Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-37 as it addresses an area of concern to me and certainly a matter of concern to my constituents.
The Minister of Justice has responded quite quickly to public concern about problems with the Young Offenders Act through the amendments he is proposing in Bill C-37. As the government has been doing with other important pieces of legislation, the public has been consulted widely on possible changes and improvements both before the bill was drafted and tabled in the House and subsequently in committee.
These amendments therefore are the reflection of wide public consultations and intended to respond to wide public concerns. That does not mean they will please everyone. Indeed critics have argued that they are either too harsh or too lenient. That usually means they are just about right.
The Young Offenders Act has had two purposes since its inception. One is the protection of society. The other is to interrupt the beginning of a criminal career and try our best to rehabilitate young offenders so that they do not become lifelong, hardened criminals.
In response to public concern the minister has amended the declaration of the principle of the act to make it clear that the primary objective of the youth system, however, must be the protection of society.
This can only be achieved if we have a real commitment as well to rehabilitation and to crime prevention. This means that for chronic serious offenders, judges are clearly authorized in the bill to have proper psychological or medical evaluations done.
It would be a tragedy, for instance, if young persons who might otherwise be entirely treatable, correctable and able to be put on a better path of life through medical or therapeutic help were simply to be punished and then released into society possibly to commit increasingly serious crimes as they become adults and lifelong criminals as they mature.
Increasing the sentences for first degree murder to a maximum of ten years and for second degree murder to seven years is something that I think has a great deal of public support. In making these sentencing changes the minister is addressing the need for sentencing for violent crimes that matches both the public's perception of the seriousness of the crime as well as the need to hold young offenders accountable for the damage their crimes have caused.
I do not mean only greater punishment but, again combining the two purposes of the bill, also more reasonable time for rehabilitation and counselling. Our party in opposition argued for these longer sentences simply because we knew there were
some young offenders, even those who committed violent crimes, who could be rehabilitated. It cannot necessarily be done in the five years that the act currently allows.
As well by transferring 16 and 17-year olds to adult court when they have been charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault, we are sending a message to violent offenders that they will be held accountable regardless of their age.
There is still the ability nevertheless for young persons to apply to have their cases remain in youth court if the objectives of protection of the public and rehabilitation can better be met there. The onus is on young offenders to prove that exceptional treatment rather than adult court is merited in their case.
We can see that the amendments are improvements of the current system that allow for flexibility only in exceptional cases. They will also allow police officers, school officials and welfare agencies to share information on young offenders for the better protection of public safety. It says to our communities that while the interest of young offenders must be taken into account there are other important interests and concerns.
For youth who have committed less serious crimes, alternatives to custody should be considered as the bill would allow. I return to the second purpose of the Young Offenders Act which is to ensure, wherever possible, that young offenders are given the opportunity to develop a better way of life and not continue with a life of crime.
Let us turn to fitting the punishment to the crime. The bill allows for the kinds of alternatives to custody as a method of restitution for the victim, or some type of community service that may be far more productive than the more traditional approaches of incarceration.
These amendments as presented in Bill C-37 are not perfect solutions, nor are they the end of the process. They are improvements. They show Canadians that the government is serious about protecting their personal safety and their property. At the same time they offer the opportunity for rehabilitation where possible and feasible and for crime prevention.
Moreover, as the House is aware, the minister has asked the parliamentary committee of justice to undertake a thorough review of the Young Offenders Act. We realize that this is just a first step. This will provide the forum for additional changes and improvements to meet both purposes of the act, the protection of public safety and the rehabilitation wherever possible of young offenders.
These are issues that need to be addressed. We need to know why some of our young people are falling into criminal ways. We do need to examine the relationship between youth services and the Young Offenders Act.
A very recent study has indicated that a violent child of six will become a violent adolescent and a violent adult. Right now we do not have services in our country or in our communities that are nearly adequate to turn that young child's life around at the age of six rather than waiting until the age of 16 when they are damaging themselves and others in a far more serious way.
We need to understand how the government can attack some of the underlying causes of crime such as poverty, family violence and drug abuse. Members opposite may not want to acknowledge that sometimes somebody else is responsible for the criminal behaviour of the young person. In may cases, far more than they would like to know about, criminal behaviour is very directly linked to sexual abuse as a child. Much as they would like to simply put the burden of proof on that 12, 13 or 14-year old young person, we as a society have to take some responsibility for those among that population who were abused in a society that failed to protect them.
The members opposite mentioned certain ways of dealing with young offenders. I think we have to be more open and that is why a more fundamental review can look at other methods of treating young offenders while they are in custody or under supervision of some kind. It is only by addressing these more fundamental issues that we will make real strides in keeping our youth out of the justice system and turning their lives around where possible when they come into conflict with the law.
We need to look at every possible investment toward keeping our society a healthy place for children to grow up so that future generations are not looking on our youth as a problem, a source of violence and a source of fear to our citizens and to our society.
As I said, this is the first step in that process. It is not the end of the process. I look forward to the Reform Party supporting the progress that is being made in this bill and participating fully in the ongoing debate about further improvements.