Debates of Oct. 21st, 1999

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke so eloquently that there is nothing much I can add. Nonetheless, I would like to say that this bill is quite different from many bills introduced in the House.

When the subject is a treaty with aboriginals, it is important. When the subject is legal issues, it is important. When the subject is international treaties, it is important. But today's subject is the most important of all. We are talking about our children. I appeal to the good judgment of all members and, especially of government members, in particular those from Quebec, in the hope that they will bring the Liberal government back to its senses and convince it to withdraw this bill, which goes against the interests of our children.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that it has been a very interesting day today listening to a variety of points of view on this legislation. I think it is fair to say that we are all pleased that the legislation is finally before us. There has been a feeling in the land, generally, that the Young Offenders Act needed improvements. I think there is almost unanimity among members in the House of Commons that this debate is long overdue. I hope we can move this debate along quickly today and into committee where we can get into some of the concerns that have been raised by so many.

If I can generally summarize my party's position, it is that we see this bill as a major step forward, and I will explain why I say that in a moment. However, we also have some serious concerns. I think they are very legitimate concerns and I want to articulate them very clearly because there is a role for opposition members, although it is probably distorted in the public's mind generally as simply to oppose things for the sake of opposing, that we are opposition and we are against everything the government does.

However, I am prepared to acknowledge for my Liberal friends that on rare occasions there are actually some good things that come forward. Today we are talking about some of those good things with this piece of legislation.

Bill C-3 is formally called the youth criminal justice act. We are starting from a whole new approach, youth justice. I want to take a few moments at the beginning of my presentation to read from the introduction of the bill itself because to me it summarizes what it is we are trying to do today. It states that Bill C-3 is an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and that it will amend and repeal other acts.

The preamble reads:

Whereas society should be protected from youth crime through a youth criminal justice system that commands respect, fosters responsibility and ensures accountability through meaningful consequences and effective rehabilitation and reintegration, and that reserves its most serious intervention for the most serious crimes and reduces the over-reliance on incarceration for non-violent young persons;

Whereas these objectives can best be achieved by replacement of the

Young Offenders Act

with a new legal framework for the youth criminal justice system;

Whereas members of society share a responsibility to address the developmental challenges and the needs of young persons and to guide them into adulthood;

Whereas communities, families, parents and others concerned with the development of young persons should, through multidisciplinary approaches, take reasonable steps to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, to respond to the needs of young persons, and to provide guidance and support to those at risk of committing crimes;

And whereas Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and recognizes that young persons have rights and freedoms, including those stated in the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights

, and have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

That is what this whole bill is about.

In anticipation of this debate and the work that will take place over the next number of weeks, I consulted a group of people in my constituency. I went into the jails and talked to young people who were incarcerated. It was an interesting experience because I had not spent a lot of time visiting jails. I chatted to young people in halfway houses and, in general, to young people who were in some form of confinement. There were young people who were being treated in various treatment centres for addiction problems and so on.

I talked to young people on the streets of Kamloops who were practising young offenders. I met with police officers, parole board representatives, probation officers, judges, lawyers, criminal justice advocates, correction workers and others who had in some way come in contact with young offenders. I asked all of them what they thought was the fundamental reason for some young people becoming young offenders, because most do not. I think we would all agree that if we talked to young people across the country almost all of them would not be young offenders. They are hard working, decent, creative, dynamic, enthusiastic and optimistic young people who are accomplished in the sciences, arts, sports and so on. It is really quite astounding. However, there are a few people who do get into trouble with the law.

I asked all of these people if there was some commonality, if there was some reason or if they could give me a summary as to why these young folks got into trouble. Almost everybody said, more or less, two things. One was that these folks got caught. A lot of young people do unusual things and often flirt with things that are illegal, but they do not get caught, or if they do, they are released for some reason. They are caught but found not guilty. The ones who are in jail were caught. That was a small point.

The second point was that almost everyone agreed that one of the fundamental causes of young offenders in our society is poverty. Somewhere in their past, their parents, their guardians or they themselves had lived for a period of time in some form of serious poverty. They did not have the things that most kids want and have. They did not have supportive parents, nurturing or guidance. These young people were without that. They were on their own to fend for themselves.

