Debates of Feb. 20th, 1995

Young Offenders Act

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the House understands that I agree we need to address those things but it should not be through the justice department. I am trying to differentiate between the two.

I also asked the member about 16 and 17 year olds and about how it is making a difference when I see it making no difference whatsoever. I would like him to respond to that part.

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the new provisions for 16 and 17 year olds are not yet law. They are simply before the House in the bill. I would ask the member to give them a chance. I think he will see that they will make a difference.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act, amendments to which we are discussing today, reaches deep into the fabric of our society. When we

decide to amend this act, we must try to better express the ideals, values and objectives of our society for the young people who have committed crimes.

We must remember that the very existence of a young offenders act is an expression of Canadian society's desire to offer young people an alternative to the Criminal Code, which applies to adults. Our society is aiming not only at stopping and penalizing the criminal behaviour of young people, but also at giving them training to help them learn and adjust. For this reason, responsibility for administering the Young Offenders Act does not rest with the judicial system alone, but also with the social services set up by the various provinces.

In Quebec, organized services for young people in trouble and young offenders date back to the establishment of the first industrial and reform schools in the second half of the 19th century, that is, even before the federal Parliament adopted the first juvenile delinquents act in 1908.

More than 8,000 social workers from various professions currently work in youth centres in Quebec. They are involved annually with 85,000 young people and their families, including nearly 22,000 young persons who are referred to them under the Young Offenders Act. These experts represent an extraordinary resource we would be wrong to forgo.

We are in the curious situation in the House today of discussing a bill to amend the Young Offenders Act in third reading, when almost all those making representations before the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had asked that the adoption of these amendments be delayed.

These people all asked the Minister of Justice to move immediately on to the second phase of his plan of action-an in-depth evaluation of the present act and its application-before making such substantial amendments to the act.

Based on this evaluation, the amendments proposed by the justice minister could be reviewed and all members could vote with the full conviction that they are giving the parties involved in fighting youth crime the legal tool to do so, while at the same time promoting deterrence and rehabilitation.

Why is the justice minister refusing to take this logical step? Can the minister convince us that the amendments he has proposed must definitely be passed without delay?

In preparing my statement, I was struck by the fact that none of the stakeholders I met would feel any better equipped to fight youth crime if the amendments proposed by the minister were passed. On the contrary, they are convinced that their job would be even more difficult, both in respect of the public and the young persons themselves.

For instance, increasing sentences for serious offences may create a false sense of security among the public, although past experience gives us no reason to expect that such a measure would have a positive effect, either on the level of crime or on recidivism among young persons.

Moreover, by basically limiting detention orders to offences involving serious assault with bodily harm, the act would deprive the judicial system and social workers of an instrument sometimes necessary to the rehabilitation of certain young persons for whom recidivism, schooling, family and personal situation and other circumstances must be taken into account. In short, a prison sentence may be appropriate in certain cases even if the offences in question did not entail serious personal harm.

In other words, we can assert on the basis of present findings that passing this act would not provide any greater measure of social protection and that the quality of supervision for certain young persons would suffer. The question which naturally comes to mind is the following: Why is the Minister of Justice bent on pushing through so quickly an act that all those concerned doubt will be effective?

Many people think the answer to it is that the Minister of Justice has given in to a small but very vocal group that favours lex talionis, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". This group is reacting to the small glimpse they have gotten of juvenile delinquency and to the knowledge they have gleaned from the media of certain extreme but very rare manifestations of that criminality, such as crimes against persons. Left to its own devices and fanned by radio talk-show hosts, this fraction of public opinion is demanding that draconian measures be taken against juvenile delinquency.

By giving in to such pressure, the Minister of Justice shows that he pays more attention to what radio talk-show hosts say than to those working in the sector. Has he forgotten that his primary mission is to propose effective laws to Canadians that enforce our ideals of justice?

We are very disappointed that the Minister of Justice has abdicated his primary responsibility by proposing repressive and ineffective amendments inspired by ultraconservative opinions on social policy first propagated by the Reform Party, then apparently adopted by the Liberal party as their own.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that we can and must channel the legitimate concerns of the population towards a better understanding of juvenile delinquency and towards a willingness to apply adequate preventative and deterrent measures, as well as effective rehabilitation measures for young offenders.

The minister promises that he will take that approach later, while forcing us to adopt amendments which go against the spirit of the very approach he proposes. The members of this

House must understand that the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice reflect a policy and values that are fundamentally different from those underlying the act itself.

By increasingly linking sentencing to the seriousness of the offences committed as the sole factor, these amendments thwart the search for measures consistent with both the seriousness of the offences and the needs of the young offenders. This search is the very basis for the existence of a Young Offenders Act distinct from the Criminal Code.

How can they ask us to renounce today the underlying principles of a law that is supposed to undergo a thorough review in the coming months?

We are well aware of the inconsistency in the approach proposed by the Minister of Justice and will vote against these amendments. We know, however, that the bill is at the third reading stage and that, unless it is withdrawn by the Minister of Justice, it will be passed by the government majority, probably with the support of Reform members.

Therefore, I ask the Minister of Justice straight out to reconsider his position and initiate his proposed review of the Young Offenders Act now before this bill is passed.

I am confident that such a decision would be widely supported across Canada, and it would be the only acceptable option from Quebec's point of view. In Quebec, this bill was opposed not only by those who work with young offenders but by the Quebec government, which expressed its opposition very clearly through its Minister of Justice, its Minister of Health and Social Services, and its Minister of Public Security.

As early as June 14, 1994, Roger Lefebvre, as the then Minister of Justice and on behalf of his colleagues, the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Minister of Public Security, told his federal counterpart about his deep concerns regarding Bill C-37. Quebec's position, together with a detailed analysis of the bill, was relayed to the federal deputy minister as early as September 12 and tabled before the House of Commons justice committee.

Let me read the main conclusions of this analysis: Bill C-37 does not resolve the problem adequately; Bill C-37 is unfounded; Bill C-37 is full of inconsistencies and ambiguity; Bill C-37 has undesirable and unjustified effects in terms of service organization and principles as well as in clinical and financial terms.

Quebec's position on this bill could hardly be clearer and more devastating. I want to emphasize the fact that this position was developed by members of the previous Cabinet in Quebec, a Liberal Cabinet, and that it was fully endorsed by the present Party Quebecois government. Therefore, there is no doubt that this position reflects a very large consensus in Quebec society.

The federal justice minister must understand that, should the amendments contained in this bill be passed, the justice, health and social services departments as well as those primarily responsible for their enforcement in Quebec would then be forced to put into application amendments to the Young Offenders Act that they unanimously denounced and against which the vast majority of members from Quebec would have voted.

This brings to light a serious situation where the Canadian majority would impose upon the people of Quebec values and directions to which they object.

This situation appears all the more unacceptable that most witnesses from the rest of Canada and even federal justice analysts agree that Quebec is in fact a model in combatting youth crime and rehabilitating young offenders.

