliver this. In Déline they encourage those directions. They encourage the young people to participate with the people who can give them direction, who have the direction inherent in their nature. It is a very valid point.

As well, I had an opportunity to talk to a sociologist and psychologist about the nature of youth centres. He said to me that in a way, youth centres were validating what modern society was validating, that they got their direction from their peers. They go to a youth centre and interact with young people. They do not have that communication with the whole of society that gives them a better message, that more complete message about what they do with their lives or with the choices they have to make in life.

We have to be very careful with legislation that drives young people into correctional facilities, into environments where they will run into more of the peer situation. They will run into the criminal peer situation, which will increase their likelihood of repeating criminal acts in the future. Therefore, I do not find this is a very useful thing or objective in law. It may work for one or two, but what we have to look in legislation is the best possible solution for the most young people. I find it to be very limiting to think that young people are going to improve by being sent away to correctional facilities, incarcerated in a fashion that denounces their actions, that is a strict deterrence to them for that act.

I had the occasion the other day, in reviewing a parole application, to look at the record of a person in his forties who was incarcerated. I look back at this record and it is almost like a picture perfect image of what I am talking about today. A young person perhaps made a few bad errors in his early life, not serious errors, not things that any of us would be completely immune from or would make a big difference to society, but after a while they accumulated and he was incarcerated.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on this bill, even though the Bloc Québécois is very opposed to Bill C-25 and even stunned by its objectives.

First I would like to say that my speech will really just follow up on what the hon. member for East Vancouver had to say. I very much appreciated the specific examples she gave from her own riding and her statement that legislation ought not to be based on electoral dogma or politics but on real facts and on studies that have been done showing its necessity. We should not pass laws simply because our ideology would be better served by different legislation.

I want to say once again that this bill is based on Conservative ideology that aims to punish offenders. This is really a very reactionary ideology. Allow me to quote what the purpose of this bill is. Ultimately, its purpose is to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act by “adding deterrence and denunciation to the principles that a court must consider when determining a youth sentence”.

The bill also clarifies that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply.

The purpose of Bill C-25 is therefore to intensify the punishments inflicted on young people and allow them to be detained before trial. That is obviously where the government is headed. This bill is like a father who punishes his children rather than helping them get over difficult situations. This bill is as reactionary as can be and reflects the thinking of the Republican right-wingers among our neighbours to the south. Legislation like this is based on the belief that children are born bad and have to be punished into being good. This legislation also teaches young people denunciation—how to tell on each other—and how to but or bargain their way out of trouble.

Like most of the hon. members in this House, I have had children, although they are now grown up. I never allowed them to tell on each other because I always felt it was amoral and not something I could approve. No democratic society can accept denunciation. It can only be found in dictatorships where there is just one law for everyone. Denunciation is anti-democratic and not a way to create proud and responsible citizens.

It should also be unacceptable that young people use denunciation as a bargaining chip to obtain a pardon. There is no mention of prevention in here. In fact, this government never includes prevention in the bills it introduces. It seems to me that the normal thing to do would be to focus on prevention before punishing the offenders. But there is nothing to that effect in the legislation. We are convinced that prevention, rehabilitation, straightforwardness, honesty and integrity of young people will become essential. They cannot be allowed to be untrue and get off by denouncing others.

Where is our ability to guide our young people? They often lack the tools to cope with life. They are often unable to appreciate the gravity of their actions. That is what teenagers need help with, and this help often cannot be found at home. It is the role of government to prevent and think about those things. This kind of help is the one provided by streetworkers.

This government puts so much faith in repressive legislation that it fails to see that it is turning down very worthwhile pieces of legislation.

Here is a case in point. In a small town in my riding, an initiative was launched with just a few thousand dollars to hire a streetworker whose mandate was to talk to young people and stop them from committing crimes. That was preventative. The idea was to not just tell young people that they would face a stiff penalty if ever they got caught. Young people are convinced that they will never get caught committing a crime, be it petty or serious.

This was a well-structured initiative. The municipalities were all in favour. Potential candidates with experience had been identified for the job. The Government of Quebec had agreed to fund part of the initiative. The rest of the funding would normally have come from the federal government. About six months ago, this government categorically opposed the initiative, in spite of the fact that it was a prevention initiative, one designed to have streetworkers working with young people.

As my colleague from Chambly—Borduas said earlier, streetworkers find things to do for young people instead of being idle and always ready to get in all sorts of trouble without realizing that they could be doing something more worthwhile elsewhere.

There are enough studies, both in Europe and in Quebec, which show that it is essential to help before the kids get into trouble, in order to reduce crime. So, we must try to prevent, instead of reacting by imposing stiffer sentences. Again, I often go and talk to young people, and they are convinced that they will never get caught if they do something wrong.

Will the promise made by the Conservative government to be open toward the Quebec nation include recognizing the need to have street and youth workers? Personally, I think it is essential.

As I said earlier, the principle of denunciation is completely immoral. It is irresponsible to create an opportunity for a young person by telling him that the length of his sentence can be negotiated if he is prepared to denounce the other members of the gang. This is not the way to build an open and honest society. Denunciation is the basic principle of societies that can be said to be less developed than ours. Reintegrating society is not the important thing for young people. How do we reintegrate them? Not by imposing longer sentences, because then they will learn all about crime. No. We must reintegrate them as early as possible in a society where sentences are minimal, and where there are people who can make them realize that they did something that one does not have to do to achieve happiness in this world.

Obviously, that is not how things work in the United States. It is unfortunate that this country is our neighbour and that it is so omnipresent and in our face. The United States believes strongly in repression. With what results? Repression and even the death penalty have not stopped crime. The United States has more murders per capita than any other country, except perhaps for certain parts of Russia, where it is a game.

By transferring the burden of proof to the accused for his pre-trial release, Bill C-25 undermines the presumption of innocence, a longstanding, fundamental principle of British law.

The Bloc Québécois has a good understanding of pre-trial detention. We agree with pre-trial detention and believe that it may be necessary in certain cases and for certain individuals. However, this restrictive measure should not be considered in all circumstances. That is pretty much the thrust of Bill C-25. In the past, Quebeckers favoured individualized justice based on a legal process that was flexible and appropriate for each case.

The French criminal code we inherited allows us to think differently and to achieve positive results. It is true that everyone talks about it. Therefore, we should have a look at the results. In terms of youth justice, we have traditionally focused on rehabilitation and reintegration in order to remove these young people from the vicious circle of crime.

Do we believe that young people think about the punishment before committing a crime? No, but they might thinking about doing something else instead of committing crimes if it gave them a real zest for life.

I will close with a Chinese proverb: the little bird can be just as happy as the big bird. We must teach this to our young people.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-25. I know that other members of the NDP have spoken today and there will be others speaking as well. We have a number of concerns about this bill.

I have been sitting here listening to the debate and thinking about this issue. One of the problems with Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is that it is another example of the Conservative government bringing in legislation with really very little reflection and thought about its impact.

This is part of an overall drive to create this core issue that Conservatives believe they have around crime and justice, to create a “them” and an “us”, and to play on people's fear about crime, which obviously is very strong in most communities. When we actually go through the bill and see what it seeks to accomplish, there is no evidence that what it proposes is actually going to build safer communities.

Having said that, I note that there is one aspect of the bill that the NDP does support. It has to do with pretrial discretion of the judge. We agree because it is now practice in the judiciary that judges often do take into account whether there has been a previous serious offence and whether the young person poses a risk and therefore should not be released. In the law, technically speaking, there is a presumption that the youth in pretrial would be released. We do agree that there should be discretion within the system to allow judges to make a determination for those young individuals who do pose a serious threat to society. Judges should have the tools and the availability to make sure that such individuals are not released.

However, beyond that, this bill is very problematic. It concerns us a lot. Certainly we believe that if it goes to committee we should take a serious look at it. In fact, we probably should be cutting out large sections of the bill. The two particularly problematic areas have to do with the introduction of adult sentencing principles that have to do with denunciation and the question of deterrence.

We need to recognize that throughout our history there has always been a difference in the way the judicial system treats adults and juveniles, young people. It is based on the understanding that sometimes young people, for whatever reason, out of impulse, ignorance or anger, commit crimes that they do not necessarily think about. These crimes are not necessarily premeditated and there is this idea that sentencing based on denunciation or deterrence is not necessarily going to work. So in 1999 and 2000, when the Youth Criminal Justice Act first came in, the act was based on the idea that a different model needed to be created. That was a good thing. We generally supported that.

The bill today is taking us yet another step closer, because of the Conservatives' agenda, to where those lines become indistinguishable and where how we treat young people in the justice system would become more blurred in terms of how we treat adult situations. I think that is a very serious problem.

We should not proceed with this bill in a mad dash just because it happens to be another bill that the Conservatives have brought forward and just because it happens to meet their political agenda. I actually find it very offensive that so much of the legislation we have debated around the crime issue has been based on this political agenda rather than on evidence based information about what works in a criminal justice system.

I have been listening to our colleagues from the Bloc, who have been telling us something about the way it works in Quebec. In my own community in east Vancouver, we have issues around crime and safety, like other inner city urban communities, and we often use Quebec as an example of a different approach based on rehabilitation, on taking the young offenders with the goal of returning them to society. In fact, that should be so for all people where possible, but particularly for young people. I think we have a lot to learn from Quebec about the system it has used, yet this bill would actually undermine that and take us in a completely different direction.

I was reading an article the other day and was horrified to learn that the Conservative member for Kitchener—Conestoga sent out a householder claiming that the rate of violent youth crime had increased 22%. In actual fact, according to Statistics Canada, violent youth crime had fallen by 2%. This is not a huge decrease but at least it is a decrease.

However, that information is being put out there. My concern is that it is like the oldest game in the book. We know that people are worried about crime, even though crime overall has gone down. We know that people want to see effective strategies. It is so easy to keep throwing more laws at the problem and to say that we need tougher enforcement, that we are going to have tougher regimes and that is going to solve the problem.

Let us look at justice department studies, however, and at what happens in the United States. In fact, after debate on this bill is concluded we will be moving on to another bill, the minimum mandatory sentencing for drug crimes, a very severe bill in terms of its approach. It seems to me that we are not looking at the evidence that is so starkly there, the overwhelming evidence that we have in our own country in terms of what does and does not work and what we actually see in other jurisdictions.

We do not often refer to countries beyond the United States. Different models are used in Europe and have much more focus on rehabilitation and a sense of restorative justice. In east Vancouver, we had a number of incidents in the Commercial Drive area. People were very worried about youth at risk who were on the streets. Various incidents had taken place. People had been assaulted. I think it was easy to have that initial response of saying that we should just have a get tough approach and get those kids off the street, that those kids should be in jail.

However, we held a community forum. We invited local residents and some of the community organizations. We invited young people and the businesses. We had a very thoughtful discussion about what we needed to do in our own community and what was our response. Certainly relying on the Criminal Code and on police resources was a part of that discussion and that response, but beyond that, there was a lot of reflection about how we needed to develop programs at the very local level, right at the grassroots level, to deal with problems at the street level.

For example, we started a whole series of meetings about restorative justice. I have a very high aboriginal community population in my riding. This is something that has been really well thought out in that there are some programs, not enough but some, whereby people are taking a very different kind of approach rather than having this knee-jerk reaction to crime. That is what I feel we need to do. Unfortunately, that is what this bill does not do.

That is why in the NDP, although we agree with some parts of the bill and are willing to see it go to committee, we have very serious concerns about this idea that we will move juveniles closer and closer to the criminal system and that somehow we are going to fool people that it is going to fix the problem, that this is going to work. I feel that is a big mistake.

We all have a responsibility to speak truthfully about these issues, even when politically it may appear on the surface to respond in the way that people want us to. There are those lines that we tend to come out with, such as the lines about more enforcement, more officers and getting tough on crime.

If we emphasize more crime prevention and building healthy communities, whether it is through training, better health care, housing, and certainly more opportunities for young people, then I think we would be minimizing at the beginning the number of young people who end up in situation where they become at risk and where they may become young offenders. It seems crazy to me that we load everything up at the other end, the end that is the most expensive and the end that has the least amount of impact.

I have concerns about this bill. Obviously we will see what happens in committee. The NDP will support some of its elements and we will address our concerns.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, on his excellent analysis of the Bloc Québécois position, the situation in Quebec, and Quebeckers' attitude and values with regard to delinquency. No one can have failed to understand that Quebeckers favour rehabilitation and prevention over deterrence, which is what this Conservative government is determined to impose on us.

Since his analysis was so thorough and since my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord did such a good job of recounting his experiences, I would like to approach the issue from the standpoint of Quebeckers' values.

First, I would like to reiterate the Bloc Québécois position. I want to explain why we are really opposed to Bill C-25 in principle.

The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that prevention is still the most effective approach to justice and always will be. We have to attack the causes of crime. Attacking the causes of delinquency and violence, rather than trying to repair the damage once it is done, is the most appropriate and, above all, most profitable approach from both a social and financial point of view.

Could this be any clearer? The first step must be to deal with poverty, inequality and exclusion, which create a fertile breeding ground for frustration and its outlets, which are violence and criminal activity.

Youth justice is no different. Young people need a healthy environment, free of extreme poverty, and they need access to affordable education. In each of these areas, Quebec has made choices that set it apart. We have only to think of tuition fees, which are among the lowest in North America, the network of day care centres, which has served as a model in this area, and so on.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is aware that young people commit criminal acts they must answer for. It is the government's duty to take action and use the tools at its disposal to help Quebeckers and Canadians live in peace and security.

The measures that are introduced will really have to have a positive impact on crime and go beyond mere rhetoric or campaigns based on fear. They will have to be more than a weak imitation of the American model, which has had less than stellar results.

Where young people are concerned, the Quebec model, with its focus on rehabilitation and reintegration, produces real results, as my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord explained.

Bill C-25 should have, on the one hand, focused on what is already working and, on the other hand, allowed Quebec to pursue its successful approach based on rehabilitation and reintegration so that today's young people do not become marginalized in the future.

I would now like to explain another aspect of this bill that is important for Quebec. On November 27, 2007, this Parliament made an important decision, recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. Incidentally, just last week, the last time I mentioned this in the House, two Conservative members started laughing, as though they had pulled a fast one on Quebeckers, as though they did not believe at all in the value of this recognition for Quebeckers. They thought they had tricked us, which is why they were laughing. Fortunately, those members are not here right now, so they cannot laugh.

This recognition was the result of a motion moved by the Bloc Québécois in this House a few days earlier. Thus, the Conservative government, which did not believe in it at all—as we saw again last week, in many ways, and Bill C-25 only reinforces that—set a trap for us and tricked us. It was a trap set for the Bloc Québécois. They thought we would completely fall for it.

From now on, given that the Conservatives have adopted this motion, they must be taken literally. We must ignore their laughter and believe in the motion they passed. The Conservatives must put their money where their mouth is. With Bill C-25, we do not see how they can do that, since we do not see how they are respecting the different values of Quebeckers, who form a nation.

They must therefore recognize the fundamental rights of Quebeckers, the fundamental rights of a nation, which can be expressed as different values. Bill C-25 clearly reveals the values of the Conservative Party, which include repression, law and order, and prison for the bad guys.

However, Quebec's values of rehabilitation and prevention cannot be seen in it.

Perhaps when I talk about the nation, it may seem to have little to do with Bill C-25. On the contrary. It is at the very heart of this bill.

I want to say a few words about how Quebec addresses crime, although my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord made an excellent presentation on this.

As I was just saying, the Conservative government's directions, ideas and mentality are different. It has a different way of finding solutions to problems in our society. In Quebec, we found our way a long time ago. We take care of young offenders. We take better care of their needs and their difficulties. We try to rehabilitate them and—if I may say so—turn them into responsible adults whenever possible. Statistics show that in most cases it is possible.

In Quebec, we try above all to find solutions to the underlying problems that cause these youth to commit small, medium and large offences. I have to say that in Quebec, we are succeeding and we have the statistics to back that claim. In Quebec, the youth rehabilitation program works very well. Now we have this Conservative government barging in and wanting to send youth to prison to punish and deter them. We know full well that criminals, even adult criminals, do not know what prison sentence they will get for the crime they plan to commit. They do not know beforehand or during the crime. Increasing prison sentences or creating harsher sentences usually does not deter young offenders from committing an offence.

Quebec should have been exempt from this reform. We should have had the possibility of keeping our intervention strategy, which is based on the needs of youth and focuses on prevention and rehabilitation.

The Conservative government does not have the same values as Quebeckers. Quebeckers are a nation, and the government has recognized that. We have our own values, and this government, this Parliament, must recognize that when it comes to anything, big or small, and especially when it comes to bills. Everyone here in Parliament must now walk the walk. We know that the Conservative government has a hidden right-wing agenda that it is trying to sneak in bit by bit, usually behind our backs.

This bill to criminalize young people, kids as young as 12, is further proof of that. I am not even talking about bilingualism. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, the Conservative member for Quebec, said it herself. Her government is not protecting the interests of Quebeckers or their language; her government is protecting bilingualism. This government can therefore not protect Quebec's interests because Quebec's interest is its language, French, Quebec's common public language. The Conservatives have no intention of promoting French, but they do intend to promote bilingualism. They do not even respect Quebec's bill 101 in their institutions or in the services they provide to citizens. They do not respect Quebeckers' language.

The Conservative government does not have the same values with respect to the death penalty either. Contrary to what it has done in the past, Canada failed to support an international institution's resolution opposing the death penalty, thereby sending a clear message to specialists around the world that the government had altered Canada's fundamental position on the death penalty. This government is changing Canada's and Quebec's basic values. It denies this right up until it presents us with a fait accompli. Quebec wants nothing to do with the death penalty. Quebec wants nothing to do with the Conservatives' hidden agenda.

Bill C-25 is another Conservative government bill that does not reflect Quebeckers' values, but instead reflects the Conservatives' right-wing ideology. The government is far from walking the walk when it comes to the Quebec nation. For Quebec, this bill is a step back. Quebec has some excellent solutions, an excellent rehabilitation program for teenagers. The Conservative government is trying to spoil everything.

This is yet another good reason for the Quebec nation to decide to have its own country and take care of its own children in ways that respect Quebec's values.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in the debate on Bill C-25 to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I am very mindful of the great struggle of the Bloc Québécois over many years; a struggle led by our former Justice critic, who is now a judge of the Quebec court. I would like to acknowledge the work of our colleague and friend, Michel Bellehumeur, the former member for Berthier—Montcalm.

That struggle has not been in vain. However, we are forced to recognize that it must continue, especially in the face of this Conservative government. It is a right-wing government with a tendency, in terms of the justice system, to adopt a much more punitive approach rather than an approach based on rehabilitation.

We can recall the trip made by a member on the other side of the House, at a time when the Conservative Party was known as the Reform Party. They changed the name. It is a little like Coca-Cola—New Coke, old Coke or Coke zero—in the end it is still Coca-Cola. Whether the party changed the name to Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party or, now, the Conservative Party, it is the same party with the same individuals, and it is the same right-wing ideology that prevails in that party.

When they were in opposition, the Conservatives, in their Reform Party days, went so far as to subsidize a trip by one of their colleagues to study what they call “batting” in Thailand, I think. In that country, young people who do wrong are punished with strokes administered with a bamboo rod. That is what is known as “batting”, with penalties of 50 or 100 strokes. We know those are absolutely useless approaches and that it is totally impossible to export such practices to Canada.

As my colleague for Chambly—Borduas has properly stated, you will understand that the Bloc Québécois is opposed in principle to Bill C-25. In terms of justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most efficient approach is, and always will be, prevention. We must attack the causes of crime. I will not repeat the remarks just made by my colleague. He described criminal activity that can be caused by poverty. However, I would add a slight qualifier to what he said.

No connection has ever been established between crime and people from a poor background. Young people from very comfortable backgrounds sometimes commit crimes. Unfortunately, a poor choice of friends, bad habits and drug dependencies can sweep young people down the wrong path. I would not want to play stepmother to my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, but I just wanted to add this nuance, that there is no direct connection, no causal relationship, between poverty and crime. It should be said, though, that poverty often provides fertile soil for the growth of the gangrene of crime among our youth.

We need, therefore, to attack the causes of delinquency and violence rather than waiting until the damage has been done and trying to repair it. The most judicious and beneficial approach, from both a social and financial point of view, is prevention.

Justice for young people is no different in this regard. Young people need to grow up in a healthy environment and not in extreme poverty; they need an affordable education system, and so forth.

Much is made of Canada’s current economic prosperity. We have been hit hard, though, by downturns in manufacturing and forestry. In general, the various governments in power over the last few years have just boasted about economic prosperity and the incredible surpluses they have racked up.

Despite all that, it is still true that 1.5 million children in Canada live below the poverty line. If there are 1.5 million children living below the poverty line, it is because their parents are poor. These children do not have multimillionaire parents. I hope we understand that. These are children from poor families. There are 1.5 million children who often do not have what they need. They have no money. There is nothing in the refrigerator, and these children go to school on empty stomachs.

Talk with people in the field of education. The principals of primary schools in certain areas where there are pockets of poverty have to keep a refrigerator in the staff room filled with string cheese, fruit, fruit juice and yogourt because young people come to school without having eaten. That is the reality. The government needs to understand this instead of just boasting that its budget surplus has reached $11.6 billion.

The Bloc Québécois is aware that there are young people who commit offences. Some people might want to accuse the Bloc Québécois of putting its head in the sand, of not recognizing that there is a crime problem among some young people. However, we know that there is a crime problem and it is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable. On the other hand, there is a way of treating the disease and healing the wound of the gangrene festering in some of our young people.

There are acts that have been committed by young offenders and they must answer for them in the courts. The Bloc believes that the government has a duty to take action and use the tools available to it so that Quebeckers and Canadians are able to live peacefully and safely. However, the measures brought forward must have a genuinely positive impact on crime, and must be more than just words, more than mere rhetoric, more than fine high-sounding pronouncements to try to put everyone to sleep, or more than a campaign based on fear.

As well, it does not necessarily have to be a model copied from George Bush's United States. We could talk about that at length. The result is familiar to us all: the United States has a high crime rate. Despite the fact that some states apply the death penalty, the United States has a homicide rate three times higher than in Canada and four times higher than in Quebec. In the United States, they still apply the death penalty. Anyone who believes that the death penalty operates as a deterrent is mistaken. The best way of deterring crime is to tackle the sources of the problem and have treatment that will be effective in the long term for our young offenders.

The Bloc Québécois also deplores how lightly the Conservative government is taking these amendments to measures that reflect the very foundations of the justice system. By shifting the burden of proof to the accused on the question of pre-trial release from detention, Bill C-25 offends the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle of law. The Bloc Québécois completely understands that pre-trial detention may be necessary for certain individuals, but in those cases the measure must be the least restrictive possible in the circumstances.

I see I have one minute left, Mr. Speaker, and so I would like to say that in the past, Quebeckers have opted for a system of individualized justice, based on a flexible judicial process, adapted to each case, with the positive results that we are familiar with in Quebec. When it comes to the youth criminal justice system, we have traditionally opted for rehabilitation and reintegration in order to rescue these young people from the vicious circle of crime.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly glad to join in the discussion of this bill because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the rather exceptional guidance and prevention work being done by many organizations in our society and in Quebec with young people. In my own riding of Chambly—Borduas and in the city of Chambly itself, the organization known as POSA has had a remarkable impact and is doing the most exemplary work with young people.

In this type of debate, we need to think about the other stakeholders in our society who are helping young people to find direction in their lives. Often, these are young people who have nothing to do.

I want to come back to the latest remarks of my New Democratic colleague. She said that what is of greatest concern about the bill is what is not in it. That astounds me because what should concern us most of all is what the bill actually says. There are two things the bill says. First, exemplary sentences are needed to deal with youth crime. That means from now on we will be using an approach that is currently reserved for adults. I will come back to that point. Second, pre-trial detention will be permitted. It is rather troubling that a young person, a teenager, would have to prove that he or she is not a danger to society even before a trial begins. That is rather troubling because it is a presumption that the teenager could be guilty.

In court, it often happens that a person is not found guilty of the crime that he or she has been charged with. This means that even before the trial takes place, if a person does not want to be imprisoned as a preventive measure, he or she must demonstrate to some degree that they did not commit that crime. People will say that is not how it is going to happen. The person need only demonstrate that he or she is not a danger to society. However, if a serious crime has been committed and the person was not involved in the crime, he or she will have to show that they were not involved.

Already, we are focusing on evidence that should be presented during a trial. There is something perverse in that; something that implies in some way that the presumption of innocence no longer applies at the first stage when we are dealing with young people. That is sometimes understandable when we are looking at measures that apply to adults because an adult may have a criminal background suggesting that he or she could re-offend or represent a danger to society based on previous evidence or charges brought before the courts.

This is the approach as things now stand and the NDP is aligning itself with that approach. That the New Democrats would take such a position surprises me a great deal. As for the Conservatives, not much about their take on crime surprises us. They are not very interested in prevention. Repression is the focus and if they can make the penalties tougher all around they will do so.

This approach also flies in the face of the youth crime policies that have been in place in Quebec for more than 30 years. These prevention-based policies have proven themselves. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague a question, the current system in Quebec, with its focus on prevention, has led to a significant reduction in youth crime. As a result, there are four times fewer criminal cases in Quebec than in the United States and 25% fewer than in Canada.

Canada as a whole has three times fewer criminal cases than the United States. Yet the Conservatives are copying the American model. We know the result. The heaviest U.S. penalties are still banned here, such as the death penalty, which cannot even produce such results.

What is most important? To turn these young people into criminals and set them on a course that will inevitably lead to the same situation as in the United States? That will multiply the number of criminals once these young people are adults.

Quebec is not in favour of that. Not only is the Bloc Québécois opposed to that, but in 2003, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion to maintain the system in Quebec.

In addition, the measures proposed in clauses 1 and 2 of Bill C-25 are not insignificant. They run counter to a whole philosophy of Canadian law. The Supreme Court summarized the principles behind youth sentencing in this way in a 2006 judgment:

The YCJA introduced a new sentencing regime, and its wording can only support the conclusion that Parliament deliberately excluded general deterrence as a factor of youth sentencing. By virtue of section 50(1) of the YCJA, the provisions of the Criminal Code on sentencing, save certain listed exceptions, do not apply to youth sentencing.

They do apply to adult sentencing. I could go on since my point is proven many times in this Supreme Court ruling.

What is happening today is not routine or unimportant. This principle will be changed. The sentence imposed on a youth will from now on be imposed as a deterrent the same way it is for a hardened adult criminal. However, experience shows that if we take that route we will keep turning out more criminals, and hardened ones at that.

I again invite our colleagues in the House of Commons to vote with us on this bill, including at second reading, so that we do not sanction this principle here in the House of Commons. This is not theory. This is not a Conservative philosophy that should prevail here. This is not the Canadian tradition of justice, nor is it Quebec's tradition, far from it.