Those of us who have raised children or know children well all appreciate that it is tough growing up. There are pressures from peers and many other pressures. If they have no one to guide them, to direct them, to care for them, to nurture them or to give them a helping hand, it is no wonder they get into trouble. I am not suggesting that if they are poor they are going to get into trouble. Obviously there is no correlation there. The correlation is that almost all of these young people, if traced back, had some element of poverty in their family's past. That is a crucial factor.

Many of us were here in November 1989 when Ed Broadbent posed a motion, seconded by me, that we would do whatever was necessary to eradicate child poverty in Canada in the next 10 years. It was a very laudable goal. I see many of my friends opposite who were here and remember that time. First, we set a goal which was to eradicate child poverty in Canada in the next 10 years. We did not do too well. As a country, one area where we have to hold our heads down in shame is that we failed in reaching that goal. As a matter of fact, statisticians have told us that in the last 10 years the number of children who live in poverty has increased by 50%. It has worsened for a whole lot of young people.

Let us understand that the reason those young people are living in poverty is because their parents live in poverty. We do not have poor children living in rich homes. Because of that poverty good housing and support are often not there. As we deal with this new version of the Young Offenders Act and concern ourselves with assisting young people, particularly those who are on the edges of trouble, let us acknowledge that we cannot simply do this through this legislation. Other initiatives are required as well, such as alleviating poverty in our country, particularly child poverty.

There are some people in our country who assume that child poverty is a reality, that nothing can be done about it, that there is always going to be 5% of the population which is poor and that is just the way the world is. However, that is not the way the world is in some parts. There are countries where there are no poor children. There are no children living in poverty because there are no parents living in poverty. Those countries exist. It is possible to eradicate poverty and it ought to be a laudable millennium goal for us to have. We should eradicate child poverty in our country.

Based on whatever kind of questionable statistics or images, a lot of people do not feel that society is a safe place today, particularly elderly people who watch the news on television. Every bad kid in the world gets front page coverage, so we get the impression of one large madhouse with thousands of people killing, raping and murdering. In fact the opposite is true. By and large the rates are going down in our country in terms of violent crime. However, because of instantaneous communication and the fact that people watching television are not sure if the young people are from Canada or the United States, or from other countries, there is a sense that we are living in an increasingly violent society. People feel unsafe in their homes. There are instances, of course, where that is the case and people have committed heinous crimes, but we must keep in mind that these are isolated incidents.

I listened carefully to my colleague who represents a riding close to mine. He spoke about the intervention programs that have been successful in his constituency. I could name a number of programs that have been very effective in the Kamloops region in diverting young people away from a life of crime, which carry out all sorts of parole practices that result in people not reoffending.

My friend talked about his experiences in Trail and Castlegar, British Columbia where the intervention programs have been very successful. I appreciate that kind of information.

We have to create the impression that we are talking about a very small group of young people who get into trouble. Most of them, if dealt with properly in the justice system, do not reoffend. They learn their lesson, smarten up and do not do that type of activity again, whether it is stealing a car, breaking into someone's house and stealing a VCR or whatever.

We would all acknowledge the fact that there are young people, very few in number, who really have to be set aside so that society is protected from their behaviour. These are young people who participate in murder and manslaughter, rape and pillage and so on. We have to acknowledge that there are some really troubled people and society has to be protected from them. Those are the ones who we want to see in our jails.

There are a lot of people in jails who, quite frankly, we do not have to be protected from. If a guy has been writing bad cheques time and time again, do we really have to pen that person up in a cage? I do not think we do.

Our friends from Quebec have been pointing out the success they have had in dealing with young offenders in that province. In terms of young people who re-offend, the province of Quebec has probably had the greatest, most impressive track record of any other province or territory and we have to acknowledge that.

Quebec has made tremendous advances in the area of native justice, particularly native youth justice.