While the youth crime rate in Quebec compares favourably to the rate in the other provinces, the number of cases transferred is much lower than it is in the other provinces. There are only 9.4 per cent of referrals in Quebec, with 25.4 per cent of the youth population between the ages of 12 and 17.

This is due to a large extent to the enforcement measures put in place in Quebec and a more extensive use of the alternative measures program. In addition, the emphasis put on the Youth Protection Act and its enforcement in Quebec makes it possible to deal with difficult family circumstances without resorting to the Youth Offenders Act. In short, Quebec has developed an integrated and efficient approach and the other provinces should follow suit.

How are we to explain to our fellow Quebec citizens that, if this bill is passed, we will have to abide by the wishes of the federal Parliament even though these amendments were rejected unanimously by the Quebec departments and officials in charge of enforcing them?

Of course we will have to mention the constitution, although the hon. member for Shawinigan and Prime Minister of Canada does not like it when we bring this up. Well, according to the Canadian constitution, the Young Offenders Act is a federal matter, although its implementation is up to the provincial governments.

Quebec will have to submit to the will of Parliament in this respect, until we change the constitution or decide to draft our own constitution, as a sovereign country.

Some members or observers may think I am just using this debate to promote the sovereignist option by stressing the differences between Quebec and the federal government. That is certainly not the case, since I have asked the Minister of Justice to delay the passage of this bill and to proceed with a review that would be beneficial to all the provinces of Canada.

If the Minister of Justice says no, I will have to conclude that we are faced with two different philosophies regarding youth crime and that the rest of Canada, by using the powers conferred by the constitution on the federal Parliament, is forcing on Quebec an approach that it cannot accept. I think that young people in Quebec who are in trouble deserve a more satisfactory response than the one proposed by the Minister of Justice, which draws its inspiration from the repressive and ultraconservative policies that come to us from Western Canada.

In any case, the Bloc Quebecois will do everything in its power to stop these policies at the Quebec border. First, by voting against this bill, and then by maintaining our support for sovereign status for Quebec, which would give it exclusive legislative powers.

[English]

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that Quebec has a different approach to young offenders and it works quite well. I wonder if there is not enough leeway in the bill for judges to make a decision that would accommodate Quebec's option.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec submitted an analysis, which I could give my colleague. It was tabled with the House justice committee. Very clearly, it says first that this bill is not justified. Reasons are given for increasing sentences. Sentences were just increased in 1992, when Kim Campbell was the Minister of Justice. In 1992, she increased sentences for young offenders.

We have yet to see the results. Now we are giving in again. We are trying to be like the people of California, or just about. Their biggest budget items are prisons and the police. We want health and education to be the biggest items here, not prisons and the police.

In the bill, sentences are being increased. What is more serious in this bill from the standpoint of young people? One very important point is that, from now on, detention will be almost impossible for young people who have not committed serious crimes against individuals.

For example, young people involved in car theft networks or even in drug or cigarette trafficking, who have not been caught committing crimes against individuals, but who need to be withdrawn from their surroundings, must be detained for rehabilitation. The bill will restrict the ability of those in these situations who must intervene and remove young people from their surroundings so that they do not become hardened criminals.

On the one hand, unfortunately, sentences are being increased, while on the other, offences for which such sentences can be imposed are being restricted. Basically, however, if the system is adequate-which is unfortunately not the case in all provinces-being in custody allows for the young person to be extricated from criminal surroundings and rehabilitated before it is too late. The other aspect which seems absurd to us is that a 16 or 17-year old will have to prove that he should be heard in youth court.

First of all, I would like to point out a misconception which I hear on a regular basis from members of the Reform Party. In certain cases, young persons might clearly fare better before an adult court than under the Young Offenders Act because the Young Offenders Act also provides for extended sentences in certain cases to allow for rehabilitation and, very often, such young persons are removed from a series of measures instituted to help them, but also to supervise them.

I listened to what was said and at times I found it quite astonishing. Putting young persons into custody under the present system is no picnic for them, but it provides for good supervision and gives them a chance to make a fresh start for themselves. The bill refers to rehabilitation; the preamble has been changed. Nothing in the amendments provides for improved rehabilitation. Changing the preamble and including all the measures which appeal to the Reform Party will not improve the act.

In Quebec, we are systematically opposed to it. All institutions, departments concerned and interested parties know that it is taking us in the wrong direction.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-37, which amends the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, I am taken back to earlier stages in my professional career as a sometime crown prosecutor and a defence lawyer. At a later stage I specialized in the teaching of Soviet law and the aspects of Soviet criminal law. I speak now of non-political crimes where that country had moved in the sentencing phase into much more of a sociological approach than a conventional criminological approach.

The bill is interesting because it comes at a time of historical transition in our society and in the world community as a whole, with the social tensions that are always present in a period of very rapid change which outstrip the ability of the social processes to accommodate to the changes.

As one who has to deal a lot with statistics, I have reservations, but it is a fact that the statistics show no substantial increase in the numbers of crimes being perpetrated in our society. It is also a fact, I think beyond doubt, that the intensity of the crimes and the violence of them are greatly augmented. This is what explains the public demand, it is certainly reflected in one of the opposition parties, for a toughening up of the criminal law, if one can use those terms.

The criminal law, not less than any other branch of public law, represents an attempt to balance the larger public interests against individual interests. Sometimes the metaphor of the pendulum has been used, but the pendulum which has swung much more in the immediate past years in favour of the rights of accused persons has swung, in the last several years certainly, much more strongly in favour of the protection of societal interests. We all reflect that.

It is reflected in the petitions presented in this House today. I note with interest that members of several different parties present petitions on this general question. All of us as members of Parliament receive letters from our constituents.

One of the very sad things in all this is that since Jeremy Bentham first formulated his plans on penal reform, on curing of the offenders, one has the terrible feeling that not as much progress has been made in that as a scientific discipline as should have been made. Therefore we come back to the issue with this bill: How has the balance been struck by the minister in approaching the demands for amendment of the existing Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code? How has he responded to the conflicting social interests?

Listening to the debate, one was struck by the difference in the attitude of the two opposition parties. The official opposition, and I take the criticisms of the hon. member for Rosemont as reflecting this, felt that the measure was too severe, that it did not adequately reflect the social interests in protecting young offenders. With the other opposition party, I think the criticism was made that it did not go far enough.

If the minister manages to build in both those criticisms of his work, it may strike many that maybe he has found the middle way. Let us have a look and see exactly what has been done.

There is the increase in the maximum sentences for teenagers to ten years for first degree murder or a maximum of seven years in the case of second degree murder. This reflects quite clearly the public concern that young offenders can commit murder and walk away from them.

I thought that the hon. member for Rosemont suggested that this was a simplistic approach and it did not take enough account of the element of recidivism which he feels is still severe in relation to young offenders who have been imprisoned. Perhaps we can take a look at that a little later when we examine other parts of the proposed bill.