Our colleagues would be making a serious mistake by voting in favour of this bill, including at second reading.

We believe the amendment made to the legislation in 2001 was a mistake because it created an opening for excessive court handling of youth crime. This has considerably complicated the reintegration of young offenders.

The focus here should be on providing guidance for these young people, prevention measures, and funding for agencies like POSA, in my riding, as I was saying earlier. That is our position. That is why we will vote against this bill.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois are rather surprised by the NDP's position on Bill C-25.

If I understand correctly, some members want to ensure that the bill passes second reading. However, all the arguments presented would normally lead us to believe that the NDP will vote against it. Why? Because the very foundation of this bill goes against the principles defended by the NDP. Its foundation is one of repression. They are supporting the repression of young people and adolescents, while what seems to be working so far is guidance as a means of prevention.

For example, the United States still has the death penalty for the most serious crimes. We all know what kind of results that produces. The crime rate is three times lower in Canada and four times lower in Quebec. Why? Because the strategy established by both governments, the policy maintained, is one of prevention. In Quebec, that policy is even more energetically applied.

How can the NDP now justify its position, which favours repression over prevention?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am delighted to be able to spend a few minutes addressing some concerns and viewpoints with respect to Bill C-25, a bill which seeks to make some changes pertaining to our youth criminal justice system.

Second, I want to say to the Conservatives to stop playing games and to stop making this issue into one that is a political football instead of getting down to work and making serious attempts at finding reasonable solutions based on the input of all parliamentarians.

I for one find it rather curious that the government has just now brought in a couple of small changes to our youth justice system. It has merely tinkered with it and has not made the big overhaul that the government claims to the public that it has done, and to which we apparently are already in opposition. I would suggest to the Conservatives that if they want a serious debate and if they want to craft the best legislation possible, they ought not to be suggesting that they have already introduced a massive overhaul of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and that the NDP is already in opposition and therefore we are not prepared to sit down and deal with some of the tough problems that we all know are confronting us. I find that offensive and I wish they would stop.

What we are dealing with today is a very small piece of legislation, a couple of changes, hardly that which the Conservatives promised, hardly that which we have asked for, hardly that which provincial governments have asked for. In fact, I want to reference the significant work by the Manitoba NDP government in trying to get the federal government to make some real changes that would make a difference to some of the serious situations we are dealing with.

There is nothing in this legislation that actually deals with car theft and the use of cars as a weapon by young people. Gary Doer and the Manitoba NDP government were here in Ottawa trying to persuade this government to make some changes in that regard, particularly providing stronger penalties for youth involved in serious crimes, especially those involving auto theft. The Manitoba government and Gary Doer were here calling for first degree murder charges for gang related homicides. The Manitoba government and Gary Doer were here calling for the classification of auto theft as an indictable violent offence. They also were here calling for making shooting at a building and drive-by shootings indictable offences.

Are any of those in the bill? Are any of those in any legislation around us? No, we are still dealing with a government that is creating an illusion of being tough on this issue but basically is doing very little. I would suggest that we try to make this legislation into a much more substantive piece that in fact would get at the root of the problem, that does not tinker at the edges but in fact makes a real difference.

My colleague from Windsor, our justice critic, has already made clear remarks on record suggesting what this bill is and where there are problems. He talks about the move toward deterrence, when in fact there is little recognition sometimes among young people about even the punishments that are associated with the crime at hand. He talks about the question of pretrial release and the fact that this is very seldom used today.

We know that this bill misses the main point. What we do need is some tough legislation to deal with some very serious problems. Let me say that there is no shortage of examples around the hardship that is caused in our communities by young people who have used a car as a weapon, or engaged in other violent crimes.

For the record, I want to send condolences again to three families that have been through this in a very difficult way over the past six months. They of course are no secret to members of the House and are well known in the media. They are pretty horrific cases. Rachelle Leost, who had three young kids, was actually on her way to work when she was hit by a young driver who had stolen a car. She was killed. We also want to recognize Erin Pawlowski, a 35-year-old man who was viciously beaten on his way home from work, who later died from his injuries. We do not know for sure if the offenders were young offenders, but there certainly is that possibility. Finally, Mr. James Duane died while riding his bicycle. He was hit by a stolen car driven by a young person at the corner of Burrows and McGregor in my constituency of Winnipeg North. Those are three horrific crimes that involved, we believe, young people and therefore need to be addressed in this legislation.

These incidents and others like them are by no means to suggest that we are seeing a sudden rise in youth crime. There are no statistics to support such a statement. Nor can we say, as many have tried to suggest, that areas like Winnipeg North and the inner cities and north ends of our cities are hotbeds for youth crime. The problems we are dealing with are everywhere. They are not isolated in my constituency. They are not isolated in certain populations. They happen because our society has not done all it could and governments have not all they could to stop the incidence of crime by looking at the root causes and working at early stages to try to stop these incidents from happening in the first place.

I want to reference a few of the people in my constituency who are working daily trying to deal with youth crime. They need the support of government, but they still really are not getting the acknowledgement nor the financial support from the federal government that they deserve.

In my own constituency, in Point Douglas, which is probably the poorest neighbourhood in all of Canada, there is a group of citizens who have decided to take matters into their own hands with the support of the provincial government to call for a crack free zone. They are trying to identify crack dealers and crack houses and report them and make sure that those houses are shut down. Under the Manitoba legislation, we have innovative provisions for doing just that, something that should be replicated across the country.

We have in that very same neighbourhood citizens working on unslumming the neighbourhood, not gentrification, but unslumming. They are working with housing groups and local organizations to repair and renovate houses, to try to get rid of those who want to abuse their privileges and make our neighbourhoods into drug zones and areas of high crime and violence.

We have just had reports in Winnipeg about another group, the ambassadors for the North End. They are a group of young people who actually patrol the streets around Selkirk Avenue and neighbouring areas to try to prevent the incidence of crime. They are getting support from the provincial government. They need to be recognized by the federal government.

We have many youth at risk programs. We have the North Point Douglas Women's Centre, the North End Women's Centre. We have the North End Community Renewal Corporation. All of these organizations believe in working together to try to get at the root causes of youth crime.

That is best said when we look at some of the people who have written about what it means to live in poverty, and not in a functional family, without access to supports or employment. Here is one example, a piece written by Rhian Brynjolson in my riding. She said this:

One very young boy recently drew me picture. In it a boy is looking in the mirror. The image in the mirror is a boy with horns and a devil's tail. “The boy is wondering if he is going to be a bad guy when he grows up”, he explained. I looked at the boy, knowing of the abusive situation he had survived, and I wondered too.

That is one example. Let me give one more. This one is written by Christine Burrows, who is actually a retired kindergarten teacher and coordinator of the Point Douglas community safety team. She talks about what it is like to be without proper supports:

Since you are not travelling around in a car, you're just hanging around your immediate neighbourhood, so you never see those signs in stores and outside factories saying “Help wanted”.

The whole idea of finding a job is difficult and daunting, so you just hang out on the street and couch-surf.

Then one day a drive-by recruitment car stops to talk to you. They don't care about your school record, there are no forms to fill in, they offer you a job, you can do the job, it doesn't mean getting up early and you can keep your hoodie on. Perfect! The pay is pretty good and it's illegal, but hey, it's not just like a few relatives haven't been in the slammer from time to time, no big deal. Besides, you won't get caught.

You are now a drug dealer's mule, you carry illegal narcotics for the man, you run stuff from one place to another, you're a success, cash in your pocket and you can wear a tough attitude.

I could go on with many more examples. I could talk about the fact that in Winnipeg, we know that many of the youth who commit crimes are actually FASD victims. They have fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, a neurological disorder for which they cannot always account for their actions. Yet we have a government that refuses to put in place proper programs for FASD, nor is it prepared to support our motion to put labels on alcohol beverage containers warning women that they should not drink during pregnancy.

All kinds of things can be done. I would urge the government to begin to look seriously at this problem, not as window dressing, and stop making victims out of our young people who really have every reason to want to contribute to our society if given half a chance.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on the subject of Bill C-25, which we are debating today.

The Bloc Québécois is totally opposed to this legislation which, once again, is on the wrong track, because it is focusing on repression rather than prevention and rehabilitation. In this regard, it is sad to see a party such as the NDP, which claims to be progressive and which presents itself as such, support the government when it is pushing the Canadian justice system along the path taken by George Bush in the United States.

When I was preparing my presentation, I entitled it “Illusion and Hypocrisy”, because this is what the bill is about. On the one hand, it creates the illusion of increased safety, the illusion that this legislation will solve problems when it is obviously not the case—as can be shown by the statistics. On the other hand, it is also tainted with hypocrisy, because while this government pretends to target crime, it facilitates the use of all kinds of firearms. One wonders about the logic of imposing harsher sentences for the crime, while allowing a larger number of firearms to circulate. It is hard to see any consistency here. My presentation is going to deal with these two issues.

I begin with the illusion aspect. This government, with the support of the NDP, is presenting a whole philosophy based on repression. Under this approach, sentences will be increasingly stiffer and harsher to help reduce crime. However, that will not work.

Why? Because if we put ourselves in the shoes of a criminal, potential criminal or young offender, we realize that the fear of getting caught is a much more effective deterrent than the length of the sentence. Most criminals commit crimes because they are convinced that they will not get caught. If they thought that they were going to get caught, they would try to find other crimes they think they would get away with. That is true for murders, rapes, robberies and any other crime. A criminal never calls the police before committing his crime. He does his deed because he is sure that he will get away with it. He has confidence in himself.

If we want to make a real effort to reduce crime, we must focus our effort on the means at our disposal to catch criminals. They need to know that they will be caught. Of course, that requires money. It is more difficult and demanding than simply passing legislation, but it is a lot more effective.

The perfect example of the principle of deterrence is capital punishment. In the United States, several states use capital punishment. Everyone will agree that it is the ultimate punishment. One cannot imagine a harsher sentence than capital punishment. And yet, in the United States and in several other countries that use capital punishment, the results are unconvincing. Crime rates in the United States are three times higher than in Canada and four times higher than in Quebec. Following the same logic, we would have to find something even more horrible than capital punishment to deter people from committing crimes. Obviously this does not work because this is not what motivates people.

The Quebec model proves that the present government's repressive approach, supported by the NDP, is not the right way to go for Quebec and probably not for Canada either. In Quebec, measures focused on prevention and rehabilitation are yielding results. Indeed, Quebec has better statistics than the rest of Canada for all crime indicators. There is no denying it, the figures speak for themselves.

And we must not forget, particularly in the case of young offenders, that it is all well and good to send them to prison, but is that not the best crime school?

Consider, for example, a young offender who, early on in life, takes a wrong turn and commits minor offences. To send that person to prison with serious offenders, real criminals—is that not the best way to ensure that he or she becomes a hardened criminal? There is something illogical and ineffective about this approach. It would be a much better idea to keep him or her away from criminals doing time in prisons and find ways to encourage rehabilitation.

This bill creates an illusion and will produce no concrete results in terms of reducing crime. Furthermore, this bill is very hypocritical. While this government, supported by the NDP, introduces bills in this House to give the illusion that it is resolving the problem, it is diminishing the gun registry. Since the beginning, it has been trying to weaken the registry to make it less and less effective, less and less relevant. This government pretends to be tough on crime, yet it allows weapons to circulate indiscriminately and would eliminate an extremely useful tool for the police.

Obviously, the gun registry is not perfect. It does not prevent all crimes, but it can help prevent some crimes, as we have seen. It can also help the police when it comes time to go to the scene of a tragedy or hostage taking. It can tell them if there is a weapon on the premises where such an incident is taking place.

Of course, some people plan their crimes, committing premeditated murder, for example. Clearly, those people would not register their weapons before committing such crimes. However, there is another category of murders, those that are more passionate, impulsive, less calculated. In such cases, those people might use guns they have in their homes to commit those crimes. Thus, it would be useful for the police to know what weapons are on the scene.

The registry is relevant. All police forces and stakeholders in Quebec want it to be maintained. Yet, the government is doing everything it can to weaken it.

Recently, we had another example of this government's hypocrisy in a related matter, firearms marking. Regulations to this effect are to be implemented enabling the police to trace the owners of firearms left at the scene of a crime. There is consensus on these regulations. It is something that all police forces are asking for. Yet the government has again delayed implementation of these regulations. It makes you wonder who this government is defending by delaying the implementation of the firearms marking policy.

While nothing is being done to truly prevent crime, they are creating the illusion of attacking the problem by developing an increasingly repressive system. It is not surprising to see the Conservatives, the allies of the United States and of George Bush in particular, adopting this repressive approach. However, it is surprising that the NDP, which claims to be a progressive party, has allied itself with the government and its ways of repression. I am quite disappointed. I hope that the NDP members will come to their senses and that this House will defeat this bill, which is nothing but illusion and hypocrisy.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record this morning concerning Bill C-25.

Right off the bat let me say that I agree with my colleague from the across the way who spoke earlier, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. When I came to this place almost four years ago, I came here with a sense of mission, as I did when I went to Queen's Park in 1990. Based on the community work I did, I wanted to change a number of things and I wanted that to happen immediately. Alas, I discovered it was not going to be that easy. In fact, it takes much effort, with support from government, to make the kind of change that is necessary if we are going to experience and enjoy the result of change, particularly if it is a positive change.

One of the things that always disappoints me more than anything when I see a bill like this come forward is the missed opportunity it represents. We have a bill here focused on dealing with a very difficult challenge that we all face with our young people as we try to keep them on the straight and narrow.

There is no one, and I include myself, who does not want to reduce the number of people who get into difficulty with the law in our communities. There is no one here, I do not think, who would not get up and speak very passionately about the need to keep our communities safe.

However, there are different ways of approaching this. It takes more than one bill with a couple of small items in it to actually effect the kind of larger, longer term difference we want to see in our communities. We would like to reduce the recidivism rate going forward and we would like to see young people participate in more constructive and positive ways when they find themselves in trouble with the law.

Those of us who have family know this in a very personal way. We see our young men and women who go out into the world, having received the support, love and care of family, sometimes not being able to cope with what comes at them and then acting in a rather irresponsible or thoughtless way and finding themselves in trouble with the law.

If we go down this road the government wants to take us down, and which so many in our country today seem to think is the answer to this question of young people and the law, particularly young people involved in violent crime in our communities, we in fact will end up losing more young people than we actually save, than we actually get back on the straight and narrow. More than anything, that is what concerns me about this bill.

I remember going to Mississauga about a year or so ago and talking with a gathering of people from the community around the question of poverty. A number of parents at that meeting, particularly female immigrant parents, said to me that they were as concerned as anybody, including me as an MP and including the government, about how their young people were behaving in the community sometimes and how they were getting themselves into trouble. They very clearly said to me that the way to deal with them was not to just bring in harsher punishment or to throw them in jail, where they enter into a whole new culture of negative behaviour that then affects them when they ultimately get out.

They told me and all the others gathered that night that we need a more comprehensive approach to this, which includes a government that is committed to making sure that our young people can get the schooling, training and education they need to participate in the life and economy of their communities in a positive and constructive way. That will give them a sense of self-satisfaction, allow them to grow as human beings and contribute in the way that most of us do as we successfully live out our lives.

As for those parents, those mothers in particular, it could be seen in their faces that they were very disappointed and frustrated with this lack of understanding and the lack of commitment by government to actually step up and come forward to provide them with those resources, opportunities and support as they tried to keep their young people in school and keep them on the straight and narrow.

These parents are the people who keep our economy going. In many cases, these are the single mothers who work all night cleaning buildings, making beds and serving food, only to come home to a house that has been left for large chunks of the day unsupervised, with young people coming home from school or not going to school at all. They were crying out for a more structured framework to be provided to them so that their young people could participate in behaviour that was more constructive and productive.

They saw that in juxtaposition to the fact that in their community, as in so many communities across this country, in the evenings and weekends at night, for example, schools are closed because there are no resources to provide supervision, to turn on the lights and to do the janitorial work necessary, or even to provide the insurance that is so often required when public facilities are made available to a community.

I would be very pleased to have an opportunity in this place to talk more fully about these questions of youth, the criminal justice system, crime and the activity of some young people in our communities, so that we might together look at the Quebec model, which has been presented this morning on a couple of occasions. Quebec found a different way to deal with this challenge that we all face and are very concerned about. Quebec has gathered the community around this question of keeping our young people on the straight and narrow. It has begun to introduce concepts which flow out of the thinking that is often referred to as restorative justice.

I remember attending a gathering of foster parents led by the Children's Aid Society in my community at which a priest from Los Angeles talked about his work with gangs in the inner city of that community. In 2007, when I heard him speak and had the chance to talk to him, I learned that Los Angeles officials had gone beyond the more punitive approach to dealing with and trying to fix a very difficult challenge in terms of our young people getting into trouble with the law.

Officials there are now themselves searching out more creative restorative justice types of approaches to dealing with this problem. They know that in bringing this kind of response to this challenge communally and together, we stand a better chance, first of all, of helping some of these young people, of keeping them out of the criminal justice system, of actually changing their ways and reducing recidivism so they do not continue to repeat this behaviour. More than that, officials find that these young people become very constructive and productive members of the neighbourhoods in which they were previously seen as a difficulty.

We in this caucus are going to be supporting the bill to move it forward, not because we agree with a lot of what is in it but because we would like to have more opportunity to actually dialogue, discuss and try to find some common ground with the different approaches and parties that exist here in the House of Commons, and so that we might find some way to bring some real, constructive, positive change to this very difficult task that we face as a community today.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am worried but I am nonetheless pleased to speak today to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The bill that has been introduced by the Conservative government very clearly shows the approach this government intends to take to the criminal justice system. In the bill, this government is not trying to improve outcomes for young offenders, young people who are experiencing social and emotional problems in Quebec; rather, it is trying to hinder the development of those young people.

This is not the first time I have spoken regarding a bill introduced by the Department of Justice. Those bills have all taken the same approach to the criminal justice system, an approach based on repression and detention. Bill C-25 contains two important provisions.

First, it is intended to change the youth criminal justice system by providing that sentences imposed by judges may have the objective of denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring young persons from committing offences. By adding deterrence, the federal government is now going down the road of punishment for punishment’s sake. We are forgetting about prevention, rehabilitation and social reintegration. In short, the government’s purpose in introducing this bill is to increase the severity of sentences imposed on young people.

Second, and I believe this is the most controversial aspect of the bill, it now provides that judges will be able to presume from now on that detention of a young person before trial is necessary where the young person has committed certain acts. The bill lists those acts.

What is the government trying to do in this provision? In short, it has two objectives. First, it wants to use the presumption against young persons by transferring the burden and responsibility of proof onto them, the young persons, when very often the problem is social, psychological or family-related.

Second, the Minister of Justice is proposing to detain a young person before his or her trial starts, when very often, from what we can see, the trial will end with a not guilty verdict.

When we look at this amendment we see that the government is attacking a fundamental aspect of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence. Because of the presumption of innocence that a young person must now shoulder, the young person will have to prove that he or she is not a risk even before being found guilty.

This means that young people might end up in prison when their trial has not even begun. A young person would end up in the school for criminals, that is, in prison. He or she would be incarcerated in a prison, with adults, without having committed a crime, without having been convicted. These young people will then certainly suffer from bad influences that once again will hinder their own development.

I was a social worker for many years, and I worked with youth and young offenders. I have no doubt that detention would have a very negative impact on teenagers at such an important stage of their development.

The main problem with this bill is that its vision for youth criminal justice is diametrically opposed to Quebec's vision. In Bill C-25, the federal government is presenting a model inspired by the American method, a Republican method based on repression and detention. Quebeckers have chosen a model based on rehabilitation and prevention.

Over the past 30 years, regardless of the political party in power, the Government of Quebec has always been guided by the belief that we should focus on prevention and rehabilitation.

This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has opposed the federal government's attempt to change the youth criminal justice system. Members will recall that some time ago, the Bloc Québécois vigorously opposed the Liberal government when it proposed reforms to what was then the Young Offenders Act, now known as the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

At the time, the Government of Quebec and many other stakeholders, such as youth groups, youth shelters, street youth workers and organizations that oversaw the Young Offenders Act and that applied alternative measures for young offenders, opposed a critical element of the proposed reform, which was that young people aged 14 or 15 could be subjected to adult sentences and be tried in adult court. We opposed that measure because we believed then—as we do now—that the proposed legislation would hurt young people. We opposed it because we favoured an approach based on rehabilitation, prevention, and social reintegration through measures that met the needs of young people in the justice system.

Bill C-25 gives us another opportunity to reject this reform proposed by the Conservative government. because we still believe that the Quebec model should predominate, because it is more successful. Statistics prove that. In its model, Quebec decided to work with young people, listen to them and punish them severely if need be, of course. The Quebec model involves all the social stakeholders who work with youth. It is a comprehensive approach, to ensure that these young people have a healthy environment and can be the best they can be.

We are convinced that prevention is still the most effective approach to justice and always will be. We need to attack the causes of crime, which, as we know, are often linked to poverty or lack of parental support. Attacking the causes of delinquency and violence, rather than trying to repair the damage once it is done is the most appropriate and, above all, most profitable approach from both a social and financial point of view.

Unfortunately, the federal government is once again suggesting a model inspired by our neighbours to the south and not by Quebec, whose prevention-centred model has stood the test of time.

Is this really the right approach to reducing youth crime? No. What we are defending is a model that has proven itself, a model that has meant a crime rate three times lower than in the United States, a model that has helped Quebec reduce its youth crime rate by 4%, according to Statistics Canada, while the rate in all the Canadian provinces has gone up.

The government has to imitate the American model, which produces less conclusive results. The Quebec model based on rehabilitation and reintegration gives real results. These statistics prove it.

In closing, I invite all the members opposite to take a look at the Quebec model, rather than always looking to the Americans for inspiration. They will see that Quebec's approach is far more successful in the fight against crime. The Conservative members and ministers from Quebec are well aware—at least, I hope so—that Quebec's approach is better.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Conservative government in Nova Scotia signed on to the Atlantic accord and it signed on to this piece of legislation. I am quite familiar with the attorney general in the province of New Brunswick, I might remind the member. I am not aware that any attorney general in this country has said that Bill C-25 has implemented all of the recommendations of the Nunn commission. I do not know of any attorney general in this country who has said that the Nunn commission recommendations are all that there is to say about the YCJA.

The question to the public of Canada clearly has to be why the Conservatives did not implement all the recommendations of the Nunn commission report. They would not have had a lot of opposition from this side. I cannot speak for my colleagues in the other parties. It was here to take.

I am advised by legislative clerks that we cannot now amend it to add all of the recommendations of the Nunn commission because they would make the bill wider in scope. The question I have is why these recommendations did not get further along. Surely the attorneys general of all provinces, including Nova Scotia, would have approved of all of the recommendations.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's story about the lessons he learned as a young councillor. Certainly, we always can learn lessons from those who have gone before us. I know that this government is looking at all kinds of ways, a comprehensive package, to deal with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The member has gone on at quite length, as have a lot of his colleagues, as to the failure to embrace all the Nunn recommendations. Is the member aware that Nova Scotia's attorney general supports BillC-25? Is he aware that the minister has worked closely with the Nova Scotia government, as well as listened to what those ministers have had to say, and that they are supportive of this?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate on an important aspect of criminal justice. I want to open with a little anecdotal story from my and my community's past, greater Moncton.

I was elected to council for the city of Moncton in 1992. We had an older councillor, who was over 80 years of age, named Al Galbraith. He is now deceased. He was a veteran of World War II. He was a very fair-minded individual, but a law and order councillor. We all know those types who speak from the benefit of age and experience.

We were having some problems with loitering and lack of curfew being followed in some of the poorly lit parks in the city of Moncton at the time. I was newly elected and like all newly elected people I was going to save the world very quickly and easily. He was the old sage councillor and when we went on a radio show together, he talked about the problem of youth congregating in a darkly lit park. I thought perhaps we should toughen the curfew laws and look to the law side of it, the black letter. The older councillor suggested that if children were congregating in a place without lights, perhaps we should put lights in the park or provide opportunities for youth to congregate elsewhere. It struck me at the time that there were more ways to effect better laws and to have good laws followed than just enact new laws and that we had to look always at the resources in the community and what we would do to raise a community.

I do not want this to be seen as an endorsement of Senator Clinton, but it is a village that we are raising and the attempts to raising the village come not always from the law and from this place.

Nevertheless, we are talking about Bill C-25. Just like that park in the north end of Moncton, it would have been really easy perhaps for the government to turn on the light over its desk and read all of the Nunn report. It appears that it only got to one of the six recommendations.

The part of the bill that deals with the revolving door of custody is a good start. It will have to be fixed at committee. However, the Conservative government once again is in the dark with respect to criminal justice issues by not following the whole of the Nunn report. It has not even adverted to the review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which will be upon us very shortly. It also has not embraced other aspects that come from without the Nunn report.

My colleague, the member for Beauséjour was very clear in his remarks, as our justice critic, that the part of the bill that dealt with custody of repeat offenders or those charged with serious offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act was a good start and that it could be fixed. I do not want to spend any more time talking about it because there is so much to the Canadian public what the government is not doing to keep our community safe. It did not follow the other aspects of the Nunn commission report, which was the very germane, sensible and logical response to a horrific incident involving Ms. McEvoy. Being in neighbouring New Brunswick, it rocked the province of Nova Scotia for the period in question.

In short, with Bill C-25, the government could have at least copied the recommendations in the Nunn report. If the government needed a set of crayons, we could have got them for it. However, it only copied one of them and, at that, not so well.

Then there was the slip-in of the issues of deterrence and denunciation.

What the government does not realize is that from time immemorial there has been legislation that bifurcates the responsibilities and the penalties to be meted out to adults on one side and youth on the other. If we are only to return to an era where everybody, in some sort of Dickensian novel way, gets treated the same way, everybody gets thrown in the debtors' prison and the poorhouse respective of age and circumstance, then that is what Canadians should know. Maybe they should know that the government wants to return to that sort of era.

We have had youth crime legislation, whether it was the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the Young Offenders Act and now the Youth Criminal Justice Act, for some time, and we do not act in a vacuum.

It is quite interesting to note that upon the enactment of the YCJA in 2003, it was the subject of a reference from the province of Quebec in respect to constitutionality and also its legitimacy on the world stage.These are important matters dealing with children and the way children are raised in our communities.

The bill does not talk about punishment. It talks about justice to the community. What are we to do with our youth? None of the principles of deterrence or denunciation were in the YCJA. The most offending aspects of the YCJA in international law deal with those provisions in sections 61 to 72, regarding the imposition of adult sentences, or the mode of trial in adult court, for young offenders.