I had the occasion a while back to visit the Navajo reservation in the United States. They have had a youth justice system in place for some time and I wanted to see what it was about their system that was so effective. I spent about four or five days on the Navajo reservation with a number of lawyers and judges and sat in on a number of sessions.

I will explain how that worked. It was absolutely marvellous. One day little Johnny stole a VCR from a neighbour's house on the Navaho reservation. He was charged and the day was set for his court hearing. I am not a lawyer so I do not know the proper terminology, but the court was called and little Johnny was there. He had to bring his entire extended family with him: uncles, aunts, grandparents, brothers and sisters. They were all lined up all over the courtroom. The whole family was there.

They were not happy campers because they were busy. They had jobs and stuff but they had to set aside this time to go to court because little Johnny had stolen their neighbour's VCR.

The old judge got up there and asked “Johnny, how do you plead?” The kid was kind of mumbling. “Speak up”, the judge told him, “so all the court can hear you”. “Not guilty, sir.” “Okay”, said the judge.

It was something to see, Madam Speaker. You should have seen it. The judge went to the kid and asked him if he could explain who the older lady was sitting at the table with him. The kid said “That's my grandmother”. “Speak up”, said the judge. “That's my grandmother”, said the kid.

“Could you explain to the court how you think your grandmother feels today about what you did,” the judge asked the kid. The reply was not clear so the judge said “Speak up”. “She is probably not very happy with me,” said Johnny. The judge said “Tell me some more”. “She is probably embarrassed that I am her grandson”, and the story went on and on.

The judge then went to the mother, the father, the cousins and brothers and sisters, and they were all embarrassed by this kid's activities. They said his actions were inappropriate. They were sorry and embarrassed that their grandchild or brother had behaved the way he had.

By the time they had gone through the entire extended family, the little kid was just like a melted pile of wax. He was beaten up, feeling like a complete idiot and wondering what he had done. Obviously he was found guilty.

What was the sentence? He had to do some community work. Every day after school for six months he had to take a plastic bag, go around the reservation and pick up paper until he filled the bag and then leave it at the judge's house door each night before he could quit.

In the centre of the Navaho reservation the

pueblos

have a central area where people hang out. Every Saturday he had to sit on a chair by himself from sun up to sun down in the middle of the reservation. Nobody could talk to him but everybody would know who little Johnny was. They would have to keep an eye out for him because he steals things from his neighbours and friends. They all figured out who he was. He had to do that for a certain length of time.

[An hon. member]

What would have happened had he stolen two VCRs?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My friend asks what would have happened if he had stolen two VCRs. I have no idea but anyway this was an interesting sentencing. I think there were a couple of other things added on to that but I have forgotten.

The long and the short of it is that the judge said young Johnny would never be back in his courtroom ever again. Why? It was because he realized the impact of his misbehaviour on his family, community and friends and that it was not the way to behave in a decent society.

I suspect that when he did it he was not thinking. Let us face it. We have all been there. We have all done things in our life for which we feel kind of stupid because we did not think about them. When one thinks about it, one does not do it. The judge guaranteed that young Johnny would never return to the courtroom again because he learned a lesson.

We cannot apply that for everybody, but as part of the native justice system in terms of dealing with young offenders it is that kind of sentencing, that kind of approach to the judicial system and so on that has proven to be very effective in certain circumstances.

When I read the legislation this is what the bill is all about. It looks to the various types of sentencing. Rather than just saying the guilty party goes to jail for 40 days or 40 years or whatever it give the judges some discretion. Let us face it. Every case is different. Every kid who is out committing some kind of a crime, gets caught and goes to court is different. Every victimized person is different. The circumstances are different.

That is why I oppose what my friends in the Reform Party are suggesting, that we should not give the judges that kind of discretion. That is why we have judges. They are hopefully very intelligent people. They know the law. They understand the legal system and society. They can mete out the appropriate form of justice in their judgment. That is why they are there. That is why we have them. Otherwise we would not need judges if we just had straight laws and so on.

My friends in the New Democratic and I have a concern. If we are to have all these creative systems to rehabilitate young people who have gone off the edge or try to get people redirected back into the mainstream of society, those who the judge deems can be, we need financial resources to have those systems in place to follow through with that. We have to have the money for the parole system, the community action groups and the community organizations to ensure those young people can be rehabilitated by carrying out the judges sentencing.