The second part of the bill is significant and concerns young offenders, 16 or 17 year olds, charged with serious personal injury offences which are defined in the revised act as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated assault. These persons will be tried in adult court unless they can show a judge that public protection and rehabilitation can be achieved through the youth court. It changes the burden of carriage of the suit significantly from the preceding act which it now proposes to amend.

The bill does reflect the public interest in the public right to know the facts of offences. Parameters must be established in this regard.

In this House in recent days we have heard a certain cry of anguish from many members about what many feel are indecent attempts of some public media to open the books on recent sex offences and murders involving young people. Members know the cases without my citing the names.

The public interest, the public right to know demands increasingly that the courts be opened up. This process is reflected architecturally in the grand design of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Arthur Erickson's design, which is literally intended to allow people to walk in from the streets and through the courts.

Courts used to be shut up. When I was a young lawyer, they were closed. It was very hard to find your way and was panelled in dark wood. The court officials seemed to do their best to keep people out. Therefore this particular aspect is certainly there. In so far as court proceedings are a part of the general public educational process in criminal law, I think this is a step forward without any apparent disadvantages to it.

The time that 16 and 17 year old young offenders convicted of murder in adult court must serve before they can be considered for parole is extended. This is a reaction generally to a public feeling that the parole system today is not functioning as it should. It is being addressed in a more general way by other sections of the justice ministry.

Suffice it to say, for the most serious offence of all, the extension of the time to be served in the case of young offenders responds to very clear public interest. This was expressed to all members of Parliament through petition and through direct correspondence to us.

The provision for information sharing among professional people, school officials, police, and certain public groups when public safety is at risk has been criticized by some as exposing young people to public obloquy. It has been criticized by one of the opposition parties in this debate as not going far enough. There are two things to remember.

We have moved a long way from the 18th century notion that people were exposed in the docks, in the public stocks in the village square, and made to wear a letter on their chest if they were convicted of certain offences. It reflects a reaction to this but it also recognizes awareness of the relevance of the charter of rights. The charter of rights, as interpreted in the jurisprudence in our courts, is very strict in its definition of the limits of the public right to know and the protection of the privacy of individuals.

In this particular sense, it seems to me the minister has gone as far as he sensibly can go. He is a law reformer who wants his law to prevail. He does not want it to be challenged endlessly before the courts and perhaps thrown out on the basis of the rational interpretation of the court jurisprudence that all of us as professionals in the field know how to make.

Similarly, with the provisions for rehabilitation and treatment of young offenders, I was struck by the comments of the member for Rosemont, the official opposition. I think we are all ready and willing to learn from the experience of other countries and certainly from provinces within our federal system. I was struck by the thoughtful question posed by a member of my own party to the member for Rosemont.

This exchange of information is important. As far as the federal law is concerned, it represents a significant advance on provisions as they now exist.

One very interesting area is the provision the minister makes for the private law responsibility of offenders, here specifically young offenders, where property crimes or less serious offences are what is involved. The concept seems to be the restorative one that the criminal offender, the delinquent, should not merely purge an offence in terms of suffering punishment but should also assume the burden of correcting the social situation that he or she has so rudely disturbed.

If young people wantonly destroy property, we can take the Singapore approach and you can cane them in well publicized ways. Or we can ask the young people to repair the property as part of their sentence. We can ask them to accept the responsibility for what they have done which I think is an excellent approach. I hope it will be extended more widely within our criminal law.

Contrary to public impression and also public impression of some public officials, the way always exists under our law for private law actions to compel just that, the restoration of the situation to as it existed before. Actions are quite common in continental European law against the parents of young offenders or against the young offenders themselves for that matter, for whom their parents would stand in responsibility.

In any case, this is innovative. It shows the attempt the minister is making to produce a coherent law that balances the old with the new social imperatives in a period of rapid change. In making compromises, it strikes a balance that takes us beyond the social problem as it has been thought to exist.

On this basis this is a valuable step forward. We have to be especially careful when dealing with young offenders in facing the reality that long incarceration with young people encourages recidivism and may be the least effective social control of all.

Nevertheless the minister, in relation to the supreme offences, first and second degree murder, has taken the step of increasing the punishment. In other areas he has recognized the public wish to be involved but within the limitation that we will not encourage prurience by publishing televised tapes that people recorded of their victims. We will go so far as to say the public has a right to know.

We will bring in the social services people to encourage rehabilitation of young people. We will accept the notion that in the protection of the public responsible public officials in schools and elsewhere need to be given information. However that information must be done in conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the courts and as predictably applying in cases such as the present.

On this basis, I am happy to commend Bill C-37 for adoption by this House.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding this. A 17-year-old murders an individual, such as the mother in Edmonton. Someone else, who happens to be one year older, does the same thing. For him it is an automatic life sentence for first degree murder because he is one year older.

Why should there be a difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old? Why should a 17-year-old who performs that kind of act receive three years, which is very possible, and an 18-year-old who performs that kind of heinous act receive a 25-year sentence?

I am struggling with the difference. Why do we not take 16 and 17 year olds and say they are in adult court, period? Why include something that says unless it can be proven that it would be more to their benefit to be in juvenile court? Are we trying to create more work for lawyers? That is probably one of the motives, but I would not dare suggest it.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fruitful question raised by the hon. member. I would have thought the bill as presented by the minister responded to the specific cases he raised. These 16 and 17 year olds are to be dealt with in adult court under the bill. The maximum sentence is 10 years for first degree murder.

We are getting into this issue of marginal variation and where do we draw the line? Would we extend it from 16 years down to 15, or why not then 14? A life sentence and even death sentences were routinely applied in earlier periods of criminology to young children. We have obviously gone beyond that.

We have tried to establish a new line which reflects present societal expectations and present societal realities. It is always possible to amend this, but I would have thought that there is a significant change now made in applying this 10-year minimum sentence for first degree murder. On that particular score I think that the bill represents an advance. However, if on experience it is found that changes are needed, it can be amended again.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

This matter is close to my heart, as I lived with young offender issues and their consequences long before the Young Offenders Act became the law of the land. I was a part of the more than 10 years of consultation and wrangling that occurred which finally produced Bill C-61 back in 1981, which brought us this tragic, social science experiment perpetrated upon the Canadian people.

I have a clear message for the Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues. I also want to wake up the policy section of the Department of Justice which has led the justice minister into the mistake of Bill C-37.

I can appreciate that the justice minister has to take what he believes is the best advice he can get from his advisers. I say to those few in the department who have misguided the minister that the shame of the country is on their shoulders.

The condescending prescriptive approach of Bill C-37 is fundamentally out of step with mainstream Canadian values and it makes one's heart sink. I do not know what I can say to drag the members opposite into the nineties, clear their heads and listen to what I am saying. They should not discount what I say because of where I stand in the House. I claim particular credibility about the Young Offenders Act.

This country does not need Bill C-37. Rather, it needs a renewed Young Offenders Act, one which will improve the safety of our streets, put Canadians' minds at ease and reflect what Canadians want.