Sometimes we live in a bubble that media outlets and certain Conservative demagogues propagate, such as having no laws covering this, or we are a lawless society, or our youth are running rampant across the country committing crimes. That is not the case.

The YCJA has provisions that have been challenged for their constitutionality and their international human rights legitimacy with respect to trying youths as adults. It is important perhaps to remember and to remind Canadians that we have legislation on the books to deal with the problems that face our communities. In certain circumstances children and youths have been tried as adults. What is wrong with the principles of deterrence and denunciation is that they import a concept from the Criminal Code of Canada into the YCJA.

Justice Nunn talked about a lot of things. The McEvoy incident was horrific. It rocked the community. There have been instances like the McEvoy incident across the country. As parliamentarians we should be dealing with things like this.

Let me be clear. We on this side of the House would have welcomed both here in the House and in committee a more comprehensive Bill C-25. Alas, amendments to Bill C-25, incorporating more of the Nunn recommendations, might well be out of order. They might be further than the concept that this very narrow bill suggests.

The government chose to import one concept of the over six recommendations. It inserted from its political quiver an agenda of punishment, of incorporating concepts that did not belong in the act. The government chose to try to get a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to get the whole YCJA thrown out. Maybe that is the whole ploy here. Incorporating the principles of sentencing of deterrence and denunciation will put the YCJA in jeopardy.

It is important to remember this. We often talk about what we add to legislation, but often there are teeth to pieces of legislation. The Criminal Code and the YCJA are no exception.

Reading the very monosyllabic but frequent Conservative press releases on criminal justice, one might be surprised to read that there are principles of sentencing in the YCJA. On a good and fair reading, these principles might make Canadians feel that judges are given the task of interpreting these principles and ensuring that our communities remain safe.

Section 38(3) states:

In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account

(a) the degree of participation by the young person...

(b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional...

(c) any reparation made by the young person...

(d) the time spent in detention...

These alone speak to the community interest.

How many times at justice committee and in the House have we heard, for example, the member for Wild Rose say that victims are never part of any determination by judges or lawyers in any of the discussions on criminal justice across the country?

I stand here today as a representative of a community where an 83-year-old veteran councillor had the sense to say that we did not have to deal with all the law. Sometimes we just had to turn the light on in the park and read the laws that exist. I wish the government had done that.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate at second reading of Bill C-25 to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This bill has two main purposes. First, it broadens the circumstances allowing for custodial remand and, second, it adds denunciation and the deterrence of crime to the principles of sentencing. In addition, Bill C-25 clarifies that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply.

I want to make it very clear from the beginning that this bill is very much in line with the Conservative ideology, which consists of punishing the offender rather than preventing the offence. We have become accustomed to seeing this from this government since the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

So that our listeners may fully understand the impact of Bill C-25, I will comment on each of the provisions included in the bill and explain how this bill reacts to a deplorable situation, rather than preventing it from occurring in the first place.

The first provision states: a judge must presume that the pretrial detention of a young person is necessary if the young person is charged with a violent offence or an offence that otherwise endangered the public by creating a substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm to another person; the young person has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences or conditions of release; or the young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt.

Those who are hearing this provision for the first time may consider the amendments appropriate and even logical since they refer to serious situations and offences. However, by transferring the burden of proof to the young person, the government is tampering with a fundamental feature of the justice system: the presumption of innocence. This is not the first time this government has tried to amend this aspect, but it must realize that we regularly see proof that not all charges lead to a guilty verdict.

In such a case, a youth who is detained before his trial and then is found innocent, will have experienced the often undesirable consequences of detention even though he did no wrong. In addition, because of the burden of proof on his shoulders, the youth will have to prove that he does not represent a risk even before being accused. The fact remains that we must avoid increased costs to communities to comply with the additional requirements. This logic is even more pertinent for those who are quite innocent but penalized by Bill C-25.

I have spoken often of the social and monetary costs of massive and preventive imprisonment in speeches on previous government justice legislation. Bill C-25 specifies that, henceforth, the sentence may have the objective of denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring one or more young persons from committing offences. Once again, anyone not very familiar with the law could find that this provision makes sense and would be a reasonable solution to a recurring problem. However, that is not the case at all.

This very ideological provision rejects the federal government's previous approach and runs directly counter to Quebec's traditional position. First, the fact that deterrence is not one of the objectives for youth sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act is revealing. Why? Because the federal government in power at the time resisted imposing punishment for the sake of punishment and wanted to address the root causes of crime. It sought to focus on the reintegration of youth, often called for by parliamentarians in Quebec's National Assembly. However, the Conservative amendment is attacking efforts to not marginalize youth who make mistakes and to not send them to prison, the university of crime.

I want to emphasize that Quebec has already taken a stand in this matter. With regard to young offenders, it has traditionally opted for an approach based on rehabilitation and reintegration, a position strengthened by the passage of time and the results achieved.

When the federal government passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, it was heavily criticized by the Quebec government for having ignored what Quebec had done in this area.

Specifically, the Government of Quebec felt that the new act undermined its approach, which is based on the reintegration of young offenders rather than on the seriousness of the offence. I remind the House that Quebec’s approach has enabled it to achieve the lowest rate of juvenile crime and recidivism in Canada.

Quebec has already challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in the act before the Quebec Court of Appeal in view of the inflexibility shown by the federal government toward Quebec’s own specific approach.

It is clear, therefore, that although Bill C-25 may seem reassuring, it actually harbours objectives that are injurious to individuals and to Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois was vehemently opposed at the time to the reform of the Young Offenders Act, deeming it worthless and even dangerous because of its likely effects on the long-term reduction of crime. At the very least, Quebec should have been exempted from it. Quebec should be allowed to pursue its own approach based on the needs of young people and emphasizing prevention rather than rehabilitation.

Getting back to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the government seems to have forgotten that the current act already permits the incarceration of violent young people who are at least 12 years old. It defines a young person as “a person who is…twelve years old or older but less than eighteen”. It also states unambiguously that incarceration should be the exception and judges should look first to extrajudicial measures before considering imprisonment.

It is obvious, therefore, that Bill C-25 is a backward step based on an unproven, punitive approach. What is worse, I remember that the former justice minister, my hon. colleague from Provencher, was toying with the idea of extending the act to include children as young as 10. How telling, Mr. Speaker, are the real intentions of this government.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is proposing an approach that is suited to the situation in Quebec and defends its fundamental interests, this time in regard to justice.

First of all, we firmly believe that prevention remains the most effective approach. We need to address the causes of crime. This means that we have to prevent crime instead of waiting to repair the damage after a crime has been committed. Not only is it the most effective approach, but we believe that it is also the most beneficial, both socially and financially.

It could not be any clearer. As I have said on previous occasions, we must first deal with poverty, inequity and all forms of exclusion. In fact, exclusion breeds frustration, which in turn can lead to violence and crime as an outlet for these frustrations.

In the context of Bill C-25, youth justice should not be an exception. Young people should benefit from a healthy environment, they should not be living in extreme poverty and they should have access to affordable education. In all these areas, Quebec has made choices that set it apart, and we support these choices. As I mentioned earlier, the approach chosen by Quebec is yielding good results, thereby proving the lack of merit of the ideological and sensationalist shortcuts proposed by this government.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is fully aware of the fact the young people commit crimes and that they must be brought to justice. It is the government's duty to use all the tools at its disposal to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians can live in peace and safety.

In this regard, the measures that are brought forward must have a real, positive impact on crime, an effort that goes beyond sheer rhetoric and fearmongering. We need more than a mere imitation of the American model, which is yielding unconvincing results.

Like my colleagues, I also deplore the lack of seriousness with which the Conservative government brings in amendments or measures that reflect on the foundations of our justice system.

In conclusion, Bill C-25 should have been more than a response to mere impressions.

It should build on what is already working well and also allow Quebec to continue—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The bill has two potential consequences to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, I want to focus on the possibility of a pre-trial detention for a young person. The bill also adds denunciation and deterrence of unlawful conduct to the act's principles in sentencing.

The New Democratic Party has concerns about these two elements and also the vacancy of other public policies to prevent crime and in particular issues facing youth.

Our party is supporting the bill. We are indicating though that we do want to see amendments prior to the bill being passed. These two issues are very significant and have several consequences that relate to youth and justice in our society. We believe that the bill in its current state does not address those issues.

I want to touch now on a couple of those issues. The first one is with regard to the first part of the bill which is a little bit different in the sense of treating young people and making sure that they are detained longer. At the present time the judicial system has that capability. What this legislation will do is codify existing practices.

The concern that the NDP has around this is that it could to some degree also take away the opportunity or impose a structure for judges that we believe would be a step backward. We think that this is one of the things that should be looked at.

As well, one of the things that is going to be happening with regard to this issue is really a deterrence as a principle of sentencing. This issue is very debatable in terms of the justice file right now and also in terms of how to prevent crimes and provide an opportunity for restorative justice.

I have spent four years and was involved in five programs with helping youth who were at risk. These youths either had some type of issue with regard to the law, committed crimes and were punished, or alternatively they were viewed at risk because they were out of school and unemployed. These youths were seen as persons who would eventually end up in those circumstances if they did not either decide to go back to school or find a job.

What I have found is that to this day those programs are not supported enough, not only in terms of the federal programs but also provincially. We heard some discussion about Quebec and that province deserves some kudos in terms of the way it has led the way in many respects in this country on making sure that youth and youth issues are looked at in a preventive style.

In my community it can be said that those programs, whether it is St. Leonard's House or New Beginnings, have been very successful because they were designed so that street level youth would have an opportunity to be able to turn their lives around.

Some of those programs I ran and still being run today. This was done with a philosophy of a small investment of the correct prevention strategy. The programs made sure that people had choices in front of them, as opposed to feeling that they had closed doors. This led to greater decision making and resulted in either finding employment or going back to school and obtaining the skills and training that would provide employment. What we see with Bill C-25 is a deterrence to sentencing.

The Supreme Court looked at this in Regina v. B.W.P. I want to read a small excerpt in terms of the discussion that came out of that decision, so people will understand what this mode is going to do. It said:

When general deterrence is factored in the determination of the sentence, the offender is punished more severely, not because he or she deserves it, but because the court decides to send a message to others who may be inclined to engage in similar criminal activity.

It is not necessarily what a person has done that is going to increase the sentence for a particular crime, but it is to send a message to others. This has generally been a philosophy adopted in the United States. Quite frankly, I am not sure that it has worked successfully there. Perhaps in some jurisdictions there may have been some modest improvements, but overall in terms of North America we actually have higher rates of incarceration of youth. One of the things that is interesting about this debate is that we do have some issues related to that in our own country.

One has to wonder whether that is going to be the way to ensure that youth are not going to make subsequent decisions or other poor choices that are going to lead to criminal activity and that will have consequences for them and society.

One can lay out programs and services like the ones I provided at the multicultural council or New Beginnings in my riding of Windsor West where individuals can be successfully unplugged from the wrong people they are hanging around or even from gangs. They can also be provided with a host of opportunities that undermine the person's attraction or so-called easy decisions at the moment that lead to poor choices and get them in subsequent trouble. They have the opportunity to turn things around.

These programs will not get to everybody. There is no doubt about that. There are some individuals who will have to face the justice system straight on. The fact of the matter is that this country has not done enough for the programs to make sure youth will make the right decisions.

I can think of a few individuals who went through the program in my riding. They had been involved with the wrong people and had been in and out of custody numerous times but, at the same time, when they were provided the stability of counselling, an opportunity to feel that they would be constructive in their place in society, as well as the economy, they became successful.

This is what I cannot understand. The government is not acting on those opportunities. It has talked about announced funding and so forth, but it has very rarely delivered.

This bill is not as comprehensive as it probably could be because there are some outstanding legal court challenges coming forth that will affect the way the government can go forward, but it is important to note that prevention still is not at the top of the order by the government.

The fact of the matter is there are supposed to be police officers in different municipalities and the government has yet to deliver on that. I recently spoke to the chief of police in my riding about this issue and there is still no support that was promised by this administration. It said it was going to put more police officers on the streets of this country and has yet to deliver on it.

That is interesting. The government makes these announcements, but they never come to fruition and it never delivers on them. The government does it in all kinds of fashions, whether it be this issue or other simple issues like infrastructure projects, where it does not sign agreements with its partners, be it the provinces or other municipalities, to get the money flowing.

These are problems because the government is not providing a vision on how we should move forward. We also lack the opportunity to uproot some of the most important issues that centre around youth criminal justice and that is to make youth feel that they are going to have a good future, engage in good choices and, most importantly, feel like productive members of society.

There are individuals who are going through troubled times in their lives and I have not even touched on the issue of mental illness and the lack of supports. In my province of Ontario there are individuals who are not getting the proper medical and psychological support which would enable them to maintain productivity in terms of being citizens and not engaging in activities that harm other individuals or making bad decisions that have significant consequences. This is really important. With every dollar that we put toward prevention, we can save double or triple that when it comes to incarceration later on.

This is an important bill. The act has been amended several times. It has been debated hotly politically, but at the end of the day we have to do something that is going to be an improvement for youth, so that those who have to go through our justice system, and create victims who are affected by these poor decisions, are going to receive the penalties through the justice system in a full and accountable way.

At the same time, the government and society have to do a lot more to provide opportunities to help youth make the right decisions or, if they have made wrong decisions and are willing to turn things around, have the opportunity to do so. That comes with support and a community that is inclusive.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his very relevant intervention. I would remind him that in May 2001, the National Assembly of Quebec called on the federal government to consider Quebec's approach. The text read:

That the National Assembly call on the Government of Canada to make provision within the criminal justice system for young persons for a special system for Quebec under the Young Offenders Act, in order to fully reflect its particular intervention model.

At that time, we will remember, the nation of Quebec had not yet been recognized in this House. A Bloc motion lead the debate on that issue, and the Prime Minister agreed to recognize it. The time has come for concrete actions to illustrate how this nation is different and today provides a very concrete way to do so. The Conservative Party needs only to recognize that the nation of Quebec wants a different model and that even if the rest of Canada wants a more Republican approach, modelled on the U.S. Republican Party's punitive approach, that is not the approach Quebec wants to take. If the concept of nation means anything, this would be a concrete way to prove it, and recognize that Quebec could have a different model.

Unfortunately, the Conservative party says one thing and then does another. For example: the nation was recognized, Bill C-25 is still being debated and there is no specific measure to allow Quebec to withdraw from its application. Quebec's approach has produced some interesting results. Youth crime is handled differently; rehabilitation is possible. We want that approach to continue.

Thus, we must be clear that we are against the approach in Bill C-25. In the past, there was an epic debate on this whole issue. Today, there are specific measures, but the federal government's attitude remains the same. Whether Liberal or Conservative, the government wants to impose the same repressive right-wing American model on everyone, while Quebec's model is exemplary and has been recognized. Earlier I heard some members from the Liberal Party of Canada cite it as an example.

I hope that we will come to recognize the background of this issue, the battles that have been fought and the way youth justice is applied in Quebec, so that this approach can continue to be used in that province. I also hope that the repressive approach in Bill C-25 will be dropped.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address this bill today. I remember a few years ago, when the Bloc Québécois fought an epic battle regarding the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Our justice critic at the time, Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, had tabled 3,000 amendments to the bill, and over 2,800 of those had been deemed in order. These proposed changes by Mr. Bellehumeur—who is now a judge—were based on the approach that has been in use in Quebec for several years.

Indeed, when it comes to youth justice, we must really promote rehabilitation. Young offenders must understand the consequences of the bad decisions that they have made, and of the actions that they have taken. They must realize that they did not do the right thing, and we have to help them reintegrate society and become good citizens again. We must avoid sending them to what is known as “crime school”, by slowly putting them on the path to penitentiaries, because these young people may then make inappropriate contacts and end up making the wrong choices. It has been demonstrated—again in the 2007 data—that Quebec's approach results in lower crime among young people, while there is an increase in all of the other provinces of Canada.

That was an epic battle indeed. In the end, we lost the vote in the House and the act was amended. However, a court ruling helped reduce the impact of the decision made by the federal government in office at the time, which was influenced by the American model and which felt that this was the way to go. Ultimately, the results achieved were not as bad as expected. However, the Conservative government is now going on the offensive again and wants to introduce measures that will again target youth behaviour, rather than focus on rehabilitation.

In that sense, the point of view the Bloc Québécois supports in this House is shared by all of Quebec. Our point of view is in direct opposition to the Conservative government's vision. Let us remember that the Minister of Justice said that children as young as 12 should be thrown in jail. Then we were told that the statement was being quoted out of context. However, the spirit in which this bill was tabled, the spirit in which they want it to be adopted, reflects the attitude that young people should be punished. According to this draconian policy, the justice system should punish young people, not rehabilitate them. The bill before us is not in line with choices that Quebec has made in the past. In Quebec, the crime rate has dropped.

For example, clause 1 of Bill C-25 states that the judge should presume that pre-trial detention is necessary if a young person is charged with a violent offence, has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences, or has been charged with a crime for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt.

This is the same line of thinking that motivated the government to impose mandatory minimum sentencing in all adult cases. They want to box young people in. That kind of attitude can have a very negative impact when it comes to youth crime. We have seen how Quebec's justice system works for minors, and it is important to have an approach that makes it possible to find real solutions that will result in the rehabilitation of young people, not the opposite.

The clause before us may seem appealing at first glance, but we have to take a closer look. By attempting to transfer the burden of proof to youths, the Conservative government is challenging a basic principle of the justice system, the presumption of innocence. As we have so often seen, charges do not necessarily result in a guilty verdict. Teenagers who are detained prior to trial, and who are then found innocent, will have been subjected to the awful consequences of detention even if they did nothing wrong.

With the presumption that is weighing on him, a young person will have to prove that he does not pose a threat to society even before being found guilty of an offence. Moreover, this will even have an impact on his day-to-day life. To his classmates, it will be as if the young person was found guilty before the fact, which is not necessarily a happy choice. In our opinion, this clause is not in line with the logic that should prevail on the issue of youth crime.

Clause 2 makes a major change in sentencing criteria. It states that, from now on, sentences can be aimed at denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring the young person and other young persons from committing offences. This seems benign in and of itself, but it is anything but. It represents a fundamental shift and goes against Quebec's traditional position. Moreover, the Supreme Court issued this opinion on this issue:

Parliament has sought preferably to promote the long-term protection of the public by addressing the circumstances underlying the offending behaviour, by rehabilitating and reintegrating young persons into society and by holding young persons accountable through the imposition of meaningful sanctions related to the harm done.

This is not the spirit of the bill before us. For that reason, we believe that we are right to be opposed to the bill as introduced.

According to the Supreme Court, the fact that deterrence is not among the objectives of youth sentencing is a very significant deliberate omission. We have found that the spirit in which the federal government acted is meeting with a great deal of opposition from stakeholders in Quebec who are concerned about the whole youth crime package. We would therefore like the federal government to reverse its decision and reconsider the issue so that the approach developed in Quebec can continue to apply appropriately.

Our fear is that Bill C-25 is merely the first step. It is not necessarily surprising to see the Conservative government put forward measures like the ones in Bill C-25. It is not very surprising, coming from a party that tolerates the fact that its Minister of Justice is so blinded by his ideological approach that he is contending that the only way to eradicate the supposed wave of youth violence is to increase public safety, restore public confidence in the justice system and sentence young people to prison, even children no older than 12.

The law currently states very clearly that incarceration should be an exceptional measure and that the judge must give priority to extrajudicial measures before incarcerating a youth. So it is obvious that the bill's proposed amendments to sections of the act go against the spirit of judicial intervention in this sector. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill should not be passed as is.

The former minister of justice said that it was acceptable to incarcerate young people aged 12 and up. At the time, there was a concern that this statement implied that the Conservatives' goal was to change the sentencing principles in the act to make incarcerating youth the rule, instead of the exception. Now we see that the minister did not make a mistake, but that this is the path the Conservative government wanted to take. This is why we will vote against Bill C-25 as it stands now.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House about the epic battle fought by Michel Bellehumeur, the member for Berthier—Montcalm at the time, which was supported by all the Bloc Québécois members. Our strength in that battle came from the fact that we had the support of all of Quebec.

The scope of Bill C-25 is much less broad, but it still has the same goal and would still have us copy the American model. The Bloc Québécois says no to this approach and it is representing Quebeckers on this issue.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from the Liberal Party comment on Bill C-25. First of all, this bill seems to be modelled on American practices. It leans more toward cracking down and getting tough on youth.

In Quebec, for many years now, we have been developing an approach focused more on rehabilitating and reintegrating youth. Some people do indeed commit serious crimes and must be punished, but our approach seeks to identify what these youth need. It does not necessarily criminalize them right away or send them to detention centres, and possibly to adult detention centres, as this bill would have us do. I do not believe that is a good way to rehabilitate and reintegrate youth.

I would like the hon. member to explain why this bill seems to be modelled on the American approach, when we know that the homicide rate in the United States is three times higher than it is here in Quebec and Canada.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in this House to speak to a bill as important as Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A few months ago, my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, especially the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the hon. member for Yukon, spoke in this House about the Liberal Party's serious concerns about the direction this government is taking by adding denunciation and deterrence as sentencing principles that a court may consider when imposing a sentence on someone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

In previous debates, the House has heard a lot of discussion around how the Youth Criminal Justice Act could be improved.

I think all members would acknowledge that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a significant improvement over previous legislation, the Young Offenders Act, for example. Legislation as important for the protection of the public, as the Youth Criminal Justice Act, from time to time needs to be examined, to be updated and to reflect the different circumstances that may lead Parliament in its wisdom to make amendments.

This bill proposes to do two things. It proposes to add denunciation and deterrence as sentencing principles that a court may consider when it imposes a sentence on someone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It also facilitates the use of pretrial detention in cases where a youth has committed a violent crime, has breached current conditions of release or has been charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable for a term of imprisonment for more than two years and has a history which would lead the court to conclude that there is a pattern of findings of guilt.

Those of us in the Liberal caucus, who have looked at the legislation, have concluded that the government has gone a considerable distance, and in a positive way, to deal with the breakdown in the system, particularly around pretrial detention of some of the most violent young offenders.

This aspect of the bill merits considerable approval in the House. It attempts to strike the right balance between protecting the public and also recognizing that the objectives of rehabilitation and integration are obviously important when dealing with a young offender.

Where we have some considerable difficulty, however, is with respect to the government's intention to introduce deterrence and denunciation as principles in sentencing of young offenders.

Many colleagues have spoken in the House about a report done in Nova Scotia by Justice Merlin Nunn, following a tragic incident in the province in 2004 involving the death of a woman, Theresa McEvoy, who was killed in her vehicle by a 16-year-old person joyriding in a stolen car at the time of this tragic incident. At the time, the particular young offender had been released by a court despite having 38 criminal charges filed against him.

In June 2005 the Government of Nova Scotia called a public inquiry to look at how the charges against that youth were handled and issues relating to why he was in fact released, which led to the tragic death of Ms. McEvoy. Justice Merlin Nunn was named by the Government of Nova Scotia to conduct this important inquiry.

Those of us in the Liberal caucus, who have spoken previously on the legislation, have urged the government not to simply cherry-pick from Justice Nunn's report, as it has attempted to do in the bill, but to look in a comprehensive way at all the recommendations made by this eminent Nova Scotia judge, who had extensive public hearings and who considered a wide range of issues. From our perspective, Justice Nunn made a number of very thoughtful recommendations to rebalance the legislation to deal with such difficult issues as pretrial detention of violent, repeat young offenders.

The bill focuses only on a partial response to some of the recommendations made by Justice Nunn.

In his report Justice Nunn talked about finding a better balance in the Youth Criminal Justice Act in terms of focusing on rehabilitation and integration. Justice Nunn does not believe that the concept of having denunciation and deterrence as important sentencing principles will lead to a better balance and to modernizing the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Conservatives are attempting to introduce these elements in sentencing, which to some extent import adult sentencing principles into youth criminal justice legislation.

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, dealing with adult sentencing, addresses the issue of proportionality. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has had a different set of values when considering sentencing, and we have some hesitancy in seeing the government move toward adult sentencing principles of the Criminal Code as they would apply to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

As I said a minute ago, of the two elements in the bill, there should be broad support, and certainly in our caucus, around the issue of pretrial detention, allowing the court to impose pretrial detention on some of the most violent, repeat young offenders.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision on June 22, 2006, said that deterrence and denunciation with respect to sentencing were not principles found in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The court's opinion was persuasive with respect to the need to focus on rehabilitation and reintegration when one was dealing with a young offender.

Many experts in the youth criminal justice field have expressed concerns that the two particular principles the government is attempting to import into this legislation have not proven to be effective in dealing with youth criminal justice matters.

Jail time for young offenders is obviously an issue that is very complicated. Many observers have said, and I think correctly, that it should be a last resort in incarcerating a young person. All too often prison time and jail time can be the best training ground for crime. Prisons have often been referred to as schools for criminal activity. As much as possible, young persons should be put into a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration in the community. We should not simply lock them up and throw away the key.

In his report Justice Nunn directs his attention very appropriately to the issue of jail time. He says, and I will quote from his report: “Many of these critics believe that jail is the answer: “There they’ll learn the error of their ways”. He goes on to say:

These critics pay little attention to contrary evidence, nor do they understand that [for a youngh person] jail [is often not recommended and] does not correct or rehabilitate, but rather often turns out a person whose behaviour is much worse than it was. Others espouse the vengeful adage “adult crime—adult time,” paying no attention to the fact that it is a youth crime and not an adult crime.

As debate on second reading continues, we will be listening and looking forward to making amendments at committee. We believe the other recommendations of Justice Nunn, which my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, identified in her speech, need to be added into the legislation.

The House resumed from November 26, 2007, consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first Thursday question of the year, I want to formally welcome everyone back to the House of Commons. Hopefully, we will be even more productive in 2008 than we were in 2007.

Judging by the first sitting day, I think we will be.

So far, the House has passed Bill C-8, on railway transportation, and Bill C-9, on the settlement of investment disputes.

Moreover, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act, and Bill C-27, on identity theft, have been referred to committee.

This is a rather good start.

We hope to keep up that level of productivity by quickly passing our legislation to strengthen the security certificates process, which started debate at report stage today. That is of course Bill C-3. We now have a House order to assist us in facilitating that debate. We will continue to debate the bill until report stage is completed.

While all members of the House do not understand the importance of the bill, I believe that the official opposition does. I hope that we can work together in a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship to have it passed before the date identified by the Supreme Court of Canada as the date by which it would like to see the law passed, February 23.

Following Bill C-3 tomorrow we will continue with the unfinished business from this week, namely Bill C-33, renewable fuels; Bill C-39, the grain act; Bill C-7, aeronautics; and Bill C-5, nuclear liability.

Next week will be a safe and secure Canada week.