There is a major flaw in the legislation. I may be wrong, but from what I can gather there are only $260 million over three years. That is a drop in the bucket. It will not solve the problem. We can have all the great rhetoric, all the great ideas and all the great plans in this legislation possible, but unless we have the financial resources to give to support that system it will fail. For that reason I am loath to say that we have to oppose the bill at this stage.

We agree with the theory. We agree with the thrust. It is a major step forward, but we cannot handcuff our judges, handcuff our parole boards and handcuff community groups that want to help young people. Are they to say they are sorry and do not have any money for them?

It is like what we heard the other day with the RCMP in British Columbia. The spokesperson for the RCMP said “I know those people have broken the law and I know they committed fraud, but we do not have any money to investigate them”. In other words the laws of the land cannot be enforced.

Obviously there are a number of other items that we should identify as problems. My colleague who spoke earlier certainly did that with some eloquence.

We oppose the bill reluctantly, but hopefully in committee we will get some changes, particularly a commitment from the Minister of Justice to adequately fund the system.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague, and he caught my ear when he said “We must talk about poverty”.

I have known many delinquents personally. I asked myself “How can a 12, 13 or 14 year old become a delinquent? Nobody is born a delinquent”.

I have an answer, and I would like everyone to listen. If one becomes a delinquent, it is obviously for one of many reasons. The most important reason could be that the delinquent was not loved enough or not loved at all. It has nothing to do with the young person; it depends on whether the family circle give that person the most important thing in life, love.

When someone grows up surrounded by hatred and violence, there is little doubt that that person is going to become a delinquent. Is it possible to legislate an end to the problem? Absolutely not.

We have to take this young person and introduce him to somebody who is going to love him. It might be a streetworker, someone who works for the social services or a friend. By friend, I do not necessarily mean another young person, it could be a teacher or a friend who will take him under his wing.

I will give an example. In France, a man called Guy Gilbert takes in certain delinquents on his farm. There are a number of animals there: deer, cows, pigs, chickens and others. The young delinquent chooses an animal, and the animal is his. Sometimes, this young person, who is seething with anger, may try to mistreat the animal. He is told in no uncertain terms “Listen, you do not do this”.

He is made to understand that one does not hurt animals.

If he understands that, how will he be able, later on, to hurt an old lady just to get $50? He will have understood. Very few come back or go back to prison because they have understood that if they are not to mistreat animals, they are certainly not to mistreat a human being.

We have to think in terms of prevention. And I submit that we have to put up the money, especially at the elementary level. Even in elementary schools children aged six, seven or eight are sometimes tough, very tough on others, almost violent.

I hope my colleague is now going to tell me he favours prevention over a more drastic measure.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I can add much to what my hon. colleague has just said. He has identified what he believes is a fundamental cause of misbehaviour. I would have to agree with him.

Perhaps I can add another point for thought. I think the hon. member was asking us to think about this matter. I am a parent. I am just going to stand in my place and pretend that my hon. colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is my child.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

He will have to use a lot of imagination.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

That is quite a leap. When a child misbehaves a lot of parents whack him. Let us just think about it.

If I whack this kid across the head or slap him a few times, which is what parents generally do to discipline their children, and if the child admires me as a parent and believes that I love him but I whack him, spank him or give him a little boot or whack across the head and keep doing that, what kind of symbol does that present to the young child? The person who loves him is hitting him. I would say that is the way a lot of violence begins.

The reality is that if the people children think love them keep hitting them day after day, month after month, year after year, and then say to the children that they should not hit other kids it is a little hollow and hypocritical. Rather than hit people we need to comfort them.

I think I have made my point and I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I should remind the hon. member that we have a rule here against the use of props.

The debate is going along quite well this afternoon. The hon. member touched on a number of the diverse elements behind the legislation, but I personally think the important part of the legislation is its enhanced access to what I would call adult measures.