Members of this House and the minister, listen to what I am saying and make the appropriate adjustments. Bill C-37 is wrong. Hopefully we can get it right at the 10-year review.

Since coming to Ottawa I have sat through most of the justice committee meetings which dealt with Bill C-37. I have held town hall meetings and have done widespread surveys in my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby. I have also consulted across the country. The conclusion is the same, the Young Offenders Act and the amendments proposed as part of Bill C-37 do not come close to solving the problems associated with young offenders today.

In a survey included in a recent householder of mine I asked constituents a straightforward question: Does the current Young Offenders Act need to be amended? The yes response was an astounding 96.3 per cent. At town hall meetings in my riding the consensus was to lower the age and to change other essential elements.

This feeling is widespread across Canada. However, the bleeding heart Liberals do not want to admit it. Clearly the YOA is fundamentally flawed and has not achieved the acceptance that we would expect if it were operationally appropriate.

Canadians have had it with high taxes and an uncontrollable deficit and debt. They have had it with gun control measures which do not deter criminals. Most of all, they have had it with the Young Offenders Act which does not protect innocent people or support the principles of specific or general deterrence. Instead it seems to protect the rights of the offender in a manner out of balance with that of the victims.

The Young Offenders Act makes certain that the identity of a young offender is not known even if this puts the general public at high risk. Further, the Young Offenders Act fails to recognize the rights of the victim as a needed integral part of the justice system, as there is no legal recognition of their stake in the general proceedings.

The Minister of Justice asked for consultation, such as his 1993 discussion paper "Toward Safer Communities". The public thinks that the minister really cares about what it thinks. What the public does not know is that the minister already finished drafting the bill before the last responses were received.

True consultation is something which all members of the Liberal Party need to learn. Perhaps they should take a lesson from the members on this side of the House. To consult means not only to listen but to implement what the majority wants. Canadians are being reminded again that the Liberals' definition of consultation is to appear to listen and then to follow their original agenda.

Before the drafting of Bill C-37 there were rallies upon rallies across the country for drastic changes to the YOA. What happened? There were no drastic changes. Now on the eve of the 1995 budget Canadians are holding tax rallies from Victoria to St. John's demanding no more taxes. What will happen? The finance minister will raise taxes and increase the deficit all in one shot. The Liberals will still have the nerve to say that this is what the general public wants or should have.

The Reform Party appreciates the grassroots and listens very carefully. Our plan of reform of the YOA is community based, with a history of a bottom up approach, rather than the traditional bureaucratic, top down, no grassroots approach. Therefore, the Reform proposals I want to present are the ones that the

Canadian public wants and the ones that the Canadian public deserves.

One, lower the young offenders age of definition of young person from 10 to 15 years inclusive from 12 to 17 years inclusive. Two, any young offender who commits an indictable offence could possibly be transferred to adult court. Three, remove extra privacy and secrecy provisions in the Young Offenders Act and treat all YOA records, access to information, ability to publish in the same manner as is for adults.

Four, sentencing must emphasize victim compensation, community service, skills training, education and deterrence to others. In custodial facilities opportunities for rehabilitation must be emphasized in a disciplined environment. Medical psychological treatment orders should not require the consent of the young offender.

Five, parents of young offenders should be held responsible for compensating victims for property crimes if it can be demonstrated that they have not made a reasonable effort to exercise parental control. Six, victims must be given legal standing in youth court and be invited to be involved at all stages of court.

Constituents often ask why the government always tinkers with the YOA instead of making all the necessary changes in one try. I think we all know the answer. By changing it slightly throughout its mandate, the government makes it appear that it is really working hard for the people while basically preserving the status quo and not changing what it originally gave us.

Many members spoke on Bill C-37 at second reading stage and many more are going to be speaking at this stage. However, very few who will speak on this bill have experienced the frustrations of the Young Offenders Act firsthand. I realize that many of my colleagues in this House are lawyers but I know that only a few have ever dealt with defending or prosecuting a young offender.

As a former probation officer in the British Columbia Youth Court, I had to deal with the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis. I have lived and breathed the Young Offenders Act problems for years. As an officer of the court I did my best to administer at the street level the Young Offenders Act and its predecessor, the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908.

Beyond the lawyer who may have defended a youth at court, I regularly made home visits with young offenders and surveyed the social context of the offender. I worked hard to promote innovative resolutions to varied crises in case management, bringing together public health, social work and psychiatry in the schools to respond to particular needs. This both pre-court and post-court effort was happening long before the Young Offenders Act became law. The reality of administering the sentences and consequences of the Young Offenders Act is far removed from court proceedings. This different world is not comprehended very well by legal drafters and policy people.

I mention this as it relates not only to what should be done to fix the YOA but in respect to the credibility of the message giver. The Bloc accused me of nostalgic fascism when I rose to speak about the Young Offenders Act on May 12, 1994.

I want to remind my detractors in this House and those few lawyers who think they know something about young offenders-it seems that everyone in this House has an opinion about youth crime-that my recommendations come within the context of years of intimate working knowledge of trying to make the system work at the level of basic application.

The Reform Party's proposals are not right wing reactionary, but rooted deeply in direct experience and a careful evaluation of the balance between community desires and specific offender concerns.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is nationally known for his misguided views about offenders. At report stage he was again attributing views to the Reform position on Bill C-37 which had more to do with covering his own guilt about what he and his colleagues did to this country when a previous Liberal administration, which included the current Prime Minister, told Canadians what was good for them and thereby gave us the Young Offenders Act.

I was involved in early consultations when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was being changed to the early version of the Young Offenders Act. Philosophies are varied. I have seen violent youth released because of minor technicalities and flaws in the act. The Young Offenders Act is terribly flawed and will only further harm Canadians if it is kept in its present state, including if the amendments to Bill C-37 are given royal assent.

I tried as a professional to defend the system with the tool box of rules and resources that I had at my disposal. I found the act at times to be very cumbersome, a liberal statement of unrealistic hope over reality, inflexible rules over common sense, a sense of government betrayal to many victims, and a carte blanche to the self-centred predator.

On a regular basis I ran into frustrated parents on both sides. Some parents wanted the law to do something with an offending son or daughter but the hands of the authorities, including mine as a court officer, were tied. Victims were always asking the same questions, why the parents of young offenders cannot be held accountable, why the guardians who are supposed to be doing their duty and who fail to act cannot be held accountable for what they allowed to happen. How many times have we all heard the comment when a young offender is caught: "Where are the parents?"

This government gave its answer to the country and it was in plain, clear English. It could not care less. In December 1994 this bill was at committee stage. At that time the Liberal and Reform parties brought forward amendments that would alter Bill C-37. Every amendment the Reform Party put forward was voted down by the Liberals, not because they may have disagreed with the amendment but because some were afraid to break party ranks. They were afraid to do what was right for the country.

