Mr. Speaker, in a few words, to begin, I think I can say, and not be too far off the mark, that an elephant has just brought forth a mouse; the elephant, of course, is the problem of young offenders, you understand.
Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment which the House can accept, for the sake of young people who need help in Canada.
After receiving much media coverage, reading thousands of briefs and attending federal-provincial conferences, the minister let it be understood that the problem of young offenders was very complex and deserved special attention to produce amendments for correcting the deficiencies in the system. The big problem of youth is supposed to be solved with the bill we have in our hands.
So where do we stand? What is the wonder prescription to achieve this objective? So as not to be accused of distorting the major points of the bill, I will use the justice minister's press release of June 2. Here are the ingredients of the wonder formula to deal with the problems of young offenders.
First of all, the minister proposes extending the penalties for adolescents found guilty in youth court of first- or second-degree murder to ten and seven years respectively. What a stroke of inspiration. We see that the essential element of the bill is repression. Indeed, the government stresses this point at the outset so that everyone understands.
Secondly, the minister proposes referring to adult court 16- and 17-year-olds accused of an offence involving serious bodily harm, unless they can convince a judge that the objectives of public protection and rehabilitation can both be met if they are judged in a youth court.
This is an important change. In our system, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the Crown must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; however, if the accused is 16 or 17 years old, he is presumed to be an adult for the purposes of his trial unless the public interest does not require it.
Under our laws, an underage person will have to show that the public can be protected and he can be returned to society if his case is referred to youth court; this is a dangerous breach of legal principles which concerns me greatly.
With this bill, the government is dividing 16- and 17-year-olds into two classes: persons under 18 who are docile and can be rehabilitated and those who, at age 16 and 17, are incorrigible, as implied in the bill. If we can speak of the long arm of the law, we can now say that it is also selective.
How can such unfair treatment be compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In any event, we in Quebec have at least 25 years of experience in reintegrating young offenders in society. Although we need to invest to expand the program, and although I agree that a lot remains to be done, we have a system to provide support to a young person who needs help. But in those English-speaking provinces where rehabilitation is not a priority, where will a 16 or 17-year-old go, even if he asks for protection under the Young Offenders Act? I am quite sure that legal precedents will quickly be created and based on the principle that a 16 or 17-year-old must be held accountable for his acts, must be treated like an adult, must be dealt with by an adult court, and must also be sentenced as an adult.
In the reform he tabled last week, the minister also lengthens the sentences to be served by 16 and 17-year old offenders who are found guilty of murder by an adult court, before they can be eligible for parole. Again, the underlying message being conveyed is one of repression.
The fourth element mentioned by the minister to help young people avoid getting into trouble with the law is to improve the sharing of information between professionals, for example school authorities, the police and some public representatives, when public security is threatened, and to retain criminal records for a longer period in the case of young offenders who have committed serious crimes.
I am curious to see how clause 38.(1.14) will be interpreted as regards public security.
Many well-meaning but tactless people will append the criminal record and the court order to the academic record, precisely for so-called security reasons. What a nice introduc-
tion, for the young person, to this self-proclaimed tolerant and generous society.
The message is quite clear when you read the bill, especially as regards that issue. It says: you are a petty criminal and we will make sure that you do not forget that. We will try to ensure that you are periodically reminded of that by appending this information to your school record.
If the provisions of this bill are strictly implemented, a young delinquent will spend more time in an institution, will have less chance of rehabilitating himself and, when he gets out, will be a branded person. The last ingredient of the minister's recipe is rehabilitation and treatment. We cannot say much on this because the minister certainly did not elaborate on this particular point. He merely said that, in the case of young offenders, rehabilitation and treatment will be used when appropriate.
I am sorry, but I believe that a 10, 11, 14 or 17 year old has a right to whatever rehabilitation or treatment is required in his case. This should not be a conditional but, rather, an unconditional provision in the bill. Once again, our views are very different.
The Minister of Justice told us he consulted a lot of people, including representatives of the legal profession, police officers, school authorities, provinces and many others. Among all of the proposed amendments, I wonder which ones were requested by the Quebec Minister of Justice, the Director of Youth Protection, the Quebec Judicial Council or even the National Assembly of Quebec? Which criminologist or sociologist in Quebec would want such repression? Who in Quebec asked for this kind of amendments?
