Mr. Speaker, in June 1994, the Minister of Justice proposed the second reading of Bill C-37 and its referral to a committee for review.
The standing committee on justice recently made 28 amendments which do not significantly change the original piece of legislation. Indeed, the repressive nature of the bill remains intact and the current version once again overlooks the issue of social reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders.
Today, Bill C-37 still only meets one objective: to silence Liberal hard-liners and to try to please those of the Reform Party.
The bill is very simple; yet, its scope will greatly change the government's view of the issue of juvenile delinquency and the way to deal with it.
Indeed, this legislation significantly changes the statement of principle governing the current law by stating the following, and I quote: "the protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible, of young persons".
Bill C-37 also provides harsher sentences for young offenders, as well as an automatic appearance before an adult court for 16 and 17 year olds who commit serious crimes.
Finally, Bill C-37 proposes a major change to the current legislation by specifying that the professionals involved will be allowed to exchange information on young offenders, and that the records of these young offenders will be retained by police authorities for a period of ten years in the case of serious crimes and three years for other offences.
In 1984, the Juvenile Delinquents Act was replaced by the Young Offenders Act, which then applied exclusively to young people aged 12 to 17.
Its purpose was to make young offenders accountable for their criminal behaviour, even though their degree of responsibility may differ largely from that of adults. A responsibility was also put on society in the sense that, while the population has the right to be protected from acts which threaten its safety, crime prevention does remain an important social responsibility.
As a result, young offenders had the right to equitable treatment, since their youth and degree of maturity required particular assistance of a sort not available from the justice system for adults.
In this spirit, the 1984 act prohibited the media from divulging the identity of an accused young person or that of witnesses called to appear. The ban did not last long. In 1986 the act was amended to allow the disclosure of the identity of a young person sought in connection with, charged with or found guilty of an offence and considered to be a threat to public security.
In 1992 the Conservative government again amended the Young Offenders Act, increasing the sentence for murder from 3 to 5 years. Also introduced at this time was the principle that a young offender could be tried before an adult court if measures to ensure public safety were inadequate.
There is no doubt that this bill will mean harsher sentences for young persons and an important shift in the act's declaration of principle.
In actual fact, the harshness of sentences for serious crimes or offences will be reflected in an increase in the number of years of detention. Thus, in the case of first degree murder, the sentence will be increased from 5 to 10 years, and in the case of second degree murder, it will be increased from 5 to 7 years, during which time these young persons will not be eligible for parole.
A number of specialists and other parties interested in the field of juvenile delinquency have observed that the severity of sentences for serious crimes plays a very small role in deterring young offenders.
A number of studies, need I remind you, have shown clearly that individuals who commit serious crime are unable to contemplate the consequences of what they have done or of what they are about to do. Generally speaking, there are three categories of young delinquents involved in serious crime. The first category comprises those whose psychological state or mental health is fragile. With the help of appropriate rehabilitation programs, the young people in this category have every chance of recovering and finding their place in society.
The second category comprises young delinquents who commit misdemeanours, and, under unforseen circumstances, do the irreparable and commit murder or some other serious crime.
Finally, the third category comprises 16 and 17 year olds guilty of serious crime, because their delinquent past has led them to where they are. This is juvenile delinquency at its most serious. These young people are referred to adult court, because prevention and rehabilitation have failed.
It must be said that the majority of young offenders are in the first two categories.
A number of studies would tend to indicate that the rate of homicide among young people has hardly increased in recent years. A document published by the Department of Justice in May 1994 reveals that, in recent years, the number of people under the age of 18 suspected of homicide has been considerably lower than in the 1970s. Between 1974 and 1979, police had an average of 60 homicide suspects under 18 years of age annually, whereas, between 1986 and 1992, the average was only 46.
The public appears more sensitive to violence among young people, however. It really seems that people overestimate the incidence of acts of serious violence. Consider for example a survey carried out in 1992 indicating that "Canadians believed that violent crimes accounted for 30 per cent of all crimes committed".
In reality, only 10 per cent of crimes are violent. Reality is often distorted by the media which for obvious reasons often stress sensational crimes, thus leading the public to believe that the rate of violent crime has risen sharply.
In the opinion of the official opposition, the repressive measures contained in the present bill are far from being justifiable in all cases of juvenile delinquency. All the more so since the present legislation already includes measures to punish offenders guilty of serious offfences.
The statement of principle proposed by the justice minister in Bill C-37 leaves the door wide open for repressing crime rather than preventing it. How else does one explain that this bill does not contain a single new provision in respect of prevention, rehabilitation or reintegration.
In Quebec and certain provinces in Canada, such as Ontario, the approach to young offenders focuses on prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration. Several studies including the Boscoville study have demonstrated the advantages of this approach.
It is true that several provinces in Canada do not have sufficient structures and resources at their disposal to proceed this way. So one might think that repression is the easiest option to choose.
Over the last few months, everyone in the judicial sector has criticized this bill because it ignores the issue of rehabilitation and reintegration. Juvenile delinquency cannot be looked at in isolation from a strictly judicial point of view; other much deeper factors that cause delinquent behaviour in young people must be taken into consideration.
Juvenile delinquency as we now see it is like a mirror held up to society. Without facing this reality, we cannot stem delinquency at its root.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you the following question: Does Canadian society have the right to choose the simplistic solution of punishment, and to pass this off as the fulfilment of its responsibilities in this matter?
The official opposition thinks not, and I am certain that this is not what Canada wants.