Debates will continue until the bill is passed by this House.

After that, we will debate Bill C-25, which would strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory minimum penalties for producers and traffickers of drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children. We also hope to discuss the Senate's amendments to Bill C-13, on criminal procedure.

Finally, in keeping with next week's theme, I would suggest that my hon. colleague opposite explain to his colleagues in the Senate the importance of quickly passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act, the bill which is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians across the country, and which was the number one priority of the government throughout the fall session of Parliament and which passed this House last fall. It has already been in the Senate longer than its entire time in the House of Commons, yet the Liberal dominated Senate has not even started committee hearings on the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

While the elected accountable members of the House rapidly passed the bill, which I would like to remind everyone was a question of confidence, unfortunately it looks like the unelected, unaccountable Liberal dominated Senate is up to its old tricks again of delaying and obstructing in every way. Let me be clear. This government will not stand and allow Liberal senators to obstruct, delay and ultimately kill the bill. The Tackling Violent Crime Act was quickly passed in the House and Canadians expect the Liberal dominated Senate to act in the same fashion and pass it quickly.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my privilege to stand today to speak to Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse).

Members hear in their ridings over and over again the increased concern about young people who get involved with drugs. The government is so concerned about this that it has committed to respond to these concerns with a national anti-drug strategy and a reassessment of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Private member's Bill C-423 now before the House is a constructive and timely response to the problem of drug use among Canadian youth. Bill C-423 will support this effort to address the problem of substance abuse by youth through its proposal to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow police to refer youth charged with less serious offences to addiction specialists to determine if treatment is needed.

This measure will respond to concerns about youth who are tempted to use drugs, develop addiction problems and then engage in minor offences to pay for the drugs. How many of us in our ridings get calls from people who have been victims of young offenders who cause damage, steal, commit break and enter offences simply to get money to buy the drugs they have become addicted to? This is a common problem and one which all of us face.

The police, through section 6, have the authority to send youth, with their consent, to a program to reduce the chances of their repeating. Bill C-423 seeks to broaden this measure by giving police the power to send youth, with their consent, to a drug specialist who will recommend the necessary treatment.

The youth justice system has long had to deal with the challenge presented by troubled youth. Often young people charged with criminal offences face significant problems and find themselves marginalized in society. Their special needs do not absolve them from responsibility for criminal conduct, but it is important to ensure those needs, however severe or pressing, should not result in a greater sentence or criminal sanction than is justified by the offence committed.

As we have heard from other speakers on this bill, the whole issue of treatment is the emphasis. So often we do not emphasize it and instead talk about the penalties.

An important feature of the youth justice system itself is to address the needs through rehabilitative measures within the sentences and interventions that are proportional to the seriousness of the crime. Safeguards are in place to ensure the penalties imposed on a young offender do not result in a greater penalty because he or she has needs. It is therefore important to examine the measures set out in Bill C-423.

For example, there is a requirement in this bill that police take into account whether the youth has complied with the treatment program when considering whether to charge the youth for the original offence, to ensure they are fully consistent with the purpose and principles governing the use by police of the extrajudicial measures set out in the Young Criminal Justice Act. We need to ensure that this useful tool for police, which is aimed at helping youth who have substance abuse needs, is not subsequently subject to challenge.

Police will tell us how difficult it is for them to make arrests and take the offenders to court. They discover the court system is not able to deal with the offenders and the offenders are back out on the street the next day. We support providing police with the option of referring youth for help with the substance abuse services. This offers a more effective and meaningful response for youth with addictions and drug problems than facing criminal charges for petty crimes.

This government takes the concerns of Canadians about youth crime very seriously and is committed to strengthening the Young Offenders Act to ensure that our youth justice system is fair and effective in addressing the problems associated with youth offending. This government welcomes the efforts of the hon. member in tabling private member's Bill C-423 as one step toward strengthening the whole process.

Further, as the House knows, the federal Minister of Justice recently tabled Bill C-25, which will strengthen sentencing and pretrial detention provisions under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This government believes that solutions to the problems of youth crime will come through comprehensive approaches to the issue. All we have to do is attend some of the trials for young offenders to see that this whole review is so necessary.

We need a sound legislative base for our youth justice system. We will continue to work collaboratively with all of our partners to address the conditions that underlie youth offending. It is important to encourage equal standards among families, parents and those who are involved in the development of our youth.

Furthermore, this government will be launching a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the youth justice system in 2008 to ensure that our youth justice system fairly and effectively holds young offenders accountable for criminal conduct.

Bill C-423 should assist the police to link youth with the substance abuse services they need. I am proud to support this bill and congratulate the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont for taking concrete steps to help our youth who have become involved with drugs and are committing petty crimes.

We have many parents calling out to us for help. This bill is just one measure to try to help them with those young offenders.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to discuss the merits of the bill moved by my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. Bill C-423 is a bill that deserves the support of all parties in the House and, indeed, of every member.

I am extremely gratified to have heard the debate on this excellent bill thus far and am encouraged by the positive reception it has received on both sides of the House. This important piece of legislation has the potential to change the lives of thousands of Canadian youth. Each one of those young people represents a family, friends and a community. Early intervention may save those youth, families and communities from the heartache, pain and devastation caused by a life lost to drugs and criminal behaviour.

In a speech given earlier during debate on Bill C-25, I spoke of the many young Canadians I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking to in my time representing the constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga, young people full of promise with bright futures ahead of them. These youth represent the overwhelming majority of young people in Canada today. I have also had the occasion to meet with families of youth caught in a web of violence and crime and with the young people themselves.

What are the determinations that would cause a young person to choose one path over another? While undoubtedly there are many factors high on the list of causes, we would find drug use to be one of the chief contributing factors to subsequent violent criminal behaviour. Canada faces some serious drug problems, not the least of which is the growing number of our youth becoming involved with drugs at younger and younger ages.

In fact, in the Waterloo—Wellington region, according to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 2007 Ontario student drug use and health survey, 24.5% of students surveyed from grades 9 to 12 reported a drug use problem. All too often, one bad decision can lead a young person into a life of destructive behaviour.

The statistics on a drug such as crystal meth paint a chilling picture of a near instant addiction, with its subsequent devastation. I am quite certain that many of the young people who have ended up in this spiral of devastation had no idea of the future that awaited them.

In my riding, I hosted a forum on youth crime, which was attended by our Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean. In that meeting, we heard many stories of youth and families whose lives have been affected by drug abuse. It was clear that these stories would have had different outcomes had the capacity existed for earlier intervention.

The issues are clear. More needs to be done to combat drugs and their devastating effects on Canadian society. This government has listened to Canadians and we are working actively with them to respond to that.

This government believes that the most effective way to deal with complex issues is to first identify the most important priorities and then act decisively on them in order to achieve results. Our drug strategy establishes goals and priorities that are both clear and measurable.

Budget 2007 signalled that the government would be investing in a national anti-drug strategy. The strategy was formally announced on October 4 and provides new funding of $64 million over two years. It establishes a focused approach to address issues of illicit drugs and is based on three concrete action plans: $10 million toward preventing illicit drug use; $32 million to treat illicit drug dependency; and $22 million to combat illicit drug production and distribution.

This funding builds on existing programs and initiatives that are focused to meet the government's priorities. Let me summarize the three parts of our anti-drug strategy.

Number one is prevention. Our efforts in the area of prevention focus on youth and include community based drug use prevention programs and crime prevention initiatives as well as a public awareness campaign.

Number two is enforcement. The national anti-drug strategy will also target the production of drugs in Canada, including marijuana grow ops and clandestine labs. It will target those organized criminals who exploit our youth for profit and also exploit other vulnerable citizens.

Number three is treatment. The national anti-drug strategy places significant importance on developing new treatment options and improving the availability and effectiveness of treatment programs.

Half of the funds under the strategy are earmarked for treatment so that we can offer to those who have become addicted to drugs the help they need to get their lives back on track. It is under this priority that Bill C-423 falls.

As stated, this amendment will require that a police officer, before starting judicial proceedings or taking any other measures under the act against the young person alleged to have committed an offence, must consider whether it would be sufficient to refer the young person to an addiction specialist for assessment and, if warranted, treatment recommendations.

The public often views the police role only as one of enforcement. This government recognizes the excellent work that police do in the area of drug prevention and their broader contribution to dealing with community programs.

With the enactment of Bill C-423, police will also be encouraged to assist youth in conflict by referring those with drug problems to assessment for treatment programming.

Again, I remind the members of the House about a conversation I had with a constituent, to which I referred in an earlier speech. She was a mother who wanted her son to go to jail for a series of incidents, including a theft charge, so he could receive treatment for his drug addictions and be saved from a life of more serious crime.

The current Youth Criminal Justice Act makes no provision for someone in her son's predicament. She was told by the judge that his criminal record was not long enough for jail, so nothing was done. Several months later he found himself again before a judge, restrained in a straitjacket due to a drug-induced psychosis. At that point, finally, his record was long enough to merit addiction treatment.

This is unacceptable. Action is needed now. We have ignored these situations for far too long. Had Bill C-423 been law at that time, police would have had the ability to recommend drug treatment instead of judicial proceedings. He would have received the help he needed. This law will save lives.

The bill complements the national anti-drug strategy, which provides funding to the Department of Justice to support extrajudicial measures and treatment programs for youth in conflict with the law who have drug-related problems.

Funding is also directed to the RCMP to implement new tools to refer youth at risk to treatment programming and also to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to develop new treatment models for crystal meth use.

The government recognizes that the combined efforts of many will bring success in addressing our drug priorities. We are working with all those who are concerned about Canada's youth, both from the private and the public sectors and across different disciplines such as health, education and the justice system.

From a local perspective, in Waterloo region in my riding, organizations such as Ray of Hope, which runs youth treatment programs for youth aged 13 to 17 who are involved in addiction, are working to make a difference in the lives of vulnerable young people. Supporting Ray of Hope is a group of generous people, led by Steve Scherer of Kitchener, who have donated or pledged close to $6 million to build the Ray of Hope Youth Addiction Treatment Centre.

Police have long been a key resource in dealing with the drug problems facing our communities. We will continue to rely upon their key contribution under the national anti-drug strategy.

Bill C-423 recognizes the role that police can play in linking youth with drug and addiction problems to those who can help on the treatment front. It provides a valuable and additional tool to help youth overcome their problems and make our communities safer.

I am proud to be part of a government taking such active, real steps toward effecting positive change in the area of early intervention for youth at risk. I am proud to represent a riding where people are not only asking what can be done but are committed to making sure it gets done.

By working together, we can spare many young people and their families needless pain and trauma. By working together, we can save the lives of young Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this week's theme is getting the job done on justice and tax cuts. I am proud to say that our government got the job done on justice yesterday. The tackling violent crime act passed the House at third reading and the bill is now over at the Senate.

The government expects the Liberal dominated Senate to respect the will of this democratically elected House of Commons and quickly pass the bill, certainly before Christmas so Canadians can enter the new year safer and more secure in their neighbourhoods.

Today we will continue to get the job done on tax cuts by debating the budget implementation bill, which grants tax relief to all Canadians, especially by reducing the GST to 5%.

Next week will be economic certainty and prosperity week. Hopefully the budget bill will pass second reading this week so next week will begin with the Standing Committee on Finance considering it. The budget bill is an important part of our plan to provide economic certainty and prosperity for all Canadians.

The government hopes that the committee, once it receives the bill, will quickly review it and report it back to this House so it may proceed through the legislative process and receive royal assent before January 1, 2008. Canadians do not want to lose the reduction in the GST if parliamentarians fail to pass it into law before Christmas.

In this chamber next week we will continue to provide economic certainty and prosperity.

We will debate Bill C-23, to amend the Canada Marine Act, and Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Both bills will help create jobs and a dynamic Canadian economy.

We will also debate Bill C-30, establishing an independent tribunal to which superior court judges will be appointed, to help resolve specific first nations claims.

This will deliver greater economic certainty for first nations and all Canadians.

We will also debate Bill C-29, which modernizes how loans are made to political parties, candidates and associations and how those loans are treated under the Canada Elections Act. This will create greater certainty by closing a loophole in our current campaign financing rules.

If time permits, we will debate our bill to strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-25.

Finally, in response to the question from the opposition House leader, Thursday, December 6 will be an allotted day provided that we have achieved early passage of the budget implementation bill and associated tax reductions.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Now my question goes specifically to estimates and supplementary estimates.

Given all of the new justice legislation that this government has brought out to create minimum mandatory sentencing, changes in the determination of sentences for youth, etc., has the department begun to estimate on its own--for the drug cases that are federally prosecuted--and with the provincial and territorial governments the increased cost that this will mean to the administration of justice--the actual prosecution, the trial, the cost to public corrections services? Has that been costed out? If these pieces of legislation, whether it's Bill C-26, on controlled substances, or Bill C-25, on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, are actually implemented as they were tabled, what will the cost be?

If so, please bring it to us through the chair.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your appearing before the committee today. It's been a great discussion so far on legal aid, but I would like to change the channel for a second, if you don't mind.

In my constituency, obviously, there are some issues involving youth crime, and I'd like to ask some questions along that line.

In the House of Commons right now, the government has tabled Bill C-25, which will amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Parts of the bill deal with deterrence and denunciation and some of the principles involved in sentencing. The bill strengthens provisions relating to pre-trial detention, as well. I'm just wondering if you can explain, for the benefit of this committee, what's been done in the department, as far as financing or budget allocations are concerned, to help prevent youth violent crime.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will answer for myself. I wanted to ensure that I could give the speech today in the House. The member will have to watch to see how I vote when the bill comes concludes at third reading and how I will vote on Bill C-25 as well.

I have spent too many years of my life working to try to create safer communities than to be in agreement with a bill that does so much to hurt communities, destroy young and older people and not make our communities safer.

Once again, if the Conservatives want to fight crime and really reduce it, listen to the chiefs of police and do it through social development. It comes from that.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the previous speaker for his speech and his understanding when it comes to dealing with crime and how to actually lower the crime rates.

I dare say that the scope of the bill is problematic. It troubles me, because instead of dealing with legislation one piece at a time, it puts a number of them together, some of which are good, but some of which are very offensive. Certainly that is not the way a minority Parliament should function, nor is it the way the Prime Minister when he was the leader of the official opposition said that a minority Parliament should function.

The member mentioned the study “Unlocking America”. I used to be involved with an organization called, Youth In Conflict With The Law. It was named after the proposed youth in conflict with the law act which ended up being the Young Offenders Act. I started working with that organization in 1976 after I left university. One of the focuses we had was to try to deal with offenders within the context of the community and to do as much as we could at the community level to create a safe and secure community. One of our mottos was that crime and justice is a community responsibility.

For all the reasons mentioned by the previous speaker and documented in “Unlocking America”, getting tough on crime does not work. In “Unlocking America” nine leading U.S. criminologists and sociologists who have spent their careers studying crime and punishment did an exhaustive study. They pointed out that the approach of getting tough on crime, building more jails and incarcerating more people, just does not work. It might make great television and it might make great news in the tabloids, but it is an approach that just does not work. It ends up being very expensive. Beyond being very expensive, it ends up being very destructive.

Bill C-2 is one bill, but another one which will be coming forward is Bill C-25 which deals with young offender legislation. I find it very frightening that under this particular bill, unfortunately, people who go into the system as young offenders can end up in the penitentiary system, not for committing a great deal of crime in the community, but for reasons such as committing a crime within the institution itself.

Numerous people came forward at the committee hearings on this bill. One of them was Dr. Anthony Doob, a criminologist from the University of Toronto, who very clearly showed that the perception of crime in many ways is driven by the media and by politicians who want to exploit the fear of crime and does not truly have that great a basis in reality.

In his studies, Dr. Doob asked the people in one control group for their reaction to headlines from tabloids. Dr. Doob gave another control group transcripts of the trial. Dr. Doob found that in cases where people had the information, they had read the transcripts and understood the judge's reasoning, they either agreed with the judicial sentence, or thought that the judicial sentence was too harsh. This was in total contrast to those in the group that received their reports on crime from the media, from the tabloids, or from television programs.

The media love to tell about the goriest crimes that have occurred in the local community, or in the country. But if there is nothing in Canada, then they will look to the United States, and if there is nothing there, then they will look to any continent on the planet for their special diet of criminal activity. These reports frighten people. Usually they hear these reports just before they go to bed at night.

It has often occurred to me that those folks and politicians who engage in that kind of fearmongering are victimizing a large number of people. People begin to believe that the relatively safe community they live in is much more dangerous than it is. That is not right. Parliamentarians and political parties should not be engaged in that kind of fearmongering.

Another individual who made a presentation was Kim Pate, who is with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Unfortunately, Kim did not have enough time to talk at committee, but she did talk at length about the challenges faced by inmates who suffer from mental health problems in the federal institutions. She also talked about the over-representation of particular minority groups that are incarcerated. In Canada there is a disproportionate number of aboriginal people incarcerated. This raises some very troubling questions. Miss Pate also talked about the number of institutional charges that will be put on somebody entering the system, to the point that the individual, for whatever he or she has done in the institution, could be declared a dangerous offender.

Today I talked about Ashley Smith, a young woman who was due to be released from prison today. She was sentenced in New Brunswick as a young offender at the age of 15. She took her life on October 19 in an isolated jail cell at the Grand Valley federal institution in Kitchener following an extensive period of solitary confinement. Four correctional staff at Grand Valley were charged with criminal negligence causing death. One correctional staff member at the Saskatoon Regional Psychiatric Centre has also been charged with assault.

Ashley's tragic death has raised a number of troubling questions that must be answered. How did a young girl struggling with mental illness, incarcerated as a young offender, end up, through excessive institutional charges, in federal correctional facilities thousands of kilometres away from home? What can be done to improve the way we deal with offenders so that we minimize the recurrence of such tragedies? When will we learn as a society that it is more feasible to invest in community safety and crime prevention programs than to pursue draconian laws that incarcerate more and more people at the expense of public safety? I underline at the expense of public safety.

The “Unlocking America” report makes the point that over-charging, which has occurred in the United States, has done absolutely nothing to bring down the crime rate. It has done everything to destroy families and communities and to perpetuate discrimination. This has been going on much too long.

In talking about crime prevention, I will come back to my community, the Waterloo region. We have been working on community based crime prevention since 1978. Next year we will be hosting the 30th annual justice dinner. We will bring in speakers on how to improve public safety through social development in our community.

We are not the only community that says this is the way it should be done. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police talks about creating public safety and reducing crime, not through the hiring of more police officers, not through building more jails and not through hiring more jail guards, but through social development that addresses the root causes of crime.

In 1993, following on the excellent work of a Progressive Conservative government, the justice committee, with Mr. Horner as chair, produced what is known as the Horner report. The Horner report called upon the government to fight crime through social development.

My community took up that challenge at that time and we created the Waterloo region's Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council. The very first chair of that council was Larry Gravill, the chief of police.

The membership of the council includes all the social service organizations, local governments, non-governmental organizations involving criminal justice, the crown attorney's office and the police force. We worked collaboratively on how the community could address the root causes of crime.

Over the years many other folks have come forward to chair the council, be they from the school board, local government or the Children's Aid. The last chair we had for the committee was Matt Torigian, and he has been appointed and designated as the new police chief in Baden.

Surely that approach is much more preferable to the approach that is put forward in the bill, particularly on the mandatory minimums and the designation for dangerous offenders.

An interesting thing I did in my questionnaire was to ask whether we should have the traditional Conservative neo-con approach to fighting crime, or whether we should do it through social development. I am happy to say that two to one, the citizens in my community want to fight crime through social development.

I mentioned that the neo-cons like to put out wrong information and try to tell untruths. I will give an example. The member for Kitchener—Conestoga put out a householder where he said, and I will be quite willing to table it--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I will be brief. Since we are going beyond the estimates and talking about the government's philosophy as shown in a number of bills, I would like to ask you three quick questions.

Do you think most people in this country agree that when a Canadian or a Quebecker commits a crime outside the country, even a serious crime, that they may be subject to the death penalty and that the Canadian government, which claims to be passing bills that uphold the rule of law and a democratic ideal will refuse to repatriate the individuals to serve their sentence here and thereby avoid the death penalty? How does that square with your ideal of the rule of law and the values that a government should be promoting? It is quite difficult to understand the new approach your government is taking in this regard, and it is actually most disturbing. Of course, we are not trying to minimize the seriousness of the offences that were committed, but the death penalty is barbaric. Your responsibility is in no way removed because it is practised abroad rather than in Canada.

Furthermore, there was something that bothered me a little in the remarks you've been making here today. You seem to think that you have the support of a majority of Canadians. I think we should remind you, minister, that less than 40% of Canadians supported you, and that at least 60% of Quebeckers do not support either your election platform nor the vision behind it. Of course, that does not make you a less legitimate minister, but when I and my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois speak in the House of Commons, we do have an alternative vision. I never receive the mandate from my constituents to defend the vision of the criminal justice system that underlies Bill C-25, which is based on increased use of preventive detention and the deterrent principle. Quite the opposite is true.

You will recall that the National Assembly took a stand against this particular vision. We will see how things turn out, but I think we must bring you back to reality: your government is a minority government, and 60% of Canadians and Quebeckers do not subscribe to your vision. A number of people are pleased that you are not a majority government, and I think, with all due respect, that you should include me in that group.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for appearing here today on the estimates.

There's been a lot of discussion amongst committee members and by you on our government's legislative agenda regarding the criminal justice system.

I guess, Minister, you're in a unique position, because you are able to travel the country quite a bit talking about justice issues. Could you provide the committee with some of the feedback you're hearing from Canadians?

In my province of New Brunswick, in my riding, youth justice—youth crime—is a big issue. The provisions that have been introduced in Bill C-25—I've certainly had an opportunity to hear some feedback from my constituents—are well received. They also feel that it's striking the right balance.

Could you comment a bit on what you're hearing from Canadians, but also on the need for balance? You spoke a bit about preventative measures and helping people get out of a life of crime or of going down the wrong road. I think Bill C-25 strikes that balance. I also think Bill C-26, on tackling the problem we have with drugs in this country, strikes that balance.

So could you comment a bit on what you're hearing, but also on the need for you as a minister to strike the appropriate balance in legislation?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Two pretty decent guys.

In my own constituency I've had town hall meetings where people have come and talked about youth criminal justice, and they want to see some changes, but they also know that we have to do the prevention and the rehabilitation as well, that dealing with young people after they've committed a crime is only one piece of that.

So we come to this place. Last Thursday I spoke on Bill C-25 and outlined the same sorts of things I had mentioned earlier. In principle, there's a lot in the bill that I can support. I have some concerns about picking and choosing from the Nunn report. I have some issues, but this is an important piece of legislation. It took your government almost two years to bring something forward in youth criminal justice and after one day your House leader says we're delaying. That is after one day in debate, after waiting for two years. And you talked today about expeditiously moving these forward.

What do you consider to be expeditious, and what do you consider the role of Parliament to be?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Minister, it was interesting, today the agenda on the order paper in the House started off with Bill C-2, and it was moving on to Bill C-25 and Bill C-26. We were expecting to debate those things in the House today, but unfortunately the Bloc brought in a concurrence motion and is blocking and stymying that debate.

I know it's a frustrating thing for my constituents and for many people who want to see the law and order agenda move forward. It's certainly a disappointment that it's not being moved forward today in the House.

I'll just give you a little bit of context for my questions on aboriginal justice. Hobbema is in my constituency, and of course there are a lot of issues in the Hobbema First Nation, in the four bands there.

I'm just curious about the perspective you brought up about the aboriginal justice and some of the youth crime prevention strategies. I understand that the mandate for the aboriginal justice strategy ended March 31, 2007. I notice from the supplementary estimates that the Department of Justice is requesting $3.69 million for the aboriginal justice strategy, and that's in addition to the $14.5 million over two years from Budget 2007.

I'm wondering if you can explain to me why that amount is needed, where it's going, and what importance and relevance that aboriginal justice strategy has.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak on Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. With this debate, I feel as though I am reliving some previous debates we had here in the House of Commons. A few years ago, the Bloc Québécois waged a strong offensive against the then Liberal government regarding the Young Offenders Act. I remember that my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, Michel Bellehumeur, who was the Bloc Québécois justice critic, voiced what the legal community and the National Assembly were calling for. What is more, my colleague defended the Quebec model against the repressive model put forward by the federal government at the time. We were proposing and defending rehabilitative and preventive approach.

Essentially, quite apart from Bill C-25, the real problem lies there. Before we debate the bills we should adopt in the House of Commons, we need to take a long, hard look at the approach and the model we are using when, in our justice system, some people, groups and governments are trying to shift the burden of proof to adolescents and use pretrial detention, with the effects that can have on adolescents. That is where the problem lies.

Quebec made a choice to work with adolescents. It decided not to simply view detention as the only way to respond to acts that could be criminal, but to bring together social stakeholders who work with our young people and involve educators and families so that young people can have a healthy environment. If adolescents do things that are not acceptable, it is because they are being seriously affected by various social problems. It is because they are in an environment where poverty is a reality for them. It is because young people are having more and more difficulty in finding jobs. It is because they feel they have no future.

When these young people commit a wrongdoing, it is because there is a fundamental problem, a societal problem upstream. What do we have here to deal with this situation? We have a government which is using the stick to deal with these social issues, with the problems relating to youth employment, or with the deadlock that young Quebeckers and Canadians are facing. We must ask ourselves whether this is the proper approach to put young people back on the right track. We, on this side of the House, do not believe it is.

We believe that rehabilitation and prevention must prevail. Inequalities are getting worse. Delinquency is becoming a way of life for an increasing number of young people. The exclusion of young people in the workplace, and in their environment, is becoming a major issue. Rather than coming up with a justice system that uses the stick against young people, we should provide adequate assistance to this generation, whose members often no longer hold any hopes.

What we are promoting today is a model that has proven successful, that has allowed us to have a homicide rate that is three times lower than that of the United States.

Of course, because we read major newspapers, every now and then we see that some young people committed a wrongdoing. In fact, what the federal government is trying to implement here in Canada is an approach similar to the one used in the United States, whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated.

For example, the homicide rate is three times higher in the United States than it is here, in Canada. So, did this approach based on repression help improve the situation? Of course not.

It is the same thing with violent crimes committed by young people. It is true that, in Quebec, the latest figures for 2006 point to an increase in violent crimes committed by young people. However, that is the only such data. All the other available data show that this type of violence is not increasing. Come to think of it, the government's approach is not aimed at the proper group.

What is the purpose of Bill C-25? According to clause 1, a judge must presume that the pretrial detention of a young person is necessary if:

1(2)(a) the young person is charged with a violent offence or an offence that otherwise endangered the public by creating a substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm to another person;

1(2)(b) the young person has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences or conditions of release; or

1(2)(c) the young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt—

What is the government trying to accomplish with clause 1? Two things. First, it is trying to use presumption against young people and transfer the burden and the responsibility to them even though the problem is a genuine, social one.