The hon. member mentioned, as did previous speakers, the need for intervention, diversion, alternate measures and sanctions for young offenders. With the experience we have had in the last 15 years with the Young Offenders Act in many provinces but not all there has been a need, a request and an indication from Canadians that there is a need for enhanced access to new tools and firmer adult measures in some cases. That is an important readjustment in the current statute. It provides access to those even though in some provinces, and not just Quebec, there have been good results with the existing legislation.

I want to ask the hon. member if he accepts that principle. We may be running out of time and ability to respond, but I would leave the question on the floor. Does the member agree to disagree conceptually or otherwise with the thrust of the bill in providing access to courts that needed it or to judges who felt they needed access to potentially harsher and firmer adult measures?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's intervention which was made in a thoughtful way as usual. I must admit that I was not listening to his question. I am sure it was a good one, but I am afraid any kind of answer I would have would sound a little bit silly. I would say that yes is probably the appropriate answer knowing the kind of questions he normally asks.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have one comment and perhaps a question for the hon. member from Kamloops. I trust he is listening this time.

He gave a very graphic example and demonstration that we all feel toward his colleagues from time to time but he has had a chance to vent. His demonstration was well put. Hitting a child repeatedly on a day after day basis may create a tendency toward violence. I would hope that we in the House do not confuse child abuse with a swat on the backside at the appropriate time when other measures have not been effective or when a parent deems that to be effective. It would not be on a daily basis nor repeatedly hitting a child each time the child says something wrong, looks the wrong way or whatever. There is a time and a place for everything. We should not take that completely out of the hands of parents, especially when we tell them that we want to hold them responsible for the actions of their children.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, that thoughtful question deserves a lot more attention than it is going to receive today.

One could make the case that there is little evidence available to suggest that violence of any kind is ever helpful. I know my friend and some of us might think it is, but we have to look at hard evidence. What evidence is there that striking a young person, in particular a little person, actually changes or modifies that person's behaviour?

I will use one example. I train horses as a hobby. There are two approaches to horse training. There is the violent approach which is called breaking animals. You break a horse. The horse's spirit is broken and then it decides to follow along with what you want it to do. The Horse Whisperer, the individual we are probably all familiar with from movies and so on, trained the horse to do whatever he wanted it to do through kindness. There is little evidence to suggest that violent horse breaking is better than kindness horse breaking, but we can discuss this matter further.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, there will be no violence in the Progressive Conservative caucus. The New Democratic Party, in distancing itself from its previous policies of pacifism today in the House of Commons has surprised and shocked all of us. It is a sad day for democracy in Canada.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act. Canadians have been waiting for this very important piece of legislation for a long time. I hear regularly from people in my riding who are affected by and concerned about the current or previous act.

It is important for us when developing public policy to focus on reality and not simply perception. It is sometimes said that perception is reality, but sometimes reality is reality. Far too often in the House and in politics we focus public policy on the perceptions of a situation as opposed to the reality of the situation.

There is an increasing trend for governments and political parties to focus action, public policy and legislation on what the pollsters are telling them to do. Of course polls are based completely on public perception as opposed to reality. I am concerned that in doing so, sometimes we overlook the more significant and root causes of some of the problems we try to fix with very simple solutions.

American humorist H.L. Mencken once said that for every complex problem there is a simple, clean, precise solution that is wrong. Sometimes we in this House come up with some solutions that simply do not address the holistic and root causes of the problems we are trying to deal with.

I was pleased to hear the member from Kamloops speak of some of the root causes of youth crime. He linked youth crime to issues such as poverty. Crime is often very much linked to opportunity or lack thereof, and particularly lack thereof is linked very closely to poverty.

If we are going to deal with the issue of youth crime in a significant and long term way, we need to deal with some very important economic issues in Canada. In Canada there has been an 8% drop in personal disposable income since 1990. On the other hand, in the U.S. there has been a 10% increase in personal disposable income.

In Canada homes, the pressures being faced by both parents where there are two parents are significant. The pressures are even more significant in single parent situations. That parent is faced with trying to provide for the household, trying to provide an adequate level of income for the household, and at the same time is trying to be an effective parent by devoting not just quality time but the quantity of time necessary in raising children.