If the minister held consultations, and I am sure he did, we can only conclude that, for the government to have come up with such a flimsy effort, as I said earlier, the Liberal Party of Canada must have felt unbearable internal pressure from Western Canada. To please the majority, they once again ignored the will of Quebecers, even though Quebec had made it very clear what it wanted. To be heard, the National Assembly of Quebec as well as Bloc members in this House have always maintained their positions.
As I intend to make myself clear, maybe for the last time, I will quote none other that the Quebec Minister of Justice whom the federal minister allegedly consulted. On May 4, Mr. Roger Lefebvre, Liberal minister in the Quebec government, said: "I think it is important for the federal and provincial governments to focus their actions more on rehabilitation than on repression. Young offenders need help and support to re-enter society. It is important not to condemn in advance all young offenders who commit violent crimes".
I wonder if the minister, a federalist I might add, is happy with the bill introduced by his big brother. Yet, according to the Quebec Minister of Justice, the message was made very clear at the federal-province conference. Mr. Lefebvre sums up his position in this way: "At the federal-provincial conference of the Ministers of Justice which took place in Ottawa on March 23 and 24, I had several opportunities to express the positions of Quebec, particularly on the proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act. I also said that the Quebec government intends to pursue and intensify its search of durable and effective solutions that will meet the real needs of young people, and leave some hope for their future".
I would like to expand a little bit on that point of view because it is important to understand the inconsistencies in the current situation. I stressed that federal action must be respectful of Quebec jurisdiction and seek to reduce overlapping so that Quebec does not end up with higher costs.
I also indicated that experience in Quebec has shown that the present maximum sentence of five years is adequate for an overwhelming majority of murders committed by young people. The present transfer mechanism for serious offenses makes it possible to judge young offenders in a regular criminal court when their rehabilitation requires a long period of detention that cannot be determined.
And in the last paragraph, we have the explanation of the bill of the federal minister of justice. It is Mr. Lefebvre who says this to the National Assembly on May 4: "It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to make better use of current legislative tools for referrals instead of changing the rules, as some of the other provincial ministers of justice indicated during that federal-provincial conference". That is clear enough. Without having been present at that federal-provincial conference, I can say that Quebec City's concerns did not carry much weight in the decision of the federal justice.
I consider the Minister of Justice a progressive and I have a lot a respect for him but, unfortunately, I have to say that this bill is disappointing and dangerous. With due respect for the opposite opinion, I can say that the alarm has been sounded. Next time, what principle of our justice system will disappear? Who will take the rap so that we can silence and calm right-wing people? This bill misses the target and ignores the real flaws and the present problems.
I hear members of the government telling me that I am playing well my role of official opposition in criticizing a bill coming from the Minister of Justice. However, I will do more than that. Sometimes, I dream about putting myself in the place of a minister to try to understand his position, to follow his logic and to ask myself what I would have done if I had been in his shoes.
In the present case, it has been difficult for me to understand the minister's position and to follow his logic, but in spite of it all, I would have never meddled with the Young Offenders Act.
The problem is not the act, but its application. Indeed, if I had been in the place of the Minister of Justice, I would have outlined the situation in this way. First, I would have encouraged Western provinces and other Canadian provinces to follow the example of Quebec where rehabilitation is the basic objective. In summary, I would not have reinvented the wheel, I would simply have insisted on respect for the meaning and the purpose of the Young Offenders Act as it now stands. We do not even know the results of the latest amendments to the act and we already want to bring in some new ones. We cannot deal with such an issue on the short term, we must know where we are going.
Second, I would have talked about statistics because they are important. The most recent statistics show that crime by youths is declining. The media exaggerate the situation and the public has the wrong impression about today's young people. However, in larger cities, statistics seem to be influenced by a series of factors like the presence of gangs, new cultural communities, et cetera. Some of the things that certain members said in their speeches called this to mind.
Also in my dream, as justice minister, I would have introduced a program in partnership with the Minister of Human Resources Development in order to encourage the development, effectiveness and efficiency of youth houses, streetworkers, centres and other places for young people, by means of employment and development programs and sections like section 25. I think that prevention, education and consciousness-raising can prevent crime. I would not have condemned anyone but I would have tried to understand the problem and eliminate it at the root. The bill does not mention anything to that effect.