Second, the bill seeks pretrial detention of adolescents even though we know that trials often result in not guilty verdicts. Adolescents would be kept in jail even though the verdict could turn out not to be a guilty one. Imagine the impact of that on adolescents in their formative years.

The battle we are fighting today over Bill C-25 is the same battle my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm fought several years ago over the Young Offenders Act.

In conclusion, we are defending the Quebec model here, a model that promotes prevention and the rehabilitation of our young people, as opposed to the federal government's approach, which is about repression and detention, and which is not at all the approach that should be used when young people need help.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and take part in this debate on Bill C-25. Some excellent points have been brought up through the course of this debate. I hope to add to them.

I bring to the debate 25 years of experience in coaching and working with young people through recreational activities as a former recreation professional. I am comfortable in speaking to the fact that the vast majority of the young people I had an opportunity to work with were very good young individuals. They were fairly focused. They understood the difference between right and wrong. For the most part, they just wanted to make their way in this world and find their own place and in some way try to contribute to whatever they were involved in at the time.

Unfortunately, a lot of these average young Canadians might make a bad decision on occasion. They could be with the wrong group on a particular night or in the wrong place at the wrong time, or whatever the circumstances might be, and sometimes the results are not great. However, I have known a number who have benefited from the current approach to dealing with youth crime.

The Young Offenders Act was improved upon by the legislation brought forward through the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but again we stand here tonight to try to improve it. I am comfortable in saying that the Youth Criminal Justice Act was an improvement over the Young Offenders Act, but there are gaps. There are aspects that certainly deserve to be looked at again and improved upon so we can better deal with these particular issues.

I think crime changes from community to community. Some of my colleagues from urban areas have spoken about their experiences. There is not as much gang related crime in rural areas, not that this is a youth crime, but we do see our share.

We have been very active in my own community in Cape Breton--Canso. The Cape Breton Regional Municipality and the police services board, under the direction of Dave Wilson and Myles Burke, have done an excellent job.

The past chief, Edgar MacLeod, just recently stepped down. He was a leading advocate in this country for community based policing. He did a tremendous amount of work in community based policing and had a very solid line in with the youth of our community. I know that went a long way toward finding out the needs, the wants and the concerns of the youth in our community. I think that is at least the beginning of communication with young people at risk. It is a positive step.

These individuals are to be commended for their efforts.

Our justice critic, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, joined us in Cape Breton, where we sat down with a number of different stakeholders to talk about some of the issues around youth criminal justice and other justice activities. What we heard from most of the stakeholders is that when we are talking about youth, the Nunn report, which has been referred to during the course of the debate, has very significant measures that can go a long way toward ratifying some of the gaps in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

All of us here in the House know of the terrible tragedy of Theresa McEvoy, a 52 year old mother who lost her life when a 16 year old offender drove his car into hers. It was a terrible tragedy and it was significant because just two days before it happened he had been released from custody.

The young offender had 36 charges against him at the time, but the courts could not hold him. There was miscommunication on the part of those doing the administering, but nonetheless, the officials did not believe they had the power to keep this young person incarcerated, so he was on the streets and that terrible tragedy occurred.

In June 2005 the Nunn commission was struck. Eighteen months later, it delivered its report. I want to read from the report for members. As I have said, the Youth Criminal Justice Act does serve the vast majority of young people in this country very well. Those young people who come in contact with our legal system are very well served by the act. Mr. Justice Nunn said in the report that the act:

--has been highly successful in the manner in which the vast majority of youth is handled....

The challenge is whether the [Youth Criminal Justice Act] in its present form is adequate to deal with that smaller number of repeat offenders that the justice system is concerned with on a regular basis.

Much credence was given to this report. It was an excellent report as it was tabled, but also, there was input from those who deal with those issues on a day to day basis. I want to put this on the record as well. This is a comment from Mr. Justice Nunn's report:

--I must make it absolutely clear and not open to question that all the witnesses I heard--police, prosecutors, defence counsel, and experts--agree with and support the aims and the intent of the act. They accept it as a vast improvement over the previous legislation. All are convinced it is working well for the vast majority of young offenders, though it needs to be fine-tuned to provide effective means to handle the smaller, but regular number of repeat young offenders.

The two issues that are identified more specifically and which we hear about the majority of time when we speak with stakeholders are violent offences and of course repeat offences.

With regard to the violent offences, Justice Nunn boiled it down. His concern was pretrial detention. His concern was that the Youth Criminal Justice Act went too far in restricting any pretrial detention. In order to strike a balance between the rights of young offenders and public safety, he recommended that the definition of “violent offence” be changed to include “endangerment to the public”. That is significant. I am sure that we on this side can support that. His recommendation was the change in that context.

The other issue was repeat offenders. I want to talk about repeat offenders because again we go back to the classic adage that a few apples spoil the whole bunch. I do not think that is uncommon, but the recommendation that came from Justice Nunn, and I know that we on this side can support it, is:

--that the federal government should amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that the requirement for a demonstrated “pattern of findings of guilt” is changed to “a pattern of offences”....

In this case, I believe the young man who was involved in the McEvoy tragedy probably would not have been out had that change already been made to the legislation. I hope we will see that as this goes forward.

I believe this legislation as put forward today should go to the justice committee. We should hear expert witness testimony and then it should be brought to the House for a vote. We certainly support the movement of the legislation to committee.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say. I have a specific question for her. There is talk of repression and deterrence with young offenders.

I would like my colleague to explain something. I heard her say that she was from the greater Toronto area. Our Conservative friends tell us that Toronto has a street gang problem, and I would like to understand. Has my colleague experienced this problem? Does she think Bill C-25 could solve the problem of street gangs in the Toronto area?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand before you today and speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It is an act that is extremely important to many of my constituents in Brampton--Springdale. When we take a look at the recent deaths of youth in my riding, they have caused extreme fear, angst and anguish among those living in our community.

As one of the fastest growing cities in the country, Brampton has become a true symbol of hope for so many. However, the recent deaths of youths across Brampton have left many feeling shocked, dismayed and with a feeling of profound sadness. From youth who have been killed by gangs to people dying as a result of drunk drivers, families not only in Brampton but across Canada are suffering.

Many constituents in my riding have written to me to express their frustration about these senseless acts of violence. They, like many Bramptonians, are calling on the federal government to take a stand against the violence that is plaguing our communities.

What we need is a comprehensive crime strategy, one that commits to putting more police officers on our streets, more prosecutors in the courts, and protecting the most vulnerable, our children and seniors. We must ensure that our police officers have the resources and tools that they need to do their jobs, and we must demand that government bring forward legislation which will make people think twice about their actions.

However, in talking to many of these constituents and Canadians across the country, one realizes that the answer to fighting crime is not the republican or the Bush strategy of locking everyone up and throwing them in jail.

To ensure the safety of all Bramptonians, we need an effective program to fight crime, one that has input and involvement from our young people. Spending money today on skills training and providing youth with opportunities is going to ensure that if we combine that with strategies to fight crime, it will actually prevent it. It will be money that is saved in the future on putting people in prison.

We need to listen to the youth of Canada. To help jump-start this process in my own riding of Brampton--Springdale, I have created a youth advisory council which will provide student representatives from all the schools in Brampton--Springdale an opportunity to speak openly and directly to their elected officials and community organizations on issues that matter to them, on issues of violence, gangs, and drugs in their schools and neighbourhoods.

It is my hope that this youth advisory council will empower students, community members and elected officials to take a stand against violence, the violence which we are discussing in this particular act today. The youth advisory council will work closely with all stakeholders and organizations to discuss strategies that will actually prevent crime, initiatives to create a safe city and rehabilitate criminals.

The Liberal Party has been trying to put an end to violence in our neighbourhoods by offering to fast-track many of the pieces of justice legislation. Unfortunately, many of these bills have not moved forward. In fact, last fall, we offered our support to the government for fast-tracking six of these criminal justice bills, but unfortunately, rather than accepting our offer, it chose to only fast-track one of the bills.

These delay tactics have resulted in Canadians having to live without effective legislation. We need to put aside political gamesmanship. We need to put aside political partisanship and ensure that we get results for the people that we are representing.

We acknowledge that the Youth Criminal Justice Act has been a significant improvement over the old young offenders legislation, and we now see that there are gaps in the legislation, specifically with respect to repeat violent youth offenders. We must address these gaps, but we must ensure that this bill is not undermined by any of these amendments that are being brought forward today.

We have been stating for some time that the Conservatives need to look at the report that was issued by Justice Nunn in Nova Scotia for reasonable reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address the problem of repeat youth violence. We believe that Justice Nunn, who led a public inquiry on this issue, actually struck the right balance with the recommendations that he provided.

Some of the changes that are being proposed in this particular bill today are actually similar to the recommendations made by Justice Nunn.

However, there are some changes that are contained in the bill which have not been supported by nor come from Justice Nunn. We need to ensure that the changes brought forward actually concern a judge's ability to detain repeat violent offenders pre-trial.

We must ensure that when we talk about this bill and the amendments being brought forward that there is the right balance to achieve the goals to prevent youth violence across the country. In particular we take a look at this bill and realize that the Conservatives are attempting to reintroduce deterrence, a sentencing principle which many experts across the country have warned is a mistake.

Martha Mackinnon of Justice for Children and Youth, a legal aid clinic for low income youth, has stated that the Conservatives are addressing a perception that has actually been exacerbated by politicians and the media. She has criticized the government's move to bring back general deterrence for youth and has pointed out that there is no evidence that deterrence works for young people.

It has been said that this bill ignores many of the important concerns Canadians have about legislation which is going to be fair and adequate and which is actually going to produce results. Canadians and Bramptonians are looking for real leadership when it comes to fighting crime in Canada.

We need to have a comprehensive and integrated strategy that talks about the root causes of crime. We need to have a strategy which is comprehensive and talks about the rehabilitation of those who have committed crimes. We need to ensure that we provide assistance for those who are the victims. It is only going to be by putting aside our partisanship and our gamesmanship that we are going to ensure that we have legislation which is fair and adequate, and ultimately produces results for our end goal, which is to help the children of Canada.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to continue this discussion on Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

This bill, rather surprisingly, only amends two parts of the legislation. In particular, it adds deterrence and denunciation to the principles that a court must consider when determining a youth sentence, but it also clarifies the presumption against the pretrial detention of a young person and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply.

In a sense, it is very surprising that after all the bluster and the controversy that we have heard for years from the government and the government party, the Conservative Party, about youth crime and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, this is the kind of legislation that it brings forward. It is such an incredibly limited piece of legislation. It is very surprising, given all the chest thumping and the controversy that has been created over the years, to see this proposal when it finally comes forward being so very limited in scope.

Generally, the principle that young people should be treated differently in our criminal justice system is one that has a very long history in our legal system. It is something that has been established for at least 150 years. It has gone on for that length of time without any serious challenge. I think it is something that we have to maintain in this day and age as well. I do not see any reason that we should turn our backs on that important principle. Certainly it has been part of the legislation in Canada that deals with young offenders over the years. It was a feature of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, it was a feature of the Young Offenders Act and it is certainly a feature now of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

We have adopted wholeheartedly in this country that youth should be treated differently in our criminal justice system. I believe that has served us well. We have had success in changing the lives of young people who have been in trouble with the law. That is something we should continue to work at and not abandon. The whole question of rehabilitation of young people is one that merits emphasis in our criminal justice system and through the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

There are people who would suggest, and often they sit on the Conservative benches, young people should be treated like adults in our criminal justice system, even with some specific crimes.

If we are going to move in that direction, it would seem to me that we have to give those young people similar responsibilities in other areas of their lives, not just the onerous responsibility of facing the full adult penalties of the criminal justice system, but the responsibilities of full citizenship in other areas like, for instance, lowering the voting age. We should make sure that voting and criminal responsibility are at the same level. I do not know that there are many people in the Conservative corner who would consider that kind of proposal. So, I think it is very important that we maintain the principle that youth should be treated differently in our criminal justice system.

That being said, there are issues related to youth crime that we need to address. Overall, in the last 20 years youth crime has declined and continues to decline. We have seen it decline at least 12% to 15% over the last 20 years. I think that is the result of good legislation in this area. The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a good piece of legislation.

There is concern at the moment about serious violent crime involving the use of guns and other weapons. That is something we are all concerned about. However, the reality is that overall, youth crime is going down, and it shows the effectiveness of the current legislation.

We do not know why there has been a spike in violent crime at this moment in time. Often there are those kinds of fluctuations in crime rates in specific crime areas, so it does merit our attention, but to overthrow the whole youth criminal justice system I do not think would be appropriate in that case. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has had the effect of lowering the crime rate among our youth since it came into effect.

There are other things we could be doing to address the whole issue of crime in our society. Certainly, policing and enforcement is one of the aspects that we should always look at when we are considering trying to reduce crime in our society. Unfortunately that is one area where the government has not kept its promise. More police officers have been promised and yet there has been no follow through on that promise yet.

We know that the opportunity for police to build relationships with young people is a very effective way of reducing youth crime and reducing crime generally in our communities. Certainly the work of police officers that are attached to schools in community policing demonstrates that very clearly.

There are other things that we should be pursuing. Certainly a restorative justice system would also go some way to ending recidivism in our criminal justice system. We know that whenever we incarcerate young people we are basically sending them to a school where they get more training in how to be offenders. We see that all through our criminal justice system but I think it is particularly true of young people. Anything we could do that helps young people understand their responsibility for the crimes that they have committed but keeps them in the community and builds relationships and restores relationships in the community is an important step to take.

Restorative justice programs have been shown to reduce recidivism by almost half. That is a very important example of how we should be moving and the kind of programs that we should be putting in place.

I have had the opportunity to participate in a restorative justice program after an act of vandalism at my house, albeit a very minor criminal infraction. I was very impressed with the way that worked to restore the relationships that had been altered by that and how elders from the aboriginal community, my partner, our neighbours and I all worked to see those relationships restored and responsibility taken for the actions of the young person involved. It was a very moving process, I have to say.

When we went in, we hoped that at the end of the process we would be able to see the young person as another one of our neighbours and greet that person on the street because a relationship had been restored despite his actions on my property. I think that we actually accomplished that.

I think there is something very positive to be said. Certainly the evidence from Quebec, which has spent a lot of time on restorative justice programs, has been very dramatic in terms of the positive outcomes of those programs. They are ones that we could a emulate across the country.

Sadly, in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas, there are people who would like to establish a youth restorative justice program, but there just is not money available to do that, either from the provincial government or from the federal government. This is certainly one place where we could stand to have a significant increase in funding, given the success of these programs for our communities in reducing crime and re-establishing relationships.

We know that incarceration does not do young people many favours. Canada does have a very high youth incarceration rate, one of the highest in the western world.

Just to wrap up, I want to say that I do not see the bill as changing very much. It does not change judicial discretion around pretrial release and in fact it only enshrines in law the current practices of the criminal justice system. We also know that deterrence and denunciation are not particularly effective when it comes to reducing crime overall and certainly that should be the goal of our criminal justice system.

I am not sure what the big deal is about this bill. Perhaps it merits more discussion at committee, but I would not want to see us fiddle in a very significant way with our youth criminal justice system because I think it is serving us well. That is not to mean that there could not be improvements made, but I think we are being well served.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-25, which I think responds to a very significant need in the country and certainly responds to a demand for action from many people in my own constituency of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour.

I can indicate certainly my support in principle for the bill. I think there are some significant things in the bill that need to be changed or added to, specifically in terms of how Justice Merlin Nunn's recommendations were used or not used. I think there is enough good in the bill that we need to send it to committee for further discussion.

Crime is a huge issue for Canadians. Probably there are not that many places in the country where it is more of an issue than it is in my own community of Halifax, more specifically Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. I have had the opportunity to meet with very many constituents of mine who have come to see me specifically about the incidence of crime. Quite often it is youth crime, but not always, and perhaps it is even exaggerated a little. Nonetheless, it is a big issue with a lot of people who live in my area, just as it is for people across Canada.

I met not too long ago with the Smythe family, whose son was bullied and then beaten up very badly. They do not feel they have the protection they need as a family to deal with the circumstances that their son, through no fault of his own, found himself in. He was beaten up and is now back in school walking the same halls as the perpetrators of that crime.

I think there is a moral responsibility upon governments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, to make sure that people feel safe in their communities. Right now many people do not feel safe, whether the crime rate is up or down. Over the years it has come down. Nonetheless, we have a responsibility to make sure that all citizens feel safe in their communities, on their streets and particularly in their schools.

Jason McCullough is a person whose name has become well known in my community. He was murdered some years ago in the north end of Dartmouth. His murder has never been solved. The case is still open. Every year in October, there is a candlelight vigil and community members get together to remember Jason and to walk through the streets that he used to walk through as a student. They do it to remember Jason and to put on the pressure so that he is not forgotten and his case continues to get attention.

My own brother is the vice-principal of Dartmouth High School. He loves the kids. He is a great teacher and now he is a great administrator. I have talked to him and other administrators and teachers who tell me that we need to do something to make sure that repeat and violent young offenders in particular are dealt with. Nobody in these schools wants to abandon these kids for life, and they are kids, but they also think it is an absolutely unacceptable circumstance that people who continually violate are put back into a circumstance with the people whom they have already violated and may violate in the future.

The week before Parliament resumed in October, I had the occasion to call an open meeting. I have a series of community round tables in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, usually on a specific topic. I ask people to come in. We have held them on health, education, development and a number of other things. This latter one was entitled, “What are your priorities for this Parliament?” I just asked the people in my community to come to this open forum and tell their member of Parliament what they wanted to see done in Parliament and what were their priorities. This was before the Speech from the Throne.

We talked about a number of things. Poverty came up continually. Poverty was a big issue. So was the issue of Afghanistan: what is the right thing to be doing in Afghanistan? Child care came up.

The issue that resonated most at that meeting was the issue of crime, because again, we had families come to that meeting and stand up and say that their family life has changed because they do not feel safe in the streets. Their son or daughter or someone close to them has been the victim of a crime and they feel helpless. They feel powerless.

In a lot of cases, people said that they do not exactly know the details of all the legislation in Canada, but they just have a sense that it is not working for them and they feel we have to do something about it. Specifically, people talked about the Youth Criminal Justice Act and what we can do to tighten it up.

The history of what is now the Youth Criminal Justice Act goes back to the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 or something like that. The Young Offenders Act was a dramatic improvement. There is still a lot of confusion. I heard the Minister of Justice last night on CBC refer to changes he was making to the Young Offenders Act, so he misspoke, but a lot of people still think the Young Offenders Act is in force. The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the source of an awful lot of confusion.

In Justice Merlin Nunn's report, on which much of this legislation relies in the form of his recommendations, on pages 166 and 167, actually says the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a very sound piece of legislation.

In fact, it is one of the best pieces of youth justice in the world, but there are holes in it. There are gaps and those gaps relate to the issue of repeat and violent offenders. We do not need to blow up the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but it is appropriate to look at it and make sure we approach it in a reasoned way.

We also need to make sure, when we deal with the issues of youth justice, that we are getting out in front of the problem as well as just dealing with it when it happens. We also need to believe, as I do, in rehabilitation.

I met with a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, from Saskatchewan this afternoon who was telling me about a politician, who I had not heard of but other members will have in Saskatchewan, who had a criminal past and was reformed, rehabilitated and elected in the Saskatchewan Party and is part of the government today.

People can be rehabilitated. We should never suggest that people cannot be rehabilitated. That would be an absolute failure and an admission of our inability to deal with circumstance. It is not that way.

While we look at these changes, some of which I support quite strongly, we have to get out in front of the problem. We need to look at things like child care for Canadians. I have made no secret of that.

I have spoken in the House about how strongly I felt about the plan that the former government had for child care. We may disagree on the best way to deliver it, whether it is through the universal child care benefit that the government has come forward with or the plan that I believe in, but we have to accept that not all children are born with an equal opportunity for success or even an equal opportunity for a good life.

Quite often, it is those kids who fall through the holes in society and end up dealing with the criminal justice system on a repeat basis. That has to be changed.

We could invest not only in child care but in things like the Boys & Girls Club. We could build jails, but the best thing we could do for kids is to build the infrastructure they need.

My community has the Dartmouth North Boys & Girls Club, the Cole Harbour Boys & Girls Club and near where I live there is the East Dartmouth Community Centre. Here the federal, provincial and municipal governments got together and decided to put money toward it because there were a lot of kids who did not have an equal opportunity for success and a good life.

The Boys & Girls Club of East Dartmouth is led by people like John Burton and Dave who run the programs and are friends to the kids. They are both mentors to the children and provide the kind of support that gives a lot of kids, who otherwise might not have it, a chance to succeed and access to opportunity.

With regard to the infrastructure that the FCM was talking about today, again to go to my community, there are less hockey rinks in Dartmouth now than when I was growing up. A couple have closed over the last 10 years. We do not have the infrastructure we need.

Anybody here would agree that if kids have a chance to play hockey, which is prohibitively expensive, basketball or soccer and feel like they are part of a group through recreation, they have a better chance to succeed, to feel valued, to live a dignified life, and to avoid coming in contact with the criminal justice system.

I suggest investing in schools, both public schools, pre-kindergarten to grade 12, and universities. We need to invest in schools. Nova Scotia has a woeful record of investing in public schools over the past number of years. It is very low in the per capita rankings. Municipally, provincially, and federally we need to get together and decide that there is nothing more important than the children of the next generation of Canadians. We must invest in schools and give all kids an opportunity to succeed.

There are other things. I had a chance to meet, as I often do, with RCMP officers and police officers who are assigned to high schools in my community. I met with an RCMP officer recently who works in the Cole Harbour high school. He told me that one of the things that works the best with kids, and people may think he is crazy, was restorative justice.

We have a champion of restorative justice in Nova Scotia in Danny Graham who was the former leader of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia.

When kids have the opportunity to understand what they have done and a chance to make compensation, it has a big impact on them. Quite often it has a big impact on the families of victims as well, who are very integral to the process of restorative justice.

We have this legislation today. It was alleged to have been inspired by the Nunn commission, the hon. Merlin Nunn, retired justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. His report came about as a result of the tragic incident of Theresa McEvoy, who was killed by a young offender in a car crash on October 14, 2004. Two days before his criminal act caused her death, he was released from custody, although he was facing numerous charges. That is on the front page of the Nunn commission report.

Justice Nunn talks about specific problems within the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He talks about the gaps that exist. He also talks about, as I mentioned before, some of the very good parts of the legislation that today form the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He does not want to throw it all out. He wants to refine it to adjust to those circumstances.

I think we should look at the Nunn report. I have most of it here. It is quite a significant document. I suspect that most members of the House have had a chance to look at it. He says on page 169 in his summary of approach to recommendations:

It would be foolhardy to suggest that we can prevent all youth crime. However, we can prevent a great deal by reducing the causes, and we can control others by instituting programs and systems to cut down on further criminal activity by those already in the system.

I think that paragraph summarizes what Justice Nunn was about. When this report came back I think last December, it was highly acclaimed. It was significantly thought out. It brought in a whole variety of viewpoints. It talked about some very specific Nova Scotia problems in criminal justice, even down to fax machines that were not working, that things such as that can actually have an impact on criminal justice. The report talks about some of the improvements that can be made.

I recall the Minister of Justice being in Halifax I think before Parliament came back. He credited Justice Nunn with having put forward a good report and indicated he was going to move on that. The Minister of Justice is a person I take at his word and I think his intentions are entirely appropriate.

I do think that we are missing out a little bit on the front end. I also think we are missing out on the rehabilitation side. The summary of the bill, as members will know, is that it makes two specific amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It adds deterrents and denunciation to the sentencing principles that a court must consider when determining a sentence for someone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It facilitates the use of pre-trial detention in cases where a youth has committed a violent crime, has breached their current conditions of release, or has been charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt.

We believe that using the Nunn report as an inspiration for federal legislation makes perfect sense. We also think that the report of Justice Nunn brought in a good balance. We think some of that balance is missing. We think perhaps we can do some work on it at committee. I certainly want to support in principle the legislation. I would also want to point out some of the recommendations in this rather lengthy Nunn commission report that were not followed.

Recommendation 11:

--that the federal government amend section 42(2)(m) of the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act to remove the time limits on the sentencing option for a court to require a young person to attend a non-residential community program--

Recommendation 20:

--that the federal government amend the “Declaration of Principle” in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act.

Recommendation 21:

--that the federal government amend the definition of “violent offence”...of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

Recommendation 23:

--that the federal government amend and simplify the statutory provisions relating to the pre-trial detention of young persons so that section 29 will stand on its own without interaction with other statutes or other provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Recommendation 24:

--that the federal government amend section 31(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking” the young person’s undertaking made under section 31(3)(b)--

Recommendation 25:

--that the federal government amend section 31(6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to remove the requirement of a new bail hearing for the young person before being placed in pre-trial custody--

There have been varying opinions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act changes as in Bill C-25. There are some people who do not like it and I understand some of their concerns.

From Nova Scotia, Cecil Clarke, the minister of justice, who today is dealing with another circumstance which is the very sad death by taser in Nova Scotia yesterday, he has endorsed the legislation. Most provincial and territorial ministers of justice express support, certainly in principle, in some cases absolutely for the legislation.

We think that there is a lot of merit in Bill C-25. My concern is that this is a lengthy report and there is a lot of very important stuff in this that could be caught. I am not suggesting that the legislation needs to look quite like this, but the principle of the bill is not something that I think can be picked or chosen over. It has to be looked at, if we support this bill then I think we support it entirely. We do not have to have every single provision but there are very significant provisions that are not reflected in the legislation.

In closing, we need to act, as members of Parliament, on the concerns of our constituents. I fully and completely believe that there are aspects of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are not currently providing security to families and individuals who live in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I feel, as a member of Parliament, that it is my duty to do what I can to make sure that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is tightened up, so that it does not lose the very good intention of the act which is obviously that children need to be dealt with separately. But the children in our schools and in our streets who are doing everything that they can under the law of the land and with the best intention, it is simply not right to allow them to continue to be offended against by young offenders who have a history of offending.

I will support the bill going to committee. I hope that at committee strong members of the justice committee, certainly our strong members from the Liberal side, will be able to effect some change which will make the bill better when it comes back to the House for final consideration. But I will support this and I will vote for this to go to committee.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-25. I have heard this bill being discussed all day by various colleagues who have different positions.

However, I think that there is room in the debate on this bill for the individual, the grandmother, the mother, the person looking at the situation from a different point of view than the legal experts.