One of our amendments would have included some limited parental accountability to the Young Offenders Act. The proposed change was to clause 13 of the bill. It asked the courts to order the person having custodial care and control of the young person who fails to reasonably exercise foreseeable parental duty to pay and to order such person at such time and on such terms as the court may fix an amount by way of compensation for loss of property, for loss of income or support for special damages for personal injury arising from the commission of the offence where the value thereof is readily ascertainable, but no order shall be made for general damages.

It is now a record for the whole country to see where this government stands. This government is determined to have its own way, to defend the status quo and to continue the old style way of governing this country. The Liberals only listened as they were preparing the red book. They put in the red book what the people wanted to hear but then they quickly forgot what they had heard.

The book promised changes to the Young Offenders Act. More so, it promised to deal with Canadians' concerns. It was 100 per cent smoke and mirrors, I think. Canadians' thoughts were not even brought to the table.

Let us look at what has been accomplished. The Liberals were elected as the government and the people are still suffering under an ill fated Young Offenders Act. By failing to take bold action to correct what was largely not working and introducing legislation just to mollify a restless public and fulfil an election promise with the call "trust us", this government has fallen short and let us down.

The Liberals' efforts are simply a top down, we know best answer to an increasingly aware and justifiably demanding populace. I am most pessimistic about any result from the announced 10-year review.

Members of this House of Commons may not feel the backlash from constituents just yet, but be sure that when they vie for re-election constituents from coast to coast will be asking what Liberal Party members did to improve the Young Offenders Act. When these Liberal MPs have to really defend to their constituents the inadequate improvements electors will look for the party that will truly represent the people and that party will certainly be the Reform Party.

We have a social philosophy of openness and community accountability that the old style Liberal ideology just cannot seem to comprehend. A new Young Offenders Act must be socially resonant. It must clearly demonstrate Canadian society's values and mores. It must be an instrument not only of rehabilitation and treatment but also of deterrence and orderly denunciation. It must reflect mainstream Canadian values.

Parents are concerned for the safety of our children. They are demanding an accountability of the justice system to the community and they want to have a sense of ownership in the process of justice. They are frustrated and angry that the current system seems to operate for and around a select enclave of justice professionals, the criminologists, the legal community, corrections workers, offender care agencies and the police.

Nine pages of this bill relate to amendments around a faulty premise. I say clearly to the minister let go of these outdated notions and stop the tangled bureaucratic response where one line in the act would suffice to simply state that a youth court record and an adult criminal record are one and the same of a continuum to be kept in one computer and handled like all other criminal records.

Society sees violent crime with abhorrence, needing denunciation and a sensible social defence response.

If the violent 16 and 17 year old young offender is kept within the bounds of the Young Offenders Act, the maximum penalty for first degree murder would be 10 years. If that same violent offender were dealt with in adult court, the penalty for first degree murder would be life imprisonment. While 10 years under the new proposal would seem to be sufficiently harsh, the reality is that probably only 6 years would be spent in detention at most, with the remaining 4 years to be spent under community supervision.

At the other end of the spectrum are the youngsters 10 and 11 years old who are flexing their egos and daring society to take them to task. Under the provisions of Bill C-37, they remain untouchable. By the time they are 12 years old, the hard core are street wise and becoming increasingly sophisticated in testing the system. When they finally appear as young offenders, they are already beyond being intimidated by the system. The successive warnings and breaks they receive as young offenders then become meaningless.

They often are too deeply entrenched in the game to see or desire a way out. However I believe that 10 and 11 year olds, if brought under the umbrella of the justice system, publicly denounced and placed in programs of education and rehabilitation, would be much more responsive to efforts to set them straight.

It would provide the legal tools to break the offending cycle and require the social services of public health, social work and education to deal co-operatively and resolutely with these individuals.

The Reform Party cannot support this bill. It does not represent the wishes of my constituents. Some of the members who sit across from me on the government benches represent ridings close to mine. I have received correspondence from their constituents. These constituents do not support Bill C-37 and therefore neither should their member of Parliament.

The one saving grace for this legislation is the second phase that will take place later this year. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will have the opportunity to hear witnesses from all across Canada as part of a 10-year review of not only the amendments to Bill C-37 but the entire Young Offenders Act.

I understand the committee will travel across the country and make itself available for all Canadians to provide input. I want to encourage the chairman of the committee to solicit witnesses from all groups and not stack the hearings with bleeding hearts as was done sometimes during the committee stage.

As well, the Minister of Justice must respect the wishes of those who provide the input for this 10-year review since these are the people who are affected most by such changes. The minister has a second chance to do what is right, namely lower age limits, deal with serious offenders in adult court, eliminate publication bans, put victims into the system and make parents responsible for property crimes committed by the youth.

Let the YOA become a short, clear statement in principle rather than a tangled act that is becoming a retirement plan for lawyers. Bill C-37 is off track and I call on the government to set it right during the 10-year review.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on a very well delivered speech. He said some great words.

I too have had lots of experience with youth over a 35-year period. Could he explain or comment on his views of the young offender under the age of 12 at that time? How real was it and how informed and knowledgeable was that age of child, anywhere from 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or whatever the age might be as compared to the idea now that they are not accountable?

I would like his comments on the people who were under age 12.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that common law tradition previously was that we would not put anyone under seven years of age through the criminal process. We had developed through common practice of the administration of the provinces under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act that no one under 10 years old was ever processed.

Our suggestions of changing the age of operation is to provide a better context where social services can be directly brought to bear on those who are most likely to benefit from those social services.

In this day and age of growing awareness and the sociological changes, by the time someone is 16 years old we grant them the privilege to drive a car and become an impaired driver. Yet we are going to still treat them as misguided children.

If the age in the Young Offenders Act was lowered to 10, probably most 10 and 11 year olds would never come before the courts. They would be dealt with through alternative measures. It would certainly put a flexible tool into the hands of the police for those exceptional cases that could be redirected at an earlier stage, rather than becoming a tragedy later in the system. We are saying that the basic change of operation is well rooted in criminological science and the experiences of social services in the community and is not a rather reactionary response.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the hon. member would delve a little deeper into the alternative measures that he started talking about.

I wonder if the hon. member is looking at the same bill, Bill C-37. I draw his attention to the summary.

This enactment amends the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.

The major elements of the enactment are the following:

amendments to provide that sixteen and seventeen year olds charged with specific serious crimes involving violence will be proceeded against in adult court-

amendments to increase the period of time that sixteen and seventeen year olds convicted of murder in adult court must serve before being eligible to apply for parole;

amendments to provide that young offenders should be accountable to their victims-

This is what his constituents are requesting. In fairness, he should draw this to the attention of his constituents.

amendments to provide for greater sharing of information relating to young offenders with persons who require such information for safety reasons.

Again, this is something his constituents are requesting. Sometimes I believe that members of Parliament are not serving their constituents properly if they do not share with the constituents exactly what is in the bill.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I have made an effort to share what is in the bill. The mild gestures for opening up the system, for sharing of information, for example, is going to be a

most tangled provision. It is going to be very difficult to administer.

