Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill, this afternoon.
We are attempting to reconcile two views; one which looks at what one would refer to as tough treatment, incarceration, dealing with young people who create situations that are unacceptable to society in a very direct and sometimes I would suggest almost brutal kind of way.
On the other hand, another group of people somehow believe that if you do not look at youth crime, and if you are patient and understanding and soft, that it will go away. Surely the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Surely there is a balance to be struck.
This is what the bill is all about. It attempts to reconcile two views. It attempts to establish a correct balance, and that correct balance would obviously vary according to the values that an individual holds.
We are asked to define what is a fair response. What is a just response? What is a correct response to a crime situation when it is undertaken by a young man or woman? That is extremely difficult. I do not pretend to have all of the answers and it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that I do.
I want to share some ideas in the spirit of debate to try to address a very serious situation. I do not believe that you can wish it away and it is simply going to disappear. I do not believe that incarceration and rough treatment is the answer either.
The government has to manage. It has to protect society. At the same time, simply putting people away does not solve the problem. It does not even come close to solving the problem.
One can look at rough treatment or direct treatment or incarceration. A lot of people would say, "not pandering to those criminals". Do they look at the success rate of reacting that way? What happens when we put people away? What are the costs when people are put away? We do not talk about that. There are costs. It costs a lot of money to detain people today. Obviously it has to be done because society has to be protected in certain circumstances. As a solution it is not only costly but I think it is extremely dysfunctional.
Look at the people who are put away. Since they are young people many of them are eventually released. Once they are released how many go on to integrate into society and lead productive lives? What is the success rate of that kind of approach?
Pretending that no problems exist will not resolve anything. We have to acknowledge that there are difficulties in society that are caused by real reasons. The real challenge to us as parliamentarians, as members of Canadian society, is to find out why it is that people commit crimes.
Some people suggest there are good and bad people. That is too simplistic. There are people who along the way, for a variety of reasons that we do not always understand nearly as well as we should, commit criminal behaviour that is totally unacceptable to society. That is where the challenge lies. If we could understand that, we could respond. In responding to that we could cut down the amount of crime in society. It would be much less costly, much less dysfunctional and a much more humane and satisfying kind of way of dealing with our fellow human being whether he or she is or is not a criminal.
We are trying to strike a balance between those who feel that imprisonment is the solution and those who feel that patience and education will eventually bring an end to this type of violence, abuse and criminal behaviour.
The bill includes a number of serious measures. I am not disappointed when I hear people suggest other or additional measures. That does not bother me. What does bother me is when the efforts of a very prominent Canadian are belittled, a justice minister who knows a lot about the law and criminal behaviour and who has taken the time to consult widely. Then we pose as supposed experts and simply belittle that which he has produced. That is arrogance.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would agree with me that when members on the opposite side suggest that members of our party are arrogant, there is no greater arrogance than pretending that one is an expert, that one has all of the solutions to all of the complex problems of society when one in fact does not. They come forward with simple, glib, catchy little solutions that pretend to resolve, so they can go away and suggest they are really listening to people and applying those solutions, and they
are going to correct the ills of society, that is arrogance. That is the most profound arrogance that one can find.
Unfortunately we find it a great deal in some members of the House. Some of them are raising their hands. I wish the camera could catch them right now so their electors could see firsthand who they are. Unfortunately that is not possible. Perhaps they will have the courage to get up and ask question, so we can have a bit of a debate. I can say a few more things to them then.
The bill includes increased sentences. Has anyone talked about that? It includes going to adult court in certain circumstances, when the crime is sufficiently serious to warrant that kind of situation. It includes extending the time served before being considered for parole. Has anyone from the opposite side mentioned that? It includes a better sharing of information among those people who deal with youth and criminal behaviour by young people.
It also includes rehabilitation and treatment. That underlies the whole notion here. We want to rehabilitate. We want to be able to treat. We want to keep young people out of penal institutions. It is costly. It is dysfunctional. It does not do them any good as human beings. It protects society and, as I mentioned before, when protection is needed that is clearly what we would do.
The legislation includes the possibility of victim impact statements when sentencing, something that is now used in adult situations only. It talks about conditional supervision which is rare in a number of circumstances today but which is extended.
It talks about medical and psychological assessments. We no longer need to get consent. We can ask for those assessments to assist us in making better, more sensitive judgments that will be practical and address the real problems. A very important point is the possibility of restitution to the victims of crime. It has many components the opposite side has not addressed.
The major challenge to us today is twofold. It is to look at the legislation not in a partisan way but in the spirit of openness to see what merits support and what can be improved. Surely members on the opposite side see some positive features in the legislation. They can bring about suggestions that may lead to improvements. That is one of the challenges.
Another challenge before us today is to try to understand better than we do why it is these young people turn to criminal behaviour. If we could understand that we could prevent crime. Preventing crime would ensure that there is less incarceration, less cost to society and more productive lives being lived by young people.
I believe I am reaching the end of my speech. I will stop here, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues across the floor.