It is true that if we were legal experts, we would look at this pragmatically without too much thought for the consequences of our decisions. The consequences do not affect us. They will affect the people this bill will target in the future: our young people. There are 308 members in this House, and I believe that many among us have children, grandchildren and teenagers. But the difference between our children and the children this bill would put in prison for committing serious crimes, is that we are probably in a position to offer them services to get help.

When we talk about juvenile delinquents, we are often talking about young people who come from disadvantaged, impoverished backgrounds. Unfortunately, we are also often talking about youth who come from aboriginal communities, and for good reason. When you do not have any dreams to pursue when you wake up in the morning, when you have no way to realize your ambitions, you may well rebel as an adolescent and wind up doing something to finally make a name for yourself. But sometimes, people do strange things for recognition.

I am not trying to say that I am in favour of what our young people do and the violence they often engage in. In my opinion, everyone in this House had a difficult adolescence. If we did not, it was probably because we were luckier or more privileged or because our parents were able to protect us and gave us as much affection, love and discipline as they could.

But this is not the whole reason young people rebel. Rebellion is part of adolescence, part of the transition to adulthood. When adolescents rebel, they sometimes do reprehensible things that they are not necessarily aware of. Even though they want to become adults, adolescents are still children. Even though in their own minds they already have adult thoughts and tastes, emotionally they are often still children and need someone to guide them and help them find their way.

Often, young people step out of line because they are far more spontaneous than when they become adults. Even here, in this House, adults often step out of line because they are spontaneous and spontaneously decide to rebel against a colleague, a policy or ideologies they do not appreciate. But we are adults, and we should always behave like pragmatic adults and keep our feelings in check.

This, however, is not the reality. Imagine being an adolescent who is having problems, who has little in the way of resources, who has no money and wants to be like everyone else, like those who have money and wear designer clothes, those who go to the movies and to concerts, which, these days, can cost $65, $150 or even $200 a ticket. Although I do not condone the actions of these adolescents, I can certainly understand why they are sometimes tempted to do something reprehensible in order to achieve their ends.

Should we immediately give them sentences that, in reality, rival adult sentences? Does anyone believe that this is what will get them back on track and make them into serious adults? I do not believe that putting children in prison will produce better citizens. I do not believe that establishing harsher sentences for our young people will produce better citizens.

I do not believe that prison, any more than prayer, can transform a person. It has long been said: “pray and you will be healed”. The same is true when it comes to prison: it just does not happen. All too often, the very opposite is what happens—and I am not referring to prayer, but to prison. Quite often, rather than making someone more socially responsible, prison teaches them the tricks that only lead them deeper into the spiral of crime.

Prisons are full of hardened criminals, such as murderers. Often, people in prison have no concept of right and wrong. Is that really what we want for our children?

When I wake up in the morning and I hear on television that a bunch of teenagers had a fight and one of them died, or that an elderly person was assaulted and beaten, or that some teenagers stole some weapons and shot at other teenagers, that scares me. It would scare anyone. But will that fear make me want to put all children in prison? That would not make sense. It does not make sense to make a law so restrictive that it prevents us from giving these children a chance to become full members of society again.

There have been so many studies on the subject. We have a good record in Quebec. We are constantly working to give our children back a sense of fairness, of justice, of belonging to society, as well as an understanding that being part of society means having both rights and responsibilities. If we spent a little more time educating children about that, if we ourselves, as responsible adults, made a stronger commitment to teaching our children about rights and responsibilities, then perhaps fewer of our children would choose the wrong path.

Today, the government is trying to persuade us that there is no hope for our children. I refuse to accept that. I refuse to believe that our children are intrinsically bad.

I refuse to believe that the bad in children who are 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 is so entrenched that they are beyond redemption. I refuse to believe that.

I wonder how many people here have thought about that. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice has children; if he has adolescents. I wonder if he always follows the rules. Does he always drive his car at 100 km an hour? Does he always make a complete stop? Does he ever have a drink before getting in his car? I wonder. We are entitled to wonder. When we legislate for children, we have to be as pure as the driven snow and I do not think that is the case for any one of us here. I am not; and I am not a murderer either.

We are talking here about changing laws for the future, for a long time. When legislation is passed, it is not just for a year or two. It does not come and go like political parties falling in and out of favour. That is not how it works. Unfortunately, when a law is entered in our books, it is there for a long time, unless we change it by eliminating parts of it. It is still very hard work. And even if we do this hard work, because we have had second thoughts, does not guarantee results with our children who are growing up right now.

Our children need parents with financial security. They need parents who are not experiencing a work shortage or a gap in employment insurance benefits if they are without work, or a lack of affordable housing.

I went to Prince Albert this summer. I met some people there from Edmonton who told me that in the middle of their city is a tent-city to shelter Edmontonians who can no longer afford rent. I have not heard anyone talk about that in this House. The Conservatives are unable to find solutions to poverty, the lack of affordable housing and other problems in Quebec or Canada that prevent our children from attending the schools of our choice or from participating in the activities of their choice because people can no longer afford it.

When people lose their jobs at 55 years of age, they very likely have children, adolescents, who are left without a lot of choice. The Conservatives cannot do anything in that regard, but they want legislation to ensure that these children, who will never have as much as other people, will be imprisoned if they do something wrong. They want to pass a law to do that. Children are allowed to have guns in Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular. They are allowed to play with very dangerous things, and now the Conservatives want to pass a law so that they can be imprisoned after they use their guns on someone.

What lack of thought. What are we coming to? It is socially reckless. What are we doing for the generations to come?

I do not think that this is the way to solve the problems of our young people. We should put the money where it is needed. We should ensure that parents have the wherewithal to feed their children. We should ensure that they have what it takes to nourish their minds, their bodies and their interests and that they can buy books to nourish their dreams. We should do that first, and then I am sure we would have a lot fewer delinquents. I am sure that if we give our children what they need to grow up proudly, there will be no need for these prisons.

We know that some children are sexually assaulted. This also helps to create habitual criminals. What are we doing, though, to protect our children from sexual assault? What are we doing to protect the children who are out on the streets right now? What are we doing to provide them with homes? There are very few places where they can go when they lose their way or run away from home. What are we doing for them? Rather than sending them to prison, why not try to work with them? Why not try to give them a chance? That is what we are doing in Quebec, and it is having real results.

In the United States, on the other hand, they are just creating habitual criminals. The earlier a child goes to prison, the greater the chance that he will become a habitual criminal. We know that in Quebec. Why can people not understand that in the rest of Canada? Why? What is the problem? Is it between the ears? Why can they not understand that children have a right to be free? Children need to be taught, though, that freedom entails both rights and responsibilities. We should teach them that instead of putting them in prison.

All day long, I have heard our friends—I do not even want to use that word any more—our Conservative opponents, let me say, talking about the importance of putting children in prison. Usually, I would qualify the Conservatives as adversaries, but they are not even adversaries; they are simply bad guys.

Among the Conservatives you will find people who are against abortion. They want the babies of women who have been raped to come into the world so they can become children without dreams, criminals that we put in prison. Is that the kind of future we want to give them? Is that the justice, the policy we want to introduce? The kind of policies that we need are the ones that will eliminate poverty, that will allow for the enrichment and empowerment of our children, policies that will enable everyone to profit from the fruits of this money that is constantly collected. It is in the order of $14 billion, $11 billion and $27 billion.

We send money to Saudi Arabia and we send them recommendations. That is what they told us, at noon today, concerning a woman who had received a sentence of 200 lashes. What treatment will our children receive in the places where we want to imprison them? Are we going to wash our hands of them too? After all, what is important is to get rid of them, right? What is important is to close the door so that we do not see what is going on. Is that really what is important?

Unfortunately, that is what seems to be important. They are completely uninterested in the results that such a policy could produce. They could not care less. They have not given it five minutes' thought. They are populist; they do like so many others. For our part, we do not want to lower ourselves to that. The government responds to pressure rather than doing what it should. It is easier. It is easier to build prisons than to commit money to combat poverty.

Needless to say, I will be voting against this bill. I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will vote against it as well. As for the rest of my colleagues, I do not expect anything from them.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just help the hon. member with some of his remarks.

He kept mentioning the Nunn commission and that only one of the recommendations has been included in Bill C-25.

For the member's information, the Nova Scotia justice minister is very supportive of our bill. Nova Scotia justice minister Cecil Clarke has called on members of this House to support Bill C-25. Our justice minister has worked closely with his provincial counterparts on provisions of this bill. I think the hon. member should keep that in mind when he talks about the Nunn commission and other commissions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The House leader was complaining that the bill was being held up, so I hope he can get his message to his troops. Just before question period, the Conservatives were using the time up and stalling his bill.

A report prepared by Justice Nunn dealt with youth criminal justice, and it was very timely. The Conservatives wanted to improve the act, so we had this very detailed, well thought out study. The minister subsequently announced, with the justice minister of Nova Scotia, that he would improve the act. In his speech, the minister said, “Nova Scotia's request for change is in large part based on the recommendations of the Nunn Commission report”.

This is the good news, but from that point on Conservatives should become very upset. Very few recommendations from the Nunn report actually ended up in the bill. The minister has a prescription to fix the act. A number of Conservatives members have said that they want to fix the act and make improvements. They have the outline to do it and then it is not followed.

The Nunn Commission had 34 recommendations on how to improve youth criminal justice, in particular six specifically are referenced to this act. At the most, the minister only deals with three of those, as a member said earlier today, tangently. One of the three only moves the words from a couple of clauses into one clause, clause 29. Therefore, it is only a wording change. It does not change anything substantive. That leaves two changes in the bill.

One of those two changes is about 20 words, which makes some increased opportunity for the crown to increase detention in pre-trial. The exact wording of that very minor change is outlined very carefully in opposition justice critic's speech, if anyone wants to see the details of that change.

That leaves one other change and it did not come from the Nunn report. It is the use of denunciation and deterrence as reasons during the sentencing.

Therefore, we have a bill that is not even a full page long, if we were to put it all on one page. It has one major concept from the Nunn report and it avoids all these things for which Conservatives have asked, and that is increased safety. They received the recommendations in the Nunn report and everyone applauded it. I think the people who wanted those changes would be very astonished.

I forgot to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, my esteemed colleague, who I know has some very important thoughts in this area as well.

What is more astonishing is what is missing. The Nunn Commission recommended to amend section 3, the declaration of principle, to add a clause indicating the protection of the public as one of the primary goals of the act. I cannot believe why the minister would be against the protection of the public. The Nunn report suggested that we put it into the principles of the act, and it is not there. What could the government possibly have against that?

In fact, I do not think the minister is against it. He said in his speech, when he introduced the bill, that the proposals before the House “provide new measures to protect communities from young offenders who pose a significant risk to public safety”. The government wants to protect communities from risks to public safety and then it does not put the recommendation into bill. Why not simply follow that most obvious suggestion from the Nunn Commission?

Some of the comments on the bill show the difference between the government and the other parties in finding solutions to lower crime in the country.

The first response from a member of the government, in questions on this bill, was the suggestion that safe integration was not the primary objective of the Conservatives. On punishment, is it longer sentences? I do not know, but I am sure that for all other members of the House, safe integration is a primary objective. What the people of Canada want first and foremost is to be safe again. I do not know why the Conservatives are speaking against that.

The second Conservative member who spoke suggested that we should not deal with poverty. I do not think there is a member of the knowledgeable community in our modern country who does not know that poverty can lead to circumstances that make crime more prevalent. Not all crimes are done for this reason. Wealthy people create crimes as well, but I think the vast majority of people know it is a determinant. It is astonishing that it would not be part of the solution.

The next thing a Conservative member said on the bill, before we broke for question period, was that sentencing was an important deterrent for the Conservatives. Yet, the changes in sentencing have been proved over and over again, by witnesses to committee, that it is not a deterrent. It has no significant statistical effect on the incidence of crime. What does have an effect, and my colleague from British Columbia spoke at length on this earlier, is the fact that a criminals will be caught with an increase, for instance, of police, et cetera. That does act as a deterrent, but not what has been added to the bill.

The fourth comment from the Conservatives was about the people who had lost faith in the justice system. This is a pattern and if I had my 20 minute slot, I would have gone through the whole pattern. It is a pattern of adding the wrong solution in bill after bill, a solution that does not work. They add something that is not a deterrent or they add more of the same.

People are upset. The system does not work and, in fact, it has not worked for 1,000 years. We put people in jail, they get out and reoffend. Most crimes are reoffending crimes. Why this has been so problematic is the agenda has had so many amendments with many rejected because it is not the answer. It is not what witnesses, people who work with victims, or people who work with criminals have found to be the answer.

Finally, we have some new answers that are working in the restorative justice. I have to compliment the people of Ottawa because this is Restorative Justice Week in the city of Ottawa. I went to a wonderful session on Tuesday night this week. The Ottawa Chief of Police said, “We would challenge anyone to show me a system that fails as much as our mainstream justice system”, which these bills are trying to promote.

The crown prosecutor, who was also there, said, “never seen a victim or offender happy with the existing system”. We are concerned about victims and we want to have systems like the restorative justice system and the collaborative alternate diversion family group conferencing where we finally come up with solutions that on occasion, certainly not all the time, work.

In fact, a Conservative stood and said that even the people who worked in that field said that they did not work all the time. I have to agree. The Conservatives were right with that comment. It does not work all the time, but the statistics in Ottawa show that 38% to 45% of the time it fails. The regular justice system fails 73% of the time. If there is any member of the House who would want to make Canada safer, they would obviously choose the 38% to 45% with these alternative methods for rehabilitating criminals so they do not go out and create more victims. This would make Canada safer.

This has been successful around the world with aboriginal people for centuries. Therefore, let us not continue to put in solutions that do not work. Now that there has been all this attention on justice, at least the good thing is we have heard from witnesses about things that will work. Let us start promoting those and really changing the system. Although the crime rate is going down, let us make it go down even more.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is very early in the session, so it is difficult to anticipate the legislative debate agenda.

In fact, were I to have said two weeks ago what we would be debating today, I would not have been able to anticipate what we are debating today. I certainly would not want to mislead the House, so I have restricted my comments to those of which I can have some certainty.

This week, the government has continued its efforts to tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians. We sent our bill to improve the security certificates process to committee. That bill is, of course, an important part of our plan to protect Canadians against threats to their safety and security.

This week, we have also introduced three important new pieces of legislation to make our streets and communities safe and secure. The first, Bill C-25, strengthens the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We started debate on this bill yesterday. We hoped it would have passed by now, but apparently the opposition has returned to its old tactics of delaying and obstructing our tough on crime agenda, and are in filibuster mode now. As a result, we will continue to debate this young offenders bill today.

The second bill, Bill C-26, imposes mandatory prison sentences for producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children. We hope to start debating this bill very soon.

Finally, we introduced Bill C-27 to deal with the serious and complex problems resulting from identity theft.

These three bills are important elements of our action plan to make our communities safer and to fight crime.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage debate of the tackling of the violent crime act. The proposed bill will better protect youth from sexual predators and society from dangerous offenders. It gets serious with drug impaired drivers and toughens sentencing and bail for those who commit gun crimes. The bill has passed committee and we hope it will continue to swiftly move through the legislative process.

Next week's theme builds on what we have been doing this week. The theme will be getting the job done on justice and tax cuts.

We plan on completing debate on the violent crime act, at report and third reading stage, next week.

Once this bill has been passed by the House, we will continue with debate of Bill C-26 to provide for concrete measures to deal with drug traffickers.

To continue to provide the effective economic leadership that Canadians have come to expect from our government, we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. The budget implements parts of budget 2007 and the fall fiscal and economic update. Among the tax relief items included, are the cut to the GST, reductions in personal income taxes and business taxes. We hope to call that at the earliest possible opportunity, with the consent of the other parties.

If time permits, we will call for debate this week on Bill S-2, the Canada-United States Sales Tax Convention Act, 1984. Next week, if time permits, we will call for debate on our bill to crack down on identity theft.

Next week the government will demonstrate that we are getting the job done on justice and tax cuts for Canadians. We are moving forward with important legislation that will make all communities safer and we are giving all Canadians tax cuts that will contribute to the long term prosperity of the country.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague and again I would challenge him on a couple of things.

He talked about the Statistics Canada statistics for crime saying that crime was down. That is true if we talk about all crime, including petty crime. The fact is that petty crime is not reported anymore because nothing is done about it.

The fact is that violent crime and youth crime are up, and we are talking about Bill C-25, the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

He talked about deterrence and prevention. I agree that if someone has already been sentenced that will not deter the person because it is too late. However, it might deter somebody else who looks at somebody actually being caught and actually being held to account for what he or she has done.

If we want to talk statistics, statistically an habitual offender, if he is in jail, will not commit the 15 crimes in the next year that he would have committed had he been on the street. Therefore, we are talking about deterrence, not necessarily of that person but of somebody else. We are talking about the prevention of crimes and, while that person is in jail, whether it is a youth or an adult offender is immaterial, the person will not be committing crimes.

Why does my hon. colleague ignore some statistics and selectively picks others.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, again I listened with interest and I agree with a lot of things that the member said about things that need to be done. That is why in fact we are doing many of those things. I want to challenge him on a couple of things though and then I will ask a question.

He talked about StatsCanada saying the reported crime rate in Canada is down. At the same time violent crime is up and youth crime is up. That is why we are talking about Bill C-25, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, to address that situation.

We talked about adding 1,000 RCMP officers and 2,500 other officers and so on. That is great and we are doing that. We are recruiting and training very hard in the RCMP.

Does the hon. member think that there is an RCMP officer store where we can just go and buy a thousand RCMP officers off the shelf? That is not the way it works. They are highly trained. It takes at least a year to train an officer once he has been recruited. It does not happen overnight. A thousand is quite a large number. We are recruiting hard. We are training hard. We cannot just snap our fingers and produce these folks out of thin air, or does he think we can do that?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has played politics for far too long, shamelessly exploiting criminal justice issues for political gain.

The Conservatives have spent years trying to mislead Canadians saying that the Liberal Party approach on crime does not and did not work. However, Statistics Canada reported earlier this year that Canada's crime rate hit a 25 year low in 2006, completely contradicting the government's misrepresentations and fearmongering. In fact, in every province and territory, crimes rates have been reduced.

We Liberals believe that crime continues to be a very important concern that we need to tackle. However, the report proves that our approach to fighting crime was effective and has made Canadian communities safer. Our effort to fight crime was focused on a three-pronged approach: crime prevention, tough sentencing and an increase in enforcement.

The government has exploited crime statistics and incidences and tabled legislation that is focused on heavy punishment to generate headlines instead of dealing with the real issues and coming up with solutions. The Conservative government would rather scare Canadians instead of offering well thought out legislation.

Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is a prime example of this. Instead of working with opposition parties to create meaningful changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Conservative government is once again trying to force through legislation so it can slap a headline sticker on it and call it done.

The fact is that this bill is flawed. It is flawed because it only partially addresses the recommendations made by the Hon. Merlin Nunn, retired justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the commissioner of the Nunn Commission of inquiry.

The commission recommended that improvements be made in three core areas: youth justice administration and accountability, youth crime legislation and prevention of youth crime. The Conservative bill only talks about adding deterrence and denunciation to the sentencing principles that a court must consider when determining a sentence for a conviction under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and using pretrial detention in cases where it might be warranted.

The bill fails to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act. It fails to amend the definition of a violent offence in section 39(1)(a) of the act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

It fails to amend section 31(5)(a) of the act so that if the designated responsible person is relieved of his or her obligations under a responsible person undertaking, the young person's undertaking, under section 31(3)(b), nevertheless, remains in full force and effect, particularly any requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and other conditions imposed by a youth court judge.

It also fails to address the gaps in the legislation with respect to repeat violent youth offenders.

Those are very important amendments that were recommended by Justice Nunn and the Liberal Party.

We should send this bill to committee for further review to see to it that the right amendments are made to the bill and to ensure that any changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act reflect the necessary tightening of the bill.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act works for the majority of young offenders but we must amend the act to get tough on the group of young people whose activities pose a serious risk to society.

As Justice Nunn stated:

...I must make it absolutely clear and not open to question that all the witnesses I heard—police, prosecutors, defence counsel, and experts—agree with and support the aims and intent of the act. They accept it as a vast improvement over the previous legislation. All are convinced it is working well for the vast majority of young offenders, though it needs to be fine-tuned to provide effective means to handle the smaller, but regular number of repeat young offenders.

A full review of this bill and the implementation of Judge Nunn's recommendations would fulfill the legislative requirements, but our communities need more. We need a comprehensive criminal justice plan to be effective in fighting crime. We not only need tough legislation, we also need community-based policing, preventive measures and investments in increasing the strength in our police forces and prosecutors to ensure timely processing of cases.

Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Police Association, has stated that there is a massive shortage of uniformed officers and that across Canada there is not a police service that has near the number of staff it should have.

The Tory government made a promise almost two years ago to deliver 1,000 more RCMP officers and 2,500 more police officers on the streets but it has failed to deliver this to our communities. The Tory government made a promise almost two years ago and yet it has not delivered.

The Conservatives did not stop failing Canadians with just their broken promises. They have failed Canadians because they simply are not listening to those who serve and protect us. Canada's own association of police has stated that the fight against criminals will not be won with just more police and bigger jails. It takes social programs that prevent criminal behaviour. This means developing social programs that address the root problems in a holistic and collaborative manner.

I agree with Justice Nunn who stated:

To meet the need for collaboration in the provision of services, I recommend that a new and more effective strategy be developed to coordinate the various services to youth of the Departments of Community Services, Justice, Health, Health Promotion and Protection, and Education and other departments and their partner agencies (including police and community organizations) to enable greater collaboration in the provision of services to youth, better and more accessible services for at-risk children and youth and their families, and more efficient use of public services.

We also need more prosecutorial services to address the demand of paperwork and to process evidence. We need to support the provincial governments to increase the resources of the prosecutors and the court system such that criminals do not plea bargain and get away with their deserved sentencing. This is to ensure that the tough legislation we put in place is in fact effective.

The Conservatives, however, are more interested in slogan smearing and fearmongering rather than fulfilling their duty to Canadians.

Today, the Government of Canada is awash with surpluses but, after two federal budgets and a mini budget, the Conservatives have not allocated any new money to hire the promised officers. Pretending to be tough on crime is not the same as doing it. Promising funds and not actually allocating money in the budget is not the same as doing it.

Our law enforcement agencies want the necessary tools and funding for an increase in the workforce to make our communities safer. When will the government deliver on its promises?

Today I stand with the growing list of legislators who are calling the government's bluff and demanding that it fulfill its promises. In B.C. the attorney general and the Vancouver city mayor have publicly criticized the Conservative government's failure to deliver on promises of federal money to hire more officers.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond.

There is a pattern here. I do not know whether you have noticed it, Mr. Speaker, and I know you have been sitting as Chair for this entire Parliament, but there is a pattern here.

Step one of the pattern is to fan the flames of fear, usually on the basis of some egregious event that happened in public and has caught the public's attention. Step two is to step up to the microphones, to great fanfare, and announce once again that the government is very tough on crime.

Step three, also to great fanfare, is to do immediate interviews and television appearances, et cetera, and announce that the government has the solution. Step four is to table a bill.

Step five is to repeat steps one, two and three for as long as the media pay any attention, for as long as the public pays any attention, or for as long as the government needs to keep the channel on the channel that is currently on.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are an experienced parliamentarian, but you may be surprised, or you may not be, to learn that this pattern was used 16 times in the first session of this Parliament. Sixteen out of the 64 bills presented to Parliament were crime related legislation, which means that about 25% of the legislation on the floor of the House is crime related legislation.

That is a lot of criminal legislation, but it is a great pattern. It appears to generate, how shall we say it, publicity more than it actually deals with the issues. However, because it is dealt with in such a piecemeal, hodge-podge fashion with the repetition of this pattern, it gives Canadians watching the debate a very small glimpse of a very large picture, whether it is a large picture of criminality or a large picture with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code or the youth justice legislation.

By dealing with it in this way, the government in effect gets 16 photo ops, 16 press conferences and 16 TV appearances, all to great effect for the propaganda machine of the Conservative Party, but not much actually gets accomplished. When the government went to prorogation, which killed all of the activity we had in the first session, it got to do it all over again.

In this session, six out of the 29 bills that are on the floor of the House are crime and crime-related bills, so again the pattern is repeated to great effect. The Conservative Party has six more photo ops, six more press conferences and, it hopes, at least six TV appearances. It gives the appearance of actually doing something about crime when in fact nothing is getting done about crime.

Instead of a comprehensive approach, which is what Mr. Justice Nunn suggested with respect to youth in this country, we have all these little series of one-offs.

I thought it would be particularly informative for those who are listening to know that Mr. Justice Nunn had 34 recommendations. Of those 34 recommendations, about 19 were of an administrative nature and are not the prerogative of this chamber. They are largely on how the youth justice system is administered. It is administered by the province.

However, six were specific suggestions on amendments to the legislation, none of which are incorporated in Bill C-25, or if they are, it is in a very tangential way. Here we have an individual who is well respected in the field issuing a report that has 34 recommendations, six of which are of a legislative nature and none of which appear in Bill C-25. That seems to be an awfully strange way to go about being, apparently, tough on crime.

Mr. Justice Nunn has suggested that:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend the “Declaration of Principle” in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act.

I do not know whether that is a good recommendation or not, but it does on the face of it make a lot of sense to me. Why would Bill C-25 not contain a declaration of principle that “protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act”?

That does seem a bit sensible to me. It also seems to be something that would be easily incorporated into a piece of legislation such as this. It would not, however, be useful to the pattern that has been established, and which I suggested at the beginning of my speech, in that it does not give any publicity hit if this kind of thing is put into the bill.

Recommendation 21 states:

--that the federal government amend the definition of “violent offence” in section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

Again, why not amend the definition of a violent offence while we are at it? Why can Bill C-25 not incorporate that suggestion? It seems perfectly sensible to me.

Recommendation 22 states:

--that the federal government amend section 39(1)(c) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that the requirement for a demonstrated “pattern of findings of guilt” is changed to “a pattern of offences”, or similar wording....

That is an interesting one, because there is some parallel in proposed subclause 29(2) in clause 1 of this amendment. The government seems to have chosen to stick with the concept of a “pattern of findings of guilt” rather than a “pattern of offences”.

I do not sit on the justice committee, but this would seem to me to be a particularly important question to ask. It would speak to those kinds of situations when a youth who has done a series of particularly egregious offences that may not have actually generated convictions still looks like a pretty bad apple. So if in fact incarceration or detention is being considered as a way to keep this particular individual off the streets, apparently in the government's bill there must be actual findings of guilt even though this particular individual may have had a whole string of offences for which guilt has not necessarily yet been found.

I am curious as to why the government, which apparently wants to be tough on crime, is not incorporating that. There may be good reasons. I do not know. Again, this looks like a missed opportunity.