We have heard very convincing arguments that we really do not even need a young offenders law because of the charter. I have heard some rather learned people argue successfully that way.

I am saying that Bill C-37 really does not go far enough relating to the ability to take a statement or general openness. For specific and general deterrence to work the media should have access. We have a system of rules for maintaining criminal justice records. I know how difficult it is trying to keep separate files and create a fiction to a subsequent sentence in court, trying to figure out what I am allowed to tell the judge and what I am not allowed to tell the judge because of all the tangled provisions in the Young Offenders Act. I might be misleading the judge because of the social engineering aspects of it.

I am simply saying that Bill C-37 is not workable and there is nothing that can fulfil that ideal. I can give cases where the act has worked the other way and has caused harm.

As far as 16 and 17 year olds are concerned, we basically say they should be dealt with in the adult system.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to deal with the Young Offenders Act in light of some of the comments that have been made, especially the comments that seem to be based on the premise that in our society youth crime is increasing.

That is not the truth. If the Reform Party is indicating that youth crime is increasing, then the Reform Party is misleading the public. It just is not true. That is the problem. Its arguments are based on a premise that is not true.

When we deal with matters such as lowering the age, what is so magical about the age of 10? If we are going to reduce the age from 12 to 10, why not 8? Why not lower it to the age when they begin to walk? Is there any problem with that?

There lies another problem. No basis is given as to why the age should be lowed to 10. I have a 12-year old child. I cannot see that child being in young offenders court. They are young and immature. Twelve-year-olds may be physically tall, but mentally they are not mature. Putting such people into the criminal justice system is not right.

The bill provides that young offenders can be transferred to adult court. In the proposed amendments, on serious offences, 16 and 17 year olds are to be tried in adult court unless they can convince the court that they should be in youth court. Surely there is no need for change in that area.

Removal of privacy is another factor that has been brought up. What good is it to society to reveal the name of a young offender? It will ostracise the child from the rest of society. It will ostracise the child and will restrict rehabilitation. That is not what the Reform Party wants to do. It wants to know and make it a matter of gossip that a certain child was in youth court.

There is no purpose to be gained by revealing such information. In the proposed amendments we deal with it. The information can go to the essential parties. It can go to school teachers and groups such as that so they can deal with the matter as is required.

Sentencing is the fourth point raised. Rehabilitation is to be emphasized. Unfortunately for the Reform Party they must realize that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Young offenders are sentenced to facilities that are under the control of provincial governments. Some provincial governments deal with the matter differently than others.

In some provinces they simply put the young offender into a holding tank, lock the door, and release him or her four or five or ten months later. Open the door and out comes the young offender, not rehabilitated but simply better trained by prison to commit crime. That is the problem we have.

If the young offender leaves better trained to commit crime, then we have a problem because that young offender in short time becomes an adult and knows how to commit crime better. That young offender just goes through the system again and again.

Rehabilitation may be wonderful and should be emphasized by governments but it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. They have to deal with it more seriously than they have in the past.

Reform members want parents of young offenders to compensate the victims. One has to distinguish whether we are in a civil court or whether we are in the criminal court when we are dealing with these matters. The mixing of the two does not always mix that well.

In giving the victims legal standing one has to question whether this is an offence of a youth. Is this an offence against the state as it has been traditionally in the criminal justice system, or are we now going to have everyone from a community come in and apply for standing in dealing with matters that are before the courts? This would completely uproot hundreds of years of tradition.

Certain perceptions have been raised by members of the Reform Party. According to them there are indications that crime has been increasing by young offenders, but in reality this is not so. The only area where there has been an increase in crime are those crimes classified as violent offences. However a violent offence involves a common assault, a slapping, et cetera.

The problem we have in those particular areas is that people have been reporting more of these incidents. When two young people are fighting at school, the matter is not resolved by the young people going to the principal's office or calling the parents. The matter is resolved by calling the police and charges are laid. That is how statistics get distorted and that is how statistics show that those crimes have gone up. It has not happened. That is the problem.

Statistics are being used to distort reality. In fact 16 and 17 year olds in our criminal justice system have been treated more harshly than adults. Sixteen and seventeen year olds in youth court who are sentenced to six months of closed custody serve every day of that six months of closed custody. They do not get paroled; they are not released early. That is different from the way adults are treated in our system today.

Another problem that has arisen is the perception that the police cannot properly enforce laws against young offenders. Of course police can. Their rights are the same as they are for adults. If they can use the same rules they use for adult criminals when dealing with young offenders they can deal with them just as easily.

The Young Offenders Act enhanced the authority of police compared to old Juvenile Delinquents Act. The police can fingerprint young persons and maintain records of prior convictions. These matters cause young people to be treated more like adults and simplify enforcement proceedings for police in dealing with young offenders.

Young people can be transferred to adult court. Under the proposed legislation and the proposed changes, 16 and 17 year olds automatically go to adult court for serious offences. The sentences for first degree murder are doubled to 10 years. That is the maximum. Of course there is discretion on the part of the judge sentencing the person.

One has to question what would be served by increasing that sentence to a further term. What would be served by having a young person who is 16 years of age sentenced to life imprisonment? What is served by that? Many of our young people who get into problems come from dysfunctional families. Many of them come from families where the parents are drunks. They are not raised with direction. They go out into the world with the problem of not knowing how to deal with it.

These are the young people that members of the Reform Party would want to throw away, lock the doors and support forever. They want a system similar to that of the state of California where more money is spent on prisons than on education. If that is what we are going to do we have a problem. We cannot let that happen to the youth of this country. We have to help them get rehabilitated. We cannot lose faith in the youth.

Another problem we have is that anyone who tries to show that a system works or has worked over a period of time is immediately accused of being bleeding hearts.

In discussing these matters with prosecutors who have prosecuted in the field they have indicated the Young Offenders Act works well. These prosecutors are Canadians. They are in the system all the time. It is only when Canadians are given misinformation that they have different opinions. When they are given the facts they agree that the Young Offenders Act basically works well.

Most violent offences are not committed by youth. Adults commit 86 per cent of violent crimes. Of the approximate 14 per cent committed by youth, half are what we classify as common assaults: a slap or a punch. Those are the facts. Over 57 per cent of property crimes committed by youth are thefts. The majority of those are theft under $1,000. In other words most of them are offences such as shoplifting.

Let us not distort the facts. These are the facts. With these facts we have to look at the Young Offenders Act to determine whether it was working properly. I suggest the act is working very well.

In the past police often decided that charges should not be laid, especially for first time offences by young offenders. They would take the young offenders home. They would take them to the parents. The young people quite often were more embarrassed than anything. That would end the matter. That is not the way it is dealt with now. The young offender is apprehended on an offence, a charge is laid, the youth is then taken into court and the matter is dealt with in the court system.

I am not criticizing that maybe that is not the way it should be dealt with, but that is how statistics are built up. They are built up in particular areas when they should not be. As well there is an increasing willingness to report offences in the school system instead of schools taking care of matters as they have in the past.