Third, the public rightly responds to the facts reported by the media. One particular case which recently resulted in a general outcry deals with the robbery of a convenience store by minors who were controlled by adults. The organizer of the crime, an adult, was sentenced to two years in jail even if a murder was committed in that store. This kind of case is not new. It is well-known that well organized criminals and unscrupulous bums use young people to do their crimes.
Is the minor the problem or the adult? We all know that a 10 or 11-year-old looks up to his elders. They are prepared to do anything to be accepted, even commit armed robbery or kill someone. In this case, the culprit is not the 10 or 11-year-old. The real criminal, the dangerous offender is the adult who uses a young person for his own perverted ends.
And what did the minister put in his bill to stop this shocking and shameless exploitation of young people? Nothing.
If I were the minister, I would have proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I would not be satisfied with the current sentences these adults receive when they are caught. A person who conspires with a minor to commit a crime should answer for the same crime as the minor. That is why I would have proposed a new section in the Criminal Code, to follow section 465 which deals with conspiracy, and to be referred to as section 465.1 "conspiracy with a minor".
I am not an expert on legal drafting, but to give hon. members an idea of what I would like to see in this section, I will read you a section that would have read as follows: "Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who conspire with minors to cause them to commit offences: (a) everyone who conspires with a minor to cause him to commit an offence in the meaning of section 231, first degree murder or second degree murder, in the meaning of section 239, attempt to commit murder, in the meaning of sections 233 and 234, manslaughter, in the meaning of section 273, aggravated sexual assault, in the meaning of section 268, aggravated assault, is guilty of the indictable offence of which the minor is accused and liable to the same punishment, provided under each of these sections, to which he would be liable if he had himself committed the offence''.
The second paragraph of this section would have read as follows: "Everyone who conspires with a minor or causes him to commit any other offence punishable on summary conviction or an indictable offence is, if the offence is committed by the minor, guilty of the offence as though he had committed the offence himself and is liable to the same punishment".
This section is intended to fill a gap in our legislation. It would send a very clear message that trying to be clever by using young people in our country is a criminal offence. In this way we would deal with the real problem.
Since in many cases, the adult would receive a more severe sentence than the young offender, the objective of this amendment would soon be reached. We cannot just stand there and let a young person's life be ruined. We need constructive proposals. Unfortunately, I am not the Minister of Justice, and this House has to live with Bill C-37, where it looks like in the minister's mind, there has to be a link between repression and crime. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe that we should not forget the extensive study undertaken last year in the United States, in two or three states where the young offender legislation had been amended to lengthen sentences. It shows that, instead of going down as expected, the crime rate among young people went up. How do you explain this? I do not know. I am not a psychologist, but I do
know that it is true. To claim that repression is going to lower the crime rate is ludicrous.
Bill C-37, in its present form, is contrary to Quebec's policy and legislation regarding youth protection. It flies in the face of the motion passed nearly unanimously, on May 5 last, by the Quebec National Assembly, as if we were no longer part of the federal government's concerns. Fortunately, I do hope that the House will seize the opportunity to backtrack offered by the Bloc member for Saint-Hubert, with her proposed amendment. There is no shame in admitting that one was wrong, and I believe that this amendment gives the House of Commons the opportunity to acknowledge that it is proceeding a bit too fast with an issue as important as young offenders. It could be that the consultations undertaken by the minister did not yield the expected results.
We must realize that the decision the House is going to make regarding young offenders will have far-reaching consequences since it will alter the course of their lives. It is not a decision we can make lightly.
In conclusion, I would also mention people we have not talked about yet, except in a question I asked one member, and who are not mentioned in the repressive amendments of the minister. I am referring to native young offenders.
If we look at the figures of Statistics Canada, as we go west the crime rate increases. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the figures are alarming. The rate is over 30 per cent in the Northwest Territories. What is the minister going to do with all these young people, where is he going to put them?
Is he going to build special institutions for young offenders? Is he going to increase funding for legal aid? Who is going to assume the defence of the poor? How much is it going to cost? These questions have to be answered and I am very surprised that western members, who claim to be the Official Opposition on certain issues, did not take up the case of the people who elected them and are directly affected by these amendments.
Finally, with these amendments the jails are going to be full, we will have to build more, and there will not be much rehabilitation, because the demand will be much greater than what the province can provide, given that no money was ever invested in rehabilitation and social reintegration.
For all these reasons I will support the Bloc Quebecois' amendment and vote against this bill.