Another recommendation deals with the concept of the “responsible person” and how that responsible person should continue his or her responsibility if the person is outside of detention. There are other recommendations with respect to bail.

None of these appear in Bill C-25. It is difficult to know why these kinds of sensible recommendations do not get incorporated. They are recommendations by a respected justice on an area of law that we all agree always needs some continuous amendment and review.

Then we have some of the things that the government does put in. I want to pick up on the comment of my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River, who said that sentencing does not reduce criminality.

In another life, I used to be a lawyer. Actually I still am a lawyer, but I do not practise. I did a very little bit of criminal law. Occasionally one would go into the prisons to interview one's client. I did make a couple of observations on the very few clients that I did actually represent.

One was that they were not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Generally speaking, people who are in the criminal business are not that sharp. Second, they frequently had some pretty horrific backgrounds, possibly due to drugs, either drugs they were taking or drugs that had resulted in fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effect or things of that nature, which diminished their capacity to interact in society.

Frequently their educational achievements were not very high. Frequently they had dependencies of some kind, whether it was drugs or alcohol or something of that nature.

Therefore, it is a population that is not, so to speak, the most outstanding. A consistent pattern was that in each and every case they never thought they were going to get caught in the first place. Therefore, amending legislation so that you can denounce them and deter them, whether it is the Criminal Code or this particular legislation, is utterly meaningless to the population we are trying to affect.

First, none of them had any idea they were going to get caught. They all thought they were going to get away with what they were doing. Second, if they were caught, they had absolutely no idea what the sentence might be for conviction on the particular offence with which they were charged. This was consistent both with adults and with juveniles.

I just want to point out that sentencing, whether it is minimum mandatories and all the rest of the stuff that seems to go on here to great effect, does not seem to make a great deal of difference with respect to the actual criminal population that it is supposed to affect, but for some of us, it really makes us feel a lot better.

Let me pick up on a comment by Martha Mackinnon of Justice for Children and Youth. A news report states that she says:

--the Conservatives are addressing a perception that has been exacerbated by politicians and the media. She also criticized the government's move to bring back “general deterrence” for youths, saying “there's no evidence that deterrence works for young people.”

I agree with Ms. Mackinnon. I do not know who she is, but she--

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to start, I would like to recognize some families from the Edmonton area that banded together on this important area of youth justice: the families of Dylan McGillis, Shane Rolston, Nina Courtepatte and Josh Hunt, all of whom lost their lives as a result of the actions of other youth in the last couple of years.

These families are part of a club of which none of us would ever want to be a part. Yet because of the way they have chosen to respond, it is the most important club of which they could ever be a part.

We cannot listen to the stories of parents without feeling compelled to act. Because of the tireless efforts they have made, and the efforts of other parents across the country, Canadians are paying much more attention to the issue of youth justice.

We cannot also listen to these parents without feeling compelled to ensure we say an extra “I love you” to our own kids before they go to bed at night. To these families, and on behalf of all Canadian parents, I thank them for not hiding their pain. I thank them for stepping out of their comfort zones and for using their grief, not as a weapon but as a motivation to ensure that other parents do not have to go through what they have gone through.

For almost 100 years, Canada has provided separate laws and procedures applicable to youth who commit crimes. The crimes themselves range from ill-conceived pranks to acts of incomprehensible violence. The alleged offender can be the child next door or a nearly adult gun-carrying gang member with a significant criminal record. The law must provide a wide range of responses to adequately hold them all appropriately accountable for the offences they commit. The sentences must be consistent with their degree of responsibility and, more important, in a manner that protects the public.

Since the Youth Criminal Justice Act came into force almost five years ago, there has been a steady decline in the number of young people charged with offences and winding up in custody. Some argue that the de-incarceration of youth has gone too far. Some believe that youth who pose a threat to the public have not ended up behind bars when they should and therefore more must be done to ensure that violent young offenders receive custodial sentences.

The government is committed to protecting communities and tackling crime committed by adolescents. In the October 16 Speech from the Throne, “Strong Leadership. A Better Canada”, our government vowed to strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act to ensure that young offenders who committed serious crimes were held accountable.

Bill C-25 begins the promised strengthening of our youth justice laws. The bill focuses on deterrence, denunciation and detention. Those familiar with sentencing principles for adults know that denunciation and deterrence are sentencing principles contained in the Criminal Code. It is important that society's degree of abhorrence for an offence be reflected in the severity of the penalty so the offender's conduct is denounced. Moreover, we want the penalty to send a message of deterrence to the offender and to others.

The quantum of the sentence should signal to the offender that he or she ought not commit further offences. This is known as specific deterrence. The penalty should also signal to others that they ought not to commit such offences. This is known as general deterrence.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act in its present form does not include deterrence or denunciation among its sentencing principles. The Supreme Court of Canada recently confirmed that those principles should not be read into the act, and this was an express choice made by parliamentarians.

Our government is now asking Parliament to reconsider and to make these important sentencing principles apply to youth as well as adults. The Minister of Justice has confirmed today in the House that attorneys general from across the country support these amendments. I believe these sentencing provisions will encourage the public to have greater confidence in the youth justice system, by allowing judges to apply fair and proportionate sentences that reflect these principles. This has been a part of the government's agenda for some time and we are pleased to support these proposed reforms to the sentencing principles.

Another area of the Youth Criminal Justice Act requiring immediate amendment are provisions relating to pre-trial detention of those youth who pose a danger to the public. The Nunn Commission and others have raised concerns about the adequacy of the existing provisions to deal with potentially dangerous youth who may not have a serious record but are “spinning out of control” and may well cause harm to someone prior to their trials.

The Minister of Justice spoke earlier today about the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy in Nova Scotia, a death that has sparked the Nova Scotia government to do something about out of control and dangerous youth. As the justice minister mentioned, Nova Scotia has been working hard to implement changes in its youth justice system based on the recommendations of the Nunn Commission. Some of those recommendations include lobbying the federal government for changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in relation to pre-trial detention provisions.

Bill C-25 is evidence that the justice minister has listened to the people of Nova Scotia and Manitoba as well. In late September the justice minister met with a delegation from Manitoba, including Manitoba justice minister Dave Chomiak, and various Manitoba police and community representatives.

The delegation brought to the minister's attention five justice issues of critical importance to the people of Manitoba. Topping the list was the issue of auto theft as Manitoba has been experiencing an explosion in joyriding and car theft by troubled and out of control teens.

The list also included toughening penalties for youth involved in serious crimes, especially motor vehicle theft. The justice minister has been listening to concerns expressed all across this country and has responded to them.

The amendments proposed today are only the beginning of a larger process of reform in this area that will hopefully do justice to the thoughtful advice received from important stakeholders in the youth justice system over the summer and fall. The longer term reform process will further strengthen and clarify the youth justice system.

I believe there is a shared imperative in all parts of this country to detain youth who pose a danger prior to their trials. The proposals in Bill C-25 are measured responses, which empower the courts to detain dangerous youth regardless of their alleged offence or criminal history.

Courts can look at all relevant factors when assessing that detention is needed, including outstanding charges that might indicate a youth is spinning out of control and posing a danger. These proposals address the concerns raised through Nova Scotia's Nunn commission and will lead to safer communities.

Canadians know all too well that people at risk can adopt a criminal lifestyle and engage in the violence and drug use that go along with that lifestyle more often than not. They want young people who commit violent crimes and threaten communities to be given sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

These communities want us to do something to prevent young people from committing these violent crimes.

It is more than evident from this government's crime agenda that we on this side of the House take the safety of Canadians extremely seriously. We fully recognize that it is important to be vigilant in safeguarding the fairness and effectiveness of our justice system, but it is equally important, if not more important, to ensure that the fundamental principle of our justice system is the protection of society.

I applaud the justice minister's announcement that this government will launch a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 2008. I understand that the review is specifically being done to address concerns and criticisms regarding various provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to ensure that our youth criminal justice system fairly and effectively holds young offenders accountable for criminal conduct.

I urge my fellow parliamentarians to support Bill C-25, which proposes amendments to the pre-trial detention provisions and adds deterrence and denunciation as sentencing principles under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

In my opinion, these amendments will strengthen our youth justice system, allay public concerns that dangerous youth are not being dealt with appropriately, and result in safer communities.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I want to apologize, Mr. Speaker, to the member, to the House and to the viewing public. Perhaps I was not clear when I said, three times, that we agree to the first part of the bill. The recommendations regarding detention and ensuring that the presumption against detention should be removed in three very serious cases, as outlined in the first part of Bill C-25 and as recommended by the Nunn Commission. We feel very good about those amendments and will work to ensure they pass through the committee.

However, it does not explain why the government imported all the concepts of the Criminal Code with respect to the sentencing principles. The minister seemed unsure yesterday about whether proportionality, which is the key pillar of sentencing in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, is still a key pillar in section 38(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

We will see where the government goes on this. I am worried that we are turning youth criminal justice into Criminal Code governance. If that is the case, the government should be clear on it.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the justice system.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I am familiar with a number of bills introduced by this government and I have noticed that it is resubmitting the same bills, given the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue the previous session of this Parliament. It occurred to me that we are examining many of the same bills a second time. There are also some new bills and we always have the same comments.

This government is introducing bills that are drawing a great deal of media attention. However, as these bills are examined in committee, in this House and, eventually, in the Senate, it becomes clear that little work has been put into them.

As the father of three young girls enrolled in a French immersion program in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in the country, and as a resident of Moncton, the first officially bilingual city, I know how much homework my children do every evening. The fact remains, however, that these three beautiful little girls are children and I expect certain things from them.

We expect more in the way of homework from the government than from school girls in Moncton. Yet it appears that the government has done its homework much less diligently and with much less attention to detail than my three little girls do in Moncton.

All of the bills that we in the permanent justice committee have had occasion to look at seem to be lacking in homework and in scope.

When we talk about the criminal justice system, it is an organic system or an organic process. It is a sculpting of new facts and new facets of our evolving society to the Criminal Code and its ancillary acts, in this case, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I want to start from the point that all of the acts are lacking in an overall or universal vision about criminal justice, from prevention to detention, so to speak, the whole scope, and this bill is no exception.

However, we must tell the Canadian public and members of the House that there is a Youth Criminal Justice Act. Before that there was the Young Offenders Act and prior to that the Juvenile Delinquents Act. For some time now, I believe 50 years, the Parliament of Canada and the courts interpreting Parliament's intention have recognized that there ought to be a different system for youth offenders.

It troubles me when I hear speaker after speaker, headline after headline, news release after news release and the two minute sound bites of Mike Duffy Live talk about youth criminal justice with the same language and in the same terms as adult justice.

That is not to suggest that we are sitting here as a party and as parliamentarians not concerned with public safety, not concerned with turning our youth into productive members of society. It is to say that as a statement of first principle, and I wish I had heard it from the Minister of Justice yesterday or any of the speakers who I listened to from the government side, I wish I had heard that there was a separate regime for the youth of this country for the different considerations because that is the fact.

I am concerned when I hear what members like the member for Kitchener—Conestoga said. I will get back to my student metaphor. I never taught anything but I have written a number of tests. One cannot simply write the first page of a test, the first paragraph or the first 10 questions and do well. One has to go to the finish line and get the B or B+ that all parliamentarians probably got in school or as good as one can get.

It seems, however, that the government and its members strive for the peaks of mediocrity and try to get a C or C-. However, they do start off good sometimes. The member for Kitchener—Conestoga started off talking about a head start program and prevention. If I had ever been a teacher, I would have thought that this was starting off well and that it would be a good result for that parliamentarian.

However, we then delved into crime, payback and teaching those punks something. As we know, there were two parts to the speech, the two did not go together and the member succeeded in getting a C-.

The bill does the same. Bill C-25 starts out very well. It starts out doing one thing that is very important. We give a lot of credence to the Nunn Commission report, which was commissioned as a result of a very tragic incident involving Theresa McEvoy, which happened not that far from where I live. It was not a Maritime thing. It was a national thing. The recommendations from the Nunn Commission and eminent jurist, Merlin Nunn, should be the starting point for our thoughts about what we are going to do with this separate regime for youth criminals in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

However, we need to start with the recognition, which should be the first principle, that there is a different regime and importing holus-bolus the whole adult regime to the youth regime means that we may as well get rid of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I will get to that when I talk about the second part of the bill.

I commend the Minister of Justice and the speakers who spoke in favour of the first part of Bill C-25, clauses 2 and 3 in particular. I will not belabour it, but perhaps we should have a happy moment and say that most parties are in agreement with this bill. We have a happy moment where one of the many recommendations of the Nunn report was followed by the government.

It is a complaint of prosecutors across this country. It is a complaint from parents. It is a complaint from victims. We stand on all fours in accepting that the revolving door that is in effect for young offenders who offend while on an order to return to the court for trial or sentencing is unacceptable. It is one of the major flaws in the Youth Criminal Justice Act as promulgated, and this is progress.

As we can see, there is in the act a presumption that detention is not necessary for a young offender accused of an offence and he shall remain free. Essentially, that was the presumption. Judges across this country applied that presumption, unless they could find other reasons, such as protection of the public, the overarching principle to keep the young offender as accused in detention. This bill recognizes that if a young person is charged with a violent offence that endangered the public by creating a substantial likelihood of a recurrence, that presumption is rebutted, yet the judge still takes into account the normal principles of detention pending trial.

The second principle, and this is really the most egregious part of the Youth Criminal Justice Act without the gap, is that while a young person who is out waiting to come back to court is found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences, or this is in fact after the imposition of a plea, that person should be considered as having given up that presumption against detention. It makes perfect sense.

The other provision in the bill is that if a young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and the young person has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt, then that person should lose that presumption.

That is a long way from going to adult principles for sentencing, which the second part of the act imports. The second part of the bill imports straight Criminal Code principles of sentencing with respect to denunciations and deterrence. The Minister of Justice and many speakers say that these needed to be imported because they are not there, but I beg to differ, if we look at the Youth Criminal Justice Act as it is.

Certainly in an effort to bind all parliamentarians together with a common view, there can be no one in this House who can seriously stand up and say that each parliamentarian is not in favour of more public safety, of having safe communities and of ridding our communities of crime. This has to be a common goal of every parliamentarian. What is happening is that we have a different point of view on how to get there.

All of us want the acts before Parliament, in this case the Criminal Code of Canada and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, to be effective. The question really is whether these amendments will be effective. I have already said that the first one will. It will keep the communities of Canada safer. I am going on to argue that the second part of this bill will not necessarily keep communities safer.

I will also elicit many of the other recommendations from the Nunn commission report which were not seized upon by the government when they were there for the taking. Somebody has already done the work. Somebody has already reacted to an outlandish shocking of the public example of how small changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act could be efficacious to make society safer. That was the Nunn commission. He made many recommendations, yet only one of those recommendations was seized upon by the government.

It is not that there was not enough ink and paper. This is a very short bill. It is designed, I submit, to have newscasts and media stories say that we are tough on crime and that we are importing concepts of unlawful conduct and deterrence and we will get tough.

Really, the first part of the bill will do so much more to make communities safer than the second part. There are so many other recommendations in the Nunn commission report that would have made our communities immediately safer and would not have had any opposition from this side, yet the government chose not to seize upon them.

It is remarkable. It is either a hurried attempt to get another headline, or it is a deliberate attempt to draw out in a piecemeal fashion the Conservatives' law and order agenda with multiple bills, each bill a new headline, each bill one little step forward in their view toward making our communities safer. I might suggest that is almost wilful conduct preventing the distribution of the tools that the justice enforcement people need, prosecutors in particular, or it might just be sheer negligence in not knowing what they were doing.

I have to comment on some of the remarks that were made by a person whom I consider to be a dean on the issue of public safety. I virtually never agree with this dean with respect to how to get there, but I have no doubt that this dean, the member for Wild Rose, wants to get there and has made a parliamentary career out of wanting to get there. He talks incessantly against lawyers. We all have thick skins and we can take that, as the small legal community in the House of Commons knows every day it is not popular to be a lawyer. But I want to tell everyone in this House it is not always popular to be a politician too, so there we go. Being both makes me sort of a victim in a way.

Seriously, the member for Wild Rose talks about lawyers, that they talk legalese. Unfortunately, we are making laws here. If we were making pizzas, I would talk about dough, but we are making laws, so I have to talk legalese. That is the way it goes with all due respect to the member for Wild Rose.

The second point that he brings up is that there is no mention of victims. I hear that a lot from the other side. We hear it at committee. Frankly, victims are what we as parliamentarians are all about. This year is the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We respect individual rights and liberties. We respect the legal rights against false detention and the right to have counsel and all those legal rights for people accused. Those are foundation elements, but people should realize that the overall arching concern of the Charter of Rights in section 1 is to protect the public.

The funny thing is, if we look at every act of Parliament, we find that the public safety aspect is primordial, and the Youth Criminal Justice Act is no exception. It says:

WHEREAS communities, families, parents and others concerned with the development of young persons should through multi-disciplinary approaches take reasonable steps to prevent youth crime by addressing underlying causes to respond to the needs of young persons and to provide guidance, this act should be enacted.

It also says:

AND WHEREAS Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice system that commands respect, takes into account the interests of victims, fosters responsibility and ensures accountability [in our youth]--

These sentiments are already in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Judges read this act and they take from the preamble and the declaration of principles in section 3 what the act means.

In fact, it states in section 3(c), “within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken”--that is, the sentences or the detention aspects or the immediate ultimate measures meted out by a court--“against young persons who commit offences should (i) reinforce respect for societal values, (ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community”.

Later on in section 3(d) it says, “victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy”, and “victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard”.

It strikes me that without putting the exact words of denunciation and deterrence in this act, we have as guiding principles for justices the protection of the public and at least a code for victims' rights when it comes to aspects of youth criminal justice.

The Nunn commission report puts out a few very easy recommendations that the government could have adopted without opposition from this side. Principally it is very important because we hear about public safety and the protection of the public and consideration for victims.

Justice Nunn, in his considerations, felt it was a bit shortsighted for the act to talk about the long term protection of the public as set out in these principles in section 3. By inference a judge would say that that does not involve the short term protection of the public.

Some of these rebuttable presumptions on detention, which will be tempered by the first part of this act, speak to that. More specifically and to be clear, so that there is no misread between the principles in section 3 and the first part of the act as amended, we will be curious to see if it would be within the scope of the bill on amendment at committee to add a new phrase in section 3, the principles. It would add to section 3 a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act, which is from the Nunn report on the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It certainly should just say protection of the public. Perhaps for greater certainty it should say long term and short term, but if we say protection of the public, I presume that means all the time. Protection of the public is one of the principles of the act.

I believe, as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh said yesterday, and he is a person who has been around these issues a lot longer than I have, the evidence he has gathered, which no doubt we will go through at committee, would lead to the conclusion that in fact the changes in the first part of Bill C-25 have in fact been put into place by judges across the country.

Therefore, all we are doing is putting into law what is actually happening in practice, or codifying the practice. That may be a good thing, but it does make me wonder whether the government read all of the Nunn commission report. Maybe in a cooperative effort when we take this matter to committee, if the scope of this bill is to make society safer, the government will be open to amendments, including that recommendation and many others from the Nunn commission to make this a better law.

I want to close by saying that although we agree with the first part of the bill, the second part of the bill might make it seem that we are importing holus-bolus the Criminal Code of Canada. If that is the case, the Minister of Justice should know that the Criminal Code already provides, in certain circumstances, for youths to be tried as adults.

If those provisions are known of, if that transition is known of, and they are importing holus-bolus these concepts, why have a Youth Criminal Justice Act at all? Let us all live under the Criminal Code. Is that where the government is going?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this House very long, but in the time I have been here I have heard the opposition member refer to this 60% reduction through early start programs. I can only assume that he is referring to the Ypsilanti study, which showed that dramatic drop in crime, but if we look at all the facts surrounding the study, it becomes very clear that it would be totally impossible for us to replicate the conditions within that study.

I am sure he is aware, as a former medical practitioner, that many of the research studies done have a certain control over the methodology within those studies. It has been shown that it would be impossible for us to replicate the kinds of small class sizes that were indicated in that study. Also, the study has not followed those kids for the long term, so to quote the 60% I think is somewhat misleading.

To go back to his point about the fact that we are just dealing with one part of criminal activity here, that we are not dealing with the guns, the gangs and the drug dealers, I want to point out that this act, Bill C-25, does not stand in isolation, nor is this part of what we are doing to the Youth Criminal Justice Act the whole package of what our government intends to do.

The minister has promised that in 2008 there would be a total comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I am looking forward to those improvements. In addition to that, just recently all of us here in this House have seen the committee pass the bill to tackle violent crime. Canadians have been asking for this for some time.

Certainly in my community I have heard from hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents who are applauding these measures to get on with the protection of our youth especially, but of all Canadian citizens, and I urge our opposition colleagues to let us get on with this and do what Canadians have been asking for, for a long time.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30 p.m., we must now adjourn the debate on Bill C-25. The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga will be pleased to know that his time is not up and when we return to the study of Bill C-25, he will have 17 minutes left.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on Bill C-25 which has two, two and a half or three amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, depending on how we read it and interpret it.

This is another attempt, a very feeble one on the part of this legislature, to assess the usefulness of the criminal justice system we have developed with regard to youth crime and how best to deal with that within a legislated structure.

When I first saw the bill the other day, I must admit I was a bit taken aback because of all the chest thumping and macho speeches that we had heard from the Conservative government and its members on getting tough on crime. Then the bill came out with only a few sections, and quite frankly, a good deal of which is probably not necessary beyond a very limited scope.

In terms of trying to put that in context, we have to appreciate where we are at.

The thrust of the government has been to get tough on crime at least in both its ideology and its verbiage in response to a bit of a hysteria that it to a great extent has created. Again, we need to put this in context.

The reality is that for the better part of about 150 years, and certainly 125 years, the common law jurisdiction based on the English common law and the criminal law that grew out of that has always treated youth differently, although how we define them has varied from decade to decade. We stopped treating all crime by all age groups and by all citizens differently back around that time. This included bringing into our criminal justice system a recognition that youth, because of their youth, did not have the same capacity to make decisions as adults did. We do the same with people of limited intelligence or suffering serious mental health problems and who do not have the capacity to make conscious decisions at the same maturity level as adults do.

That has been an underpinning of our criminal justice system now for at least 125 years and probably close to 150 years. It has ebbed and flowed over that period of time.

When I first started practising, we had the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which was amended and changed into the Young Offenders Act, youth in conflict with the law, and now the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The principle that we treat youth crime differently than adult crime has remained throughout all that legislation.

I think it can be argued accurately that when we passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 1999-2000, we somewhat expanded those principles and again looked at what was the best way to deal with youth crime. The emphasis clearly at that time, without any doubt, was they would be treated differently than adults, that the courts would have as their overarching philosophy that youth were to be looked at in terms of whatever we could do to rehabilitate, to treat and to bring them back into line so they would be exemplary citizens.

There is in my mind, again a serious attempt in the verbiage we get from the Conservative Party to undermine that principle, that we should in fact begin to treat youth as no different than adults when it comes to crime. Other than ideology, we could argue it is being driven by the spike in youth crime.

I do not think any member in the House, who has studied the rate of crime in the country, would deny that we have seen an increase in youth crime, particularly in the last three or four years, but in a very specific area. Unfortunately, that area is one of serious violent crime involving the use of guns almost always in a gang setting. This means the gun was acquired and used in circumstances that benefited by the fact that the individual was part of a youth gang or a street gang.

The statistics come out in May or June of each year. The initial reports I am getting back at this point is we may in fact be seeing a slight drop in serious violent crime committed by youth. I am not sure what the position of the Conservatives will be at that point if that in fact occurs.

Anyone who has studied the pattern of crime knows that we periodically have a spike. It is quite clear that legislation does nothing to deal with this spike. That is it does not make it go down. It does not allow it to increase. It does not have that kind of effect.

I want to make the point that we do not know why we have these spikes. We saw one in the adult murder rate in Canada in 2005. Then we saw it drop back a bit in 2006. We do know that the adult murder rate has dropped quite dramatically over the last 20 to 25 years based on a per capita rate of incidence.

Because of a number of the enforcement steps that have been taken in some of our major cities, and I think of Toronto as being somewhat the model of this simply because of the number of efforts that have been undertaken there by the police services and Chief Blair in particular, I expect we probably will see a similar reduction across the country, minor and then hopefully more dramatic over the next few years.

Whether we do or not, it is quite clear in my mind that we do not motivate ourselves to change the criminal justice system, and I am referring specifically to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which has had the effect of lowering the crime rate among our youth since it came into effect.

In terms of dealing with those spikes, we deal with them by way of enforcement and maybe other social programs, which are badly needed in the country, particularly for youth, and which are not properly funded by the government. In some cases they are not being funded at all. That is the methodology we have to use and not amendments to the legislation, if in fact it is functioning.

As an aside, I want to acknowledge the work being done in the province of Quebec. Before the Youth Criminal Justice Act came into effect, Quebec had led the country in moving into a number of programs of a restorative justice nature; that is taking the accused person and the victim out of what is basically an inhumane system and treating them in a much more humane way.

It is interesting that just this past week I, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member from the Liberal Party, the member for Yukon attended a session at city hall in Ottawa on restorative justice.

Just this past week I, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member from the Liberal Party, the member for Yukon, attended a session at Ottawa city hall on restorative justice.The new chief of police, Chief White, is a very strong proponent of restorative justice. During his address, he told us he had been a strong proponent for 22 years in various communities where he served, first as an RCMP officer and then as chief of police in other communities before he came to Ottawa.

He made his point of the inhumanity of our criminal justice system, particularly for youth and for their victims. He kept emphasizing the importance of restorative justice, of not using penalty, of not seeing a court system that is not humane, as the best methodology for dealing with this. He has a master's degree in criminology and has some done some major research on this. One of the points he made was that the use of restorative justice had the effect of reducing the recidivism rate by very substantial numbers and with youth, almost cutting it in half. That can be done across most crimes, if not all of them.

When we hear people stand in the House and before the media and parrot really what are U.S. methodologies and proclaim that it is the be all and the end all, it flies in the face of the reality that penalties and severe sentences do not work. They increase the rate of recidivism. Looking at alternative forms of dispensing justice works much better.

The province of Quebec started into this process earlier than any other province and more effectively than any other province. In spite of the fact that the Youth Justice Act incorporated a number of those concepts used already in Quebec, Bloc members opposed it. They felt the legislation, and I think they were somewhat accurate as we heard from my colleague from the Bloc earlier, would impede some of the progress they had made in fighting youth crime, and fighting it successfully.

In any event, although they opposed it, they continued their programs as best they could and much more successfully than the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has been playing catch-up. I think over 30 years ago, I was involved in a diversion program that was not authorized by any law. It was poorly funded, but it was successful in spite of the lack of support from government at the time.