We can all recall years ago when there would be a fight in a school yard and the principal, at least in my school, would take matters into his own hands. He would take the young people to the office. The odd one got the strap. The odd one was kept in detention. The police were not called. The way it is now the police are being called to lay charges, which is distorting the facts.

However the proportion of all persons charged from 1986 until now has remained virtually unchanged. There is not this huge explosion of an increase in crime by young offenders. It just has not happened. It only appears to have happened when distorted facts are given to the public. That has not happened. Since it has not happened we have to inform the public of the facts.

Fourteen per cent of young offenders were charged with violent offences in 1992. Almost half of those offences were equivalent to very minor assault charges. None involved weapons. The offences resulting in the most serious of personal injuries amounted to approximately 2.4 per cent. We are hearing this large furore over the way matters are being dealt with or should be dealt with. The number of youth charged with break and entry has actually decreased. It was lower in 1992 than it was in 1986. These are the facts.

The Young Offenders Act must be doing something right. Something is working. We have to fine tune it in particular areas and that is what we have endeavoured to do by increasing the sentences for teenagers convicted of first and second degree murder in youth court to ten years and seven years respectively. We hope that we have been able to deal with the matter in giving the system flexibility.

Rehabilitation was raised by the member from the Reform Party. Rehabilitation is an important factor. However rehabilitation quite often commences in the jails because the youth never got an earlier chance. They never learned how to get up in the morning. They never learned how to go to work in the morning. They never learned how to take care of their room. They never learned personal hygiene. They never learned basic things like knowing how to work. They never learned how to clean anything. They never learned how to do any basic jobs. These are matters that have to be learned and these are required parts of the rehabilitation scheme. We cannot do this by simply opening a door, throwing youth in, locking the door behind them and forgetting about them until their term is over.

I must admit that it would not hurt if some of the parents were given the same treatment because many of them do not know how to get up in the morning. Many of them have not taught their children because they have not known how. They are going through a vicious cycle. It is going from generation to generation in that direction. It has to be halted. The Young Offenders Act goes as far as we can go in halting it. The provinces have to take over at a particular point.

This is not bleeding at all. This is simply common sense. I wish it was incorporated at times in the comments being made about young offenders. Common sense plays a part and certainly goes a long way in remedying some problems that exist.

Some young offenders who are violent need extended periods of time in incarceration. That is what we are dealing with in the Young Offenders Act. This provides a chance to rehabilitate them in the institutions where they are placed. Once that is done it is up to the provinces and the workers working with them in the institutions to take over rather than advocate the holding of young people for prolonged periods of time.

In the proposals dealing with transfers to adult court we have done what many people in society have wanted. They have wanted young offenders in extremely serious offences to be tried in adult court. If those young offenders can convince a judge and demonstrate that the objectives of the protection of the public and rehabilitation can be met in youth court then they remain in youth court but only then. The young offender who has committed 10 or 15 break-ins will not be in youth court. He will be in adult court. The person who continuously repeats offences will go into adult court.

These are important factors to be dealt with. We have dealt with them in a responsible manner. The amendments are before Parliament so that the courts will eventually have more flexibility in dealing with these matters and dealing better with these matters.

The sharing of information and records is important. We do not demonstrate to the world what the young person's name is. There is no purpose in that. We do give it to the right people to be dealt with for the purpose of protecting the public such as school officials and child welfare agencies. There are people who should have the information. Such information when released is important. We have balanced the interest of the child and the interest of society by doing what we have done.

The amendments we have proposed at this time certainly meet many of the requirements of the Canadian public. The Canadian public has wanted some changes. We have come up with those changes. They are responsible changes in attempting to fine tune portions of the legislation that had to be changed. We have done this.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the hon. member's discourse. When hundreds of thousands of Canadians are voicing their opinion that the Young Offenders Act needs serious reform or serious overhaul I find it absolutely astounding a member would claim as he just did that "the Young Offenders Act is working very well".

The hon. member derided the use of statistics, yet he himself went on to use statistics throughout his presentation over and over again to try to prove his own personal bias that the Young Offenders Act is working very well.

I would like to ask the member, in as few words as possible, if he feels therefore that young offenders who reoffend over and over again should be held accountable? He said that somehow it was their background, that they came from dysfunctional families. They have all sorts of societal reasons why they commit crimes and why they break the law and have no respect for it. If it is always someone else's fault how do we hold these people accountable?

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with repeat offenders who recommit offences over and over again, quite often we are dealing with a very small proportion of the members of the young offenders group who commit these offences.

Of course there is a need for rehabilitation. Quite often the reason they are committing these offences is that there is nothing for them in the institutions in their provinces that prevents them from doing it or rehabilitates them in any way. If nothing is done the only problem and the reason they recommit and get caught is that they were not trained well enough the second time. They are out, caught again, go in again and recommit. That is the problem we have.

Of course people do not want to be just in jail. They do not want to be just in jail for the sake of being incarcerated. That is not what they want, but they have not learned a different way of life. We have to realize this and become realistic in this direction.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask the hon. member. I would like to comment on the 14 per cent of crimes being committed by youth; 12 to 17 year olds if I am not mistaken make up 14 per cent of the population, so that balances out pretty well.

Recently I went on a ride along in several places with police throughout the country, not just in one or two places. I witnessed the police dealing with youth on a few occasions. On many occasions there were no charges brought forward. Rather, the police dealt with the situation. They contacted parents and charges did not follow.

If charges were being made at a ridiculous pace to include school fights et cetera, I would have thought from those nights I was involved that there would have been a real increase in crime. However, there were no charges brought forward. I wonder what basis he has to show this House that is happening, that school yard fights are being reported. Where does he get his information?

I know at my school in my district of many schools, never once were the police ever called. That was until 1992. Never once were they called for a school yard fight. As far as I know, to this day they have never been.

He said that some provinces throw them in the clink for four to ten months and then just let them go. I would like to know what provinces these are and where he got his information.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can speak fairly well from personal experience. Rehabilitation does not really function in the province of Saskatchewan. That is because money is not being put into the system to properly rehabilitate individuals.

The whole question indicated by the hon. member for Wild Rose of the number of people young offenders represent being 12 to 14 per cent of the population and therefore committing 12 to 14 per cent of the offences verifies the fact that we do not have this explosion of offences among young offenders. It has not occurred. It is not occurring. I am very pleased the hon. member for Wild Rose has just verified that fact for me.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member where he is getting his statistics from. I have statistics from the Canadian centre for justice statistics showing that since 1962 the rate of young offender offences has risen by over 300 per cent.

Since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act in 1982 the incidence of young offender violations has risen some 117 per cent. There was a small drop between 1992 and 1993 of 3 per cent. At the same time young males between 15 and 25 in our population dropped by 14 per cent.

I do not know where you are coming from. There is an explosion of youth justice, looking over the last 30 years. The Young Offenders Act simply is not working. Where are you getting your figures?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask hon. members to put their questions or comments through the Chair.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rely on that most unreliable authority called the John Howard Society which indicates that the youths charged as a percentage of all persons charged in the period 1986-92 has not increased.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when characterizing how young offenders are placed in custody in Saskatchewan, the hon. member made a description something like open the door, put them in and then let them out.

I will be contacting the attorney general of that province and I will be getting the information about the millions that province is spending on juvenile offenders for social programming while they are in custody. Millions are being spent across Canada by every province. The federal government has a tremendous share of that cost sharing program.

We are doing a lot to provide social services and community resources to those who are in custody. It is an awful thing to say that in any province in Canada they would treat young offenders in the way that he is describing.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can facilitate matters for the hon. member since I live about three blocks from the youth detention centre in the city of Saskatoon. If he wishes to come to see it,

contact me and I will arrange matters for him. If he wishes the attorney general's phone number it is in Saskatoon under his wife's name.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-customs tariffs; the hon. member for Québec-Est-social housing; the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin-citizenship and immigration.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right off the bang, I am going to tell you that the Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-37 is that it is repressive and loses sight of the ultimate goal of all criminal laws: crime prevention and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

The bill will in no way contribute to stopping young people from committing criminal acts. Ottawa is going down a dead-end street, as far as Quebec is concerned. Quebec is to assume responsibility for administering the system. Our recommendations have once again been overlooked. This is yet another good example of the struggle between the legitimate goals of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. Once again, the bill demonstrates that the federal regime has failed.

As I already said in this House when speaking about the same issue last June, I am very concerned about the situation our young people find themselves in. I am sure that many of us are also concerned, but I am less sure of what we want to do to help them.

For over 34 years, I worked with young people as a teacher in a comprehensive school. I got to know many thousands of young people, and I can assure you that the image we tend to have of them is not always true to life.

Of course, there are a few who stick out from the others because of the way they dress, because their hair is the colour of the rainbow, or unfortunately because they commit reprehensible acts.

I think it is important to remember that the current Young Offenders Act has a very special philosophy. This policy is to help and supervise young offenders, unlike Bill C-37, which tells us that young offenders must be punished. This bill caters to the feelings aroused by extreme cases, while the notion of educating, helping and supervising young people is totally forgotten.

The policy statement behind this bill refers to rehabilitation and social reintegration, but what about prevention? Where, in this bill, is the word "prevention"? This is a repressive bill. One of the things that strike me the most is that 16 and 17-year olds who commit serious crimes will now have the burden of proof as to whether they will be tried in adult or youth court. This makes all the difference.

I really wonder why we should favour such an extreme solution and whether it is really necessary. Under the existing legislation, a young person charged with a serious crime may be tried in adult court. This provision is used by crown attorneys when a thorough review of the young person's record by several people shows that he must be tried in adult court.

Do we really need to amend the existing legislation, when it already allows us to transfer records from youth court to adult court? We cannot afford to move toward automatism. By virtue of his age alone, a young person may now face trial in adult court. This bill raises many questions, including the following: Is a 17-year-old first time offender who injures someone while committing a robbery more of a criminal than a 15-year-old who has committed close to 100 burglaries? It is a question.

Please, let us be a little realistic. Again, it is not a matter of age. It is a matter of prevention and education. I will tell you that in my riding, for example, in January, a young man was sentenced to imprisonment for incest. His own father had gone to jail before him for the same offence. As incredible as it may sound, for this young man, incest was a normal thing. Would you not say, Mr. Speaker, it is high time we take our responsibilities as adults and as a society?

Let us stop burying our heads in the sand and delude ourselves into believing that by offloading on the judiciary, we will resolve the youth crime issue. What I mean by taking our responsibilities is giving our young people reason to have faith in the future, because we know full well that the causes of youth crime are many.

The example I gave earlier is but one of many. Other factors are drugs, movies where violence is pervasive and so on. Again, let us take our responsibilities and unite against poverty and dropping-out. Yes, let us fight together against poverty and dropping-out. Furthermore, let us provide parents and, in their absence for whatever reason, the various officials involved with means to show young people that there is nothing wrong with being young.

When a young person has the misfortune of committing a crime, our reaction must certainly not be to throw him or her in jail, because we all know-and no one can deny it-that jail is a breeding ground for criminals. Moreover, it is clear that custody has no deterrent effect.

Our youth should have rights, including the right to be better provided, better provided with the services of experts and better provided with shelters if need be, but certainly not with adult jail as the only alternative.

The Young Offenders Act, as it stands, contains very strict guidelines relating to the maintenance of records on teenage offenders. Access to these records is restricted. However, in this

bill, the confidentiality aspect has been set aside completely. What is this supposed to achieve? I have no idea.

Bill C-37 proposes to disclose information on a young offender to representatives of the school system and other unspecified persons. I find this part of the bill very disturbing as well.

Last week, Newsweek reported that the U.S. justice system was using shame as a deterrent. Young people who had committed a crime had to ask their parents and their victims for forgiveness in front of the television cameras, to show they really felt remorse. Furthermore, the nature of the offences and identity of young offenders could also be disclosed in church.

Bill C-37 mentions revealing the identity of young offenders. It proposes to disclose information on young offenders to representatives of the school system and other persons concerned.

Again, who are these other persons? Are we going to follow the American model? Will announcements during high mass be next? This is absurd.

We can hardly expect a young person who has committed a crime to rehabilitate himself when he is acutely aware that so many people know his identity and what he did.

How will young people react when they see their privacy invaded and their record made public knowledge? We must stop punishing and looking down on people, and we must try to help our young people who, need I repeat, are the future of our society. Give them a job, because that is how they will regain their self-esteem.

On May 5, the Liberal Party of Quebec-yes, the Liberal Party of Quebec-and the Parti Quebecois agreed to move a motion in the Quebec National Assembly demanding that the federal legislation on young offenders comply with the laws and policies of Quebec with respect to youth protection.

This agreement was possible because Quebecers are aware of the need to protect the rights of the child.

In Quebec, the experience of the last fifteen years has shown that prevention, rehabilitation and readjustment are far more effective than repression.

We are trying to find out the causes of delinquency instead of using custody as the only deterrent. Of course, this will not solve all problems. There are a number of obstacles. The system is not perfect. Sometimes prevention and rehabilitation are not enough. On the whole, however, the approach taken by Quebec is more effective in protecting young people. How could a bill like the one before the House today ignore this fact? Should the minister not take advantage of Quebec's experience and show the rest of Canada that repression and intolerance will undoubtedly aggravate problems instead of solving them? I repeat: Young people are the future of our society. It is up to us to help them.

In concluding, you may recall that we as adults have certain responsibilities. One of our poets, Paul Piché, explains how we have an impact on the next generation. If I may, I would like to quote a passage from one of his songs: "Children are not really, really bad. They may misbehave, from time to time. They can spit, lie or steal, but after all, they can do everything they are taught".