Although there were projects like that scattered across the country, the overall approach, the umbrella approach that the province of Quebec adopted early, has had a very beneficial effect. In fact, to this day, the youth crime rate and adult crime rate for serious crime in Quebec is lower on average than it is in the rest of the country.

Let me come back to Bill C-25. With the first part of the bill, I have to take some issue with my Bloc colleague when he says that the government is introducing a reverse onus with regard to pre-trial custody for youth who have been charged with a crime. I do not interpret the sections that way. In fact, this part of the bill is simply codifying what we are seeing across the country. I expect the bill will go to committee and when we hear evidence, this will be the message that will come from practising lawyers, Crown attorneys and defence bar across the country. It will not do anything to change the practice in our youth courts across the country. All it will do is confirm what our judges have been evolving over the last decade.

One might ask why we would bother doing it or why would we support doing it. My answer would be that we always have. A few judges may say that they will not do it because it is not in the legislation and that they will meet the criteria that they have. By putting it into the law, for those few judges who may not be following the pattern that I see all the other judges following, it will make it necessary for them to do that and they will feel comfortable and authorized to do that.

Basically, it simply says that if the young offender is faced with this criteria having been met, then we are not likely to release him or her from pretrial custody.

There is a presumption in the act that stays in the act, in spite of these amendments, that says, generally speaking, there is a presumption that a youth would be released pending his or her trial on the charges that he or she is confronted with. The judge would then take that into account and, if the judge felt comfortable, the youth would be released but, if the judge did not, the judge could keep the youth in custody and the judge had the authorization to do that.

I do not have any problem with that and would support the government's approach on it. Again, I do not think it will change very much but it will help in a few cases.

The second part of the bill, though, is much more problematic. I believe this part of the bill was driven by a Supreme Court of Canada decision that came down about a year and a half or two years ago where a lower court judge had tried to introduce the concept of deterrence when he was sentencing an individual. That went through the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court of Canada which said that it was not in the Youth Criminal Justice Act as a criteria to be taken into account. It stated that since it was rehabilitation and treatment and that it was moving the youth back into society as quickly and effectively as possible, deterrence was not a principle to be applied.

What the government is trying to do is to bring that into the legislation by way of amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I want to make two points. The deterrence is both, with regard to the individual, what we call specific deterrence and also general deterrence.

We know, I suppose from studies all over the world and from criminologists, sociologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, that a great deal of youth crime is as a result of youth not being mature enough to make proper decisions and acting so often on impulse. When I say “acting so often on impulse”, almost invariably acting on impulse which results in them committing a crime, and sometimes a serious violent crime.

Deterrence, faced with that psychological reality, is of absolutely no use. Deterrence only works if one meets two criteria. One criteria is being aware of the penalty, and the vast majority of youth are not.

I was doing a seminar this summer at one of our drop-in centres for youth in the city of Windsor. We had a round table discussion with youth aged 15 to 18. I was amazed how overwhelmingly ignorant most of these youth were, and I mean that in the classic definition of the word ignorant, in not having any knowledge of the law. They were making all sorts of assumptions. Some thought the penalties were very severe and others thought there were no penalties at all. I think that group was a very accurate reflection of the individuals who form our youth in this country.

When we take that we can say that they have no any knowledge of it so they will not even stop to think about the deterrent factor because they do not even know what it is. Secondly, they will not stop to think at all because they are acting on impulse. It is not a conscious decision they are making in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, deterrence has no impact.

What we, as a party, are proposing to do with this and with the denunciation, which, quite frankly, I have no sense at all as to why the government would put that in, is to support this at second reading and when it gets to committee we will be looking to alter that part of the bill to take into account some valid changes in the sentencing principles but not these two.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by calling for calm, just as you did. I do not think that it is useful to shout insults during a debate on this subject.

I was in this House in 1999, when three ministers of justice—Anne McLellan, Allan Rock and Martin Cauchon—introduced the early amendments to what was then the Young Offenders Act, which had been in place since 1907 and is now the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I am sure that members of this House have fond memories of our colleague from Berthier, who is now putting his talent and experience to work on the bench, and who was in charge of this issue for the Bloc Québécois. At the time, we introduced some 2,700 amendments, which led to changes to the Standing Orders to limit opportunities to introduce amendments in committee at the report stage.

At the time, there was a broad coalition that included the Government of Quebec and hundreds of youth services groups that were concerned about the fact that young people aged 14 or 15 could, in some cases, be tried in adult court and sentenced as adults. That was at the heart of the reforms proposed in 1999.

At the National Assembly, youth justice stakeholders criticized elements that contradicted established practices in Quebec. Not only did the province believe in rehabilitation, its watchword for intervention practices was “the right measure at the right time”. That was our slogan. That means that when intervention is necessary, rehabilitation should be the first choice. We were supposed to abide by that slogan. Quebec's National Assembly and stakeholders in the province have never denied the fact that in some cases, under specific circumstances, pre-trial detention, incarceration and even other penalties may be necessary.

When the minister made the bill public, some of the government members were quick to draw parallels with street gangs. The Bloc Québécois is not complacent. We do not have an idyllic or unrealistic view of youth. We know that young people are involved in crime, and I will talk more about this later. We also know that sometimes tougher measures are needed. However, we must stop comparing action taken under the Youth Criminal Justice Act with the issue of street gangs.

Street gangs are a real phenomenon in all large Canadian cities. Montreal, where my constituency is, is no exception. Neither is Quebec City or other cities, such as Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax. As recent statistics show, individuals involved in street gangs, or at least the well-known leaders who might find themselves in court, are not 12- or 13-year-olds.

My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine sat on the justice committee with me when the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion to invite Randall Richmond, a civil servant in Quebec City with the Organized Crimes Prosecution Bureau, also known as BLACO, who has thoroughly examined this issue. He told us the average age of individuals who had recently been arrested and brought before the court. At the time, there was much talk about the Pelletier street gang in Montreal and the arrest which first established a link between street gangs and criminal organizations. The average age of these individuals was 19 years and 2 months.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is very concerned about this bill and will not support it. We will use our energy to speak out and take action to show the public that the government is on the wrong track. We have two main concerns.

First of all, in the 1999 reform, we wanted to amend this legislation, which we had criticized. We disagreed with one of the provisions, namely, the widespread use of pretrial detention.

Once again, we are not saying that pretrial detention should never be used. Section 515 of the Criminal Code already set outs circumstances in which adults must be detained before their trial. First there are the serious offences listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code: murder, attempted murder and the most serious offences. Of course, an offender is remanded for pretrial detention when it is believed that he or she may not report for their trial, that evidence could be destroyed or when the offender is not a Canadian resident.

In some situations, pretrial detention is of course necessary in order to ensure the proper functioning of the legal system and the administration of justice. This is also true for young offenders. We understand this.

I was speaking with my colleague from Pointe-aux-Trembles earlier about the consultation paper. Last night, I read the consultation paper released by the Department of Justice in June 2007, which gives an overview of the situation since the act was proclaimed in 2003. The document indicates that, before 2003, under the Young Offenders Act, police and other law enforcement agencies incarcerated young offenders before their trial in 45% of cases. When we look at the most recent statistics available, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, pretrial detention has risen to 55%. Thus, a trend that we wanted to reverse is actually increasing.

Why is widespread pretrial detention not desirable as a general rule? As we all know, this is the period before sentencing and before the trial. The presumption of innocence must therefore apply.

Yesterday I was talking to Mr. Trépanier, a leading expert in Quebec, who has studied this issue the most. He is a professor in the criminology department at the Université de Montréal. I was talking to him about statistics. He has, by the way, been contracted by various government departments to study this issue. He told me that pretrial detention is not desirable. First, because even if that detention could offer some form of support, youth will never engage seriously in treatment and rehabilitation, or measures that could help them become better citizens. Second, there is the presumption of innocence. Third, there is the whole machinery that is reluctant to invest in resources before the final status of that youth is known. It is therefore wrong to want to see this principle used more widely.

Of course, in the bill, which has just two clauses, we are looking at a reverse onus of proof. Should we not be worried about this tendency toward more widespread reliance on the reverse onus of proof?

The Bloc Québécois has accepted that this is for the toughest criminals. I am thinking, among other things, of the former Bill C-27, which was incorporated in Bill C-2. We are talking about dangerous offenders—not even 500 people across Canada. These are people who have committed serious crimes.

In section 753 of the Criminal Code there is a very specific definition. We have accepted it, even though it flies in the face of a principle important to the Bloc Québécois when it comes to the administration of justice, and that is not to reverse the onus of proof. We realize that in some situations, there are people who are a true threat to public safety.

In my opinion, even though three paragraphs in the first part of Bill C-25 suggest reverse onus of proof, and although they are serious, they are too general. I am anxious to see what the experts will say about this in committee.

Obviously, we are talking about a young person who is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and who has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt. However, you will agree that the list of potential offences is extremely lengthy. I have even heard some people say that in Bill C-25, reverse onus was even more in evidence than in Bill C-27. This first issue makes us extremely skeptical about this bill.

There is a second issue, which is the most important. Do we believe that at 13, 14 or 15, an individual can be treated as an adult? Do we believe that the life of a youth of 12, 13 14 or 15 can be the same as that of a person of 38, 39, 40 or 45? This was the logic behind the call for a criminal justice system tailored to young people. Such a system recognizes that people are entitled to make mistakes and calls for individualized treatment.

Once again, we in the Bloc Québécois are not soft on crime. We know that some young people commit crimes that are so serious that they need to be isolated from society. We agree with that. But we should be guided by a basic principle: treatments and help for young people must be available as early as possible and for as long as possible.

That is why, until this bill was introduced, this sort of obligation was not among the principles in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act. The act does not call for deterrents, which set an example for others. Such penalties tend more toward incarceration. Why does the act not call for such an approach? I cannot provide a better quote than the one I found in a judgment of the Supreme Court, which had heard two cases. As you know, the full names of individuals under the age of 18 are never given; offenders are always identified by their initials. Consequently, the Supreme Court had handed down decisions in Her Majesty v. B.W.P. and Her Majesty v. B.V.N. An aboriginal youth had killed another person. These young people had committed a serious crime. I am not denying that. The court handed down a unanimous decision, and Judge Chars, on behalf of the majority, wrote the following:

The application of general deterrence as a sentencing principle, of course, does not always result in a custodial sentence; however, it can only contribute to the increased use of incarceration, not its reduction. Hence, the exclusion of general deterrence from the new regime...

This refers, of course, to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Continuing on:

The exclusion of general deterrence from the new regime is consistent with Parliament’s express intention—“Parliament” referring to us, and I was also a member in 1999—to reduce the over-reliance of incarceration for non-violent young persons. I am not persuaded by the Crown’s argument that the words of the preamble referring to the public availability of information indicate that Parliament somehow intended by those words to include general deterrence as part of the new regime.

I do not wish to repeat all the arguments presented by the Crown, but I think it is worth noting that the Crown basically wanted to restore the principle and logic that existed in the Criminal Code, but through the back door. Anyone can consult section 718 of the Criminal Code and see that deterrence is one of the objectives pursued by judges during sentencing. There are other as well. I would also remind the House that there is a specific provision for aboriginal offenders, when it comes to sentencing.

To sum up, this government is making a very serious mistake and that is the subject of the second clause. The bill before us is such a small one, but so very important, given its devastating potential.

Clause 2 of this bill seeks to amend section 38 of the legislation in order to include, in matters of youth criminal justice, the principles of denouncing unlawful conduct and deterring the young person.

Clearly we cannot go down this path. When any sentence is handed down—in Quebec's case in the youth court component of the Quebec court—the judge naturally bears in mind that it is desirable that the individual not reoffend. However, the desire to set down, to codify, in a bill the principle of deterrence, promotes pretrial detention and assigns secondary importance to the principles of treatment, rehabilitation, assistance, significant individuals, or community involvement, in other words, a philosophy of intervention that Quebec has adopted.

This move by the government is even more surprising given that its discussion paper, which I read yesterday, provides some very conclusive figures. They indicate how far we are, despite the 2003 amendments to the Young Offenders Act, from achieving this objective.

I would also like to say that in reading the department's document, I discovered some very interesting facts. A study of police discretion examined how law enforcement officers, thus police, who are peace officers and the first to come in contact with youth, behave when arresting youth. This study revealed three reasons why the police do not release adolescents and detain them until the hearing, that is until the trial.

The first reason is law enforcement, that is to establish the identity of the offenders and to ensure they appear, as I stated earlier. Once again, according to the code, there are situations where releasing an individual is not an option. The second reason—and I find this surprising— is that detention is for the good of the youth. The study gives the example of a police officer who arrests a homeless prostitute or other homeless individuals who do not give the impression that they will find shelter. According to this study, the police officer's usual practice is to hold them for trial. The third reason is to use detention as a means of repression.

The document states that two of these three types of reasons are illegal. Under the reform of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is prohibited to detain an individual for these reasons.

So the government has reinforced an undesirable practice. It has supported police officers or law enforcement agencies who tend not to release youth. Yet according to the Quebec code, it is much better to remand young people to youth centres so they can receive institutional support. The bill provides for the possibility of not necessarily releasing them to their parents, but to responsible adults.

Since my time will soon expire, I would like to tell the government how disappointed I am; it would have been much better to address other problems. For several months the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a review of the parole system and accelerated parole review. We would have helped the government if it had been interested. Instead, it is ideologically driven to please its voters and it encourages and promotes prejudices that are not supported by statistics or reality.

Again, the Bloc Québécois will do everything it can to ensure that this ill-advised bill never receives royal assent.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not getting it done. It cherry-picks.

The Conservative government will not provide the kind of effective justice system for our young people as it is claiming because if it were interested in that, it would have implemented all six recommendations of Justice Nunn in Bill C-25 and they are not all there. Shame on the government.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I received a letter from the minister on the day that he tabled the bill at first reading. His letter stated:

A copy of the Bill and accompanying news release and backgrounder are enclosed.

The Bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding deterrence and denunciation to the principles that a court must consider when determining a youth sentence. Deterrence refers to imposing a sanction with the purpose of discouraging the offender and others from engaging in criminal conduct. Denunciation refers to society's condemnation of the offence.

The Bill also clarifies that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of young person is rebuttable and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply. This will make it easier to detain a broader range of youth who pose a risk to public safety.

I was astonished because Nova Scotia had recently conducted a major public inquiry. That inquiry was the result of the following incident.

On October 14, 2004, Theresa McEvoy, a 52 year old mother, was killed in a car accident by a 16 year old, whose initials are A.B.

A.B., who was joyriding in a stolen car at the time of the accident, was released on October 12, 2004, despite having 38 criminal charges against him.

On June 29, 2005, Nova Scotia called a public inquiry to look at how the charges against this youth were handled and other issues related to why he was released. The Hon. D. Merlin Nunn was named commissioner of the inquiry.

On December 5, 2006, the commissioner, Justice Nunn, presented his report, which included 34 recommendations: 19 recommendations on the need to simplify the administration of justice and improve accountability, 6 others on giving the Youth Criminal Justice Act more teeth, and 9 others on youth crime prevention.

I found out about this inquiry and this report through my colleagues and not through the Conservative government.

It was my colleagues from Sydney—Victoria, Halifax West, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Kenora, Saint Boniface, Winnipeg South Centre, Churchill, Cape Breton—Canso, Yukon, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and Scarborough—Rouge River who brought the fact and the reality of the existence of this report to my attention.

I immediately got a copy of the report and began reading it. I have to tell the House that what the government has tabled is not in any way a comprehensive response to the six recommendations that Justice Nunn made in his December 2006 report.

Let me read the actual recommendations.

Recommendation 20 states:

The Province should advocate that the federal government amend the “Declaration of Principle” in section 3 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act.

Recommendation 21 states:

--that the federal government amend the definition of “violent offence” in section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person.

Recommendation 22 states:

--that the federal government amend section 39(1)(c) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that the requirement for a demonstrated “pattern of findings of guilt” is changed to “a pattern of offences”, or similar wording, with the goal that both a young person's prior findings of guilt and pending charges are to be considered when determining the appropriateness of pre-trial detention.

Recommendation 23, the fourth one that deals directly with the YCJA, states:

--that the federal government amend and simplify the statutory provisions relating to the pre-trial detention of young persons so that section 29 will stand on its own without interaction with other statutes or other provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Recommendation 24 states:

--that the federal government amend section 31(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act so that if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking” the young person's undertaking made under section 31(3)(b) nevertheless remains in full force and effect, particularly any requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and other conditions imposed by a youth court judge.

Finally, recommendation 25, the sixth recommendation of Justice Nunn's that goes directly to the YCJA, states:

--that the federal government amend section 31(6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to remove the requirement of a new bail hearing for the young person before being placed in pre-trial custody if the designated “responsible person” is relieved of his or her obligations under a “responsible person undertaking”.

There is a series of recommendations talking about the development and implementation of a public, comprehensive, collaborative and effective interdepartmental strategy to coordinate programs, interventions, services and supports to children, youth at risk and their families. All of the other recommendations were directed to the provincial government of Nova Scotia, but six of them directly called on the provincial government of Nova Scotia to advocate for and lobby the federal government for six precise changes.

Let us look at this to see what the government actually changed.

The government included, as the minister said, that the judge may now use the following criteria in determining the sentence that is appropriate for a young offender: “to denounce unlawful conduct” and “to deter the young person and other young persons from committing offences”. That is a big piece of Bill C-25.

The other piece of Bill C-25 addresses in part Justice Nunn's recommendations, but only in part. He had several recommendations regarding the pretrial detention, and the bill addresses some of those recommendations, that is, that the justice shall:

presume that detention is not necessary unless

(a) the young person is charged with a violent offence or an offence that otherwise endangers the public by creating a substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm to another person;

(b) the young person has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences or conditions of release, or

(c) the young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilty under this Act or the Young Offenders Act....

Finally, the bill states:

If the youth justice court or the justice finds that none of paragraphs 2(a) to (c) apply, the court or justice shall not detain the young person unless...satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood, having regard to all of the relevant factors including any pending charges against the young person, that the young person will, if released from custody, commit a violent offence or an offence that otherwise endangers the public by creating a substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm to another person.

That is great. That answers some of Justice Nunn's recommendations. It does not, however, answer Justice Nunn's recommendation on amending section 3, the declaration of principle, “to add a clause indicating that protection of the public is one of the primary goals of the act”.

It also does not address Justice Nunn's recommendation that the definition of “violent offence” found in section 39(1)(a) “include conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person”.

It does not answer and respond to Justice Nunn's recommendation that “the...government amend and simplify the statutory provisions relating to the pre-trial detention of young persons so that section 29 will stand on its own without interaction with other statutes”.

One of the main recommendations of Justice Nunn was that section 3 should be amended so that protection of the public would be a primary objective of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. For a government that beats its chest and beats the drums over and over again in its members' ridings, on the news and in its publications that it is there to get tough on crime, I cannot understand why the government chose not to amend section 3 and include protection of the public as a primary goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Is it because it is not really protection of the public that the Conservative government is interested in, but that this is more about punishment? Is that why? There is no other logical explanation.

Let me read a few quotes from the Nunn commission report. It noted:

--the [Youth Criminal Justice Act] has been highly successful in the manner in which the vast majority of youth is handled...The challenge is whether the [Youth Criminal Justice Act] in its present form is adequate to deal with that smaller number of repeat offenders that the justice system is concerned with on a regular basis.

Justice Nunn also said:

--it is important to state that not one of the parties with standing took exception to the philosophy behind the act or to the majority of its provisions. Rather, they identified a number of sections causing concern and recommended changes.

Unfortunately, the government again has chosen to cherry-pick among these recommendations. That is me talking, not Justice Nunn. I will return to the quotes:

--I can categorically state that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is legislation that provides an intelligent, modern and advanced approach to dealing with youth involved in criminal activities. Canada is now far ahead of other countries in its treatment of youth in conflict with the law....

That is on page 228, but Justice Nunn's next statement is even better:

This is not to say that there are not those who are opposed to the [Youth Criminal Justice Act], just as there were those opposed to the previous acts, the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act.

He continues, and I like this one, as he is spot on:

Many of these critics believe that jail is the answer: “There they'll learn the errors of their ways.” These critics pay little attention to contrary evidence, nor do they understand that with young persons jail for the terms they recommend does not correct or rehabilitate, but rather often turns out a person whose behaviour is much worse than it was. Others espouse the vengeful adage “adult crime--adult time”....

How many times have we heard that from Conservative members, those who were previously Canadian Alliance members and before that Reform members? Justice Nunn goes on to say:

--paying no attention to the fact that it is a youth crime and not an adult crime.

Such an attitude is in direct conflict with modern approaches to treating criminal behaviour. Most of the adherents of these views refuse to accept that youth should be treated differently and separately from any adult system.

Nevertheless, they are entitled to the views and opinions they express. Unfortunately, in the present state of our youth criminal justice system, they are unable to make any contribution to reform, even when some reform is not only reasonable but desirable.

I would like to continue the quotes. How much time do I have left, please?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a big proponent of and a believer in everyone learning from everybody else in the country. The province of Quebec has good ideas that can and should be examined by other law enforcement agencies and those who work with young people. All of us can learn from each other.

I was very proud, for instance, to be with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, at an announcement in St. Catharines on Monday morning, when a group known as the Citizens Advisory Committee received a $1.7 million grant from the government to assist young people who are in trouble with the law or have the potential to get in trouble with the law. It will have a program where it can engage approximately 80 individuals at one time who can work with those individuals to try to ensure they do not get mixed up with the criminal justice system.

I look to a program like that. I congratulated the members for their fine work, which they have been doing for almost two decades now in the Niagara Peninsula.

Again, as the hon. member says, we can learn from each other, but we have to be united in our determination that bills like this have to be passed. We cannot say that, yes, a program is working somewhere and, therefore, we are not going to do anything any more. I have been coast to coast in the country and people all tell me the same thing: do something about the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I am responding to what was said in the Nunn commission report. I am responding to my colleagues who have been hearing from their constituents, who have been saying that they want to see changes. We have heard from a wide range of people. I think there is a consensus that the changes we bring about in Bill C-25 are very reasonable and should have the support of everybody in the House of Commons.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C-25, which amends the sentencing and pretrial provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The government has committed itself to respond to the concerns that Canadians have expressed about youth crime. Bill C-25 now before this House is an example of how we are going to meet that commitment. We are going to strengthen the youth justice system and ensure fairness and effectiveness in the application of the criminal law for young people. We are ensuring that society is effectively protected from violent and dangerous offenders. Young offenders, like adults, must face meaningful consequences for serious crimes.

In the last election we said we would make changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and last month in Halifax, accompanied by the former Nova Scotia minister of justice, I announced that the government would deliver on this promise and introduce amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This has been done with the tabling of this bill on Monday. It is not just Nova Scotia that has been requesting these improvements. Manitoba has been requesting them as well.

I have to refer to a couple of colleagues in my own caucus. For many years the member for Wild Rose has called for changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I know he takes a great deal of satisfaction from the progress that he has made in a number of areas. The protection of 14 and 15 year olds definitely is one of the crusades that he has had and I very much appreciate that as well. The member for Crowfoot has been one of those individuals who has continued to encourage me and the government to move forward with these changes. I have received pretty good support right across this country from provincial attorneys general, but I am very appreciative of those colleagues of mine who have come forward and asked for these changes.

I should point out that the Nova Scotia request for change is in large part based on the recommendations in the Nunn commission report. Many of us are aware of the tragedy that was experienced in Nova Scotia where a youth with outstanding charges for automobile theft was continuously released prior to his trial. The individual stole another vehicle and again it resulted in a tragedy in which Theresa McEvoy was killed.

Nova Scotia has done great work in pushing for these changes. Yesterday I was pleased to see in a news release that the justice minister of Nova Scotia, Cecil Clarke, said he welcomes our Youth Criminal Justice Act amendments and he called on all members of the House to support this bill.

The pretrial detention provisions of Bill C-25 are also the result of consultations I undertook this summer with my provincial and territorial counterparts and various other stakeholders. We continued those discussions again last week when I was in Winnipeg at a federal-provincial justice ministers meeting in that city. They too shared with me their concerns about detaining dangerous youth prior to their trial.

I am confident that the amendments we have tabled in the House of Commons will address those concerns. The proposals now before the House provide new measures to protect communities from young people who pose a significant risk to public safety and to hold youth accountable for their criminal conduct.

It will amend the youth justice system by including as well deterrence and denunciation as sentencing principles and by making it easier to detain a broader range of young persons who pose a risk to public safety.

Currently under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the purpose of a youth sentence is to hold the young person accountable through meaningful consequences and rehabilitative measures. The sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and it must also be the sentence most likely to rehabilitate the young person.

Last year the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not allow deterrence and denunciation to be considered by the courts as specific objectives of the courts when they are sentencing youth. These are important objectives we believe for judges to have when considering an appropriate sentence.

Deterrence means imposing a sanction for the purpose of discouraging the offender and others from engaging in criminal conduct. Denunciation refers to society's condemnation of the offence. My proposed sentencing amendment would allow courts to consider both deterrence and denunciation as objectives in youth sentences. Again, we appreciate the support of our provincial counterparts for the inclusion of both of these in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Many Canadians are concerned about youth crime and believe that changes to sentences can be very helpful. They want to stem the reported recent increase in violent youth crime and restore respect for law, so I am asking Parliament to move expeditiously in getting this bill passed.

For some time now, the government has been taking part in a comprehensive review of the pretrial detention and release provisions on the youth justice system. I have indicated as well to my provincial and territorial counterparts that I would like to have their input for a complete, comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

This is an appropriate time, it seems to me, in view of concerns that I have heard right across this country with respect to youth crime and youth violence. I think it comes at an appropriate time inasmuch as this is the fifth anniversary of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and indeed the 100th anniversary of a separate youth criminal justice system in Canada.

I indicated to my provincial counterparts, and I have indicated publicly, and certainly I will be getting input from my colleagues as to how to go about that so that we can bring forward comprehensive changes.

This is just one of the measures that we have placed before Parliament. I was very pleased as well to introduce the bill that has mandatory prison terms for people who commit serious drug offences. I saw on television a couple of academics who had some problems with that. I can say that they do not represent the majority of Canadians. Canadians want to see tough sentences when it comes to drug offences and they want to see changes to the youth criminal justice act.

I tabled a bill a few minutes ago on identity theft, and the tackling violent crime act has been reported back to Parliament. Bill C-25 should be seen in the context of a wide range of government initiatives, all of them designed to make our communities safer, to make our streets safer, to stand up for the innocent victims of crime.

One of my clients--one of my colleagues--I am not practising law anymore in Niagara Falls, although I was very proud to do that for many years. My colleagues have been very supportive of these initiatives because they know we are on the right track to help build a better and safer Canada.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)