The difficulty I have with some of the band-aid approaches taken by this government is that far too often we are ignoring some of the real solutions. There are examples both in the U.S. and Canada of very successful headstart programs which have achieved a great deal.

The Fraser Mustard studies have demonstrated that $1 invested in a child in a high risk situation before the age of three can provide a return to society of $7 by the time the child is 30. That return is based on the savings to society on the police system, the judiciary, and in the worst case incarceration, social welfare expense, the expense of dealing with somebody who has fallen between the cracks.

The first three years are the most important years in a child's cognitive development. Ninety per cent of a child's cognitive adaptive skills actually close off after the age of three. It is ironic in dealing with perceptions as opposed to reality that those who develop public policy on the education front, particularly on the provincial side, tend to focus on higher education and on secondary and primary education and they tend to ignore an important area, the preschool area.

Quite possibly it is a step in the right direction for the government to indicate in the throne speech that there will be more generous EI benefits for new parents. That is a step in the right direction but again, it only addresses part of the problem.

Certain types of youth activities are important in providing a way for young people to meaningfully spend their time. Recreational activities such as hockey, softball, 4-H or scouts are all wonderful activities that come with a price. Any parent who has outfitted children in hockey in recent years will attest to this. For Canadians who have outfitted their children in sports gear, it is a very expensive pursuit. Whether it is registration in the leagues or buying equipment, there are barriers. Parents in many cases lack opportunity and adequate income levels and therefore children lack opportunities to pursue the types of self-actualization and important activities that can prevent them from pursuing crime.

I represent primarily a rural riding. Many of the studies on early intervention and headstart are focused on urban centres. The fact is that for rural poverty and urban poverty the demographics are strikingly similar. In many cases substance abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, all these issues are linked very closely to poverty. I am not saying that is always the case, but living in a household with inadequate income certainly increases the pressures on parents and makes things awfully difficult.

If the government wanted to move in the right direction, it would increase the basic personal exemption for taxation to at least $10,000. Ideally it should be higher than that. It is ludicrous that we are taxing individuals making $7,500 per year which makes it even more difficult.

My colleague, the member of parliament for Shefford, has co-chaired the PC task force on poverty and has travelled throughout the country. I have travelled with her on some of those trips to speak with and learn from those most directly affected by poverty. The growth and pervasiveness of poverty in Canada has never been greater.

The member from Kamloops quite rightly identified the motion from 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Parliament's lackluster performance in meeting that motion indicates a focus on perception and not on reality.

We should be delivering on some of these things. The best way is to create more economic opportunities to provide Canadians with opportunities to succeed and prosper and thus provide Canadian children with an opportunity to actually break out of the poverty cycle.

The poverty cycle is important. There is a fine line between programs that benefit families and children and programs that create a cycle of dependency. It is important that we become more innovative in the types of social policy solutions we are seeking in preventing that cycle of dependency which can be so pervasive and deleterious in the long term.

Some elements of the legislation are very positive, such as those which deal with parental accountability. The notion of bringing parents into the courtrooms to deal directly with the questions of where they were at a particular time or why they had not taken a greater level of responsibility over the action of the child is very important. There has to be parental responsibility and that has been sadly lacking the past. It can help significantly if parents and family members play a role within a judicial framework in this regard. The bill addresses that to a certain extent. I think that is very positive.

I am concerned relative to the cost of implementation of the bill. It will be largely borne by the provinces. There has been a decline in the federal government's commitment to assist provinces to meet an increased burden on the judicial system. I am concerned about that. Since the 1993 election the burden on the provinces has been increasing for instance by reducing the CHST. The provinces have been offloading on municipalities. Ultimately there is one taxpayer. Ultimately provinces that are enjoying less economic growth at this time will be put in a very difficult situation to try to pay for some of the costs of compliance with some of the provisions of the legislation.

It is important that parents become more accountable. We are not suggesting that jailing parents would improve the situation, but we should recognize the importance of parents playing a role not just within the realm of a courtroom but on an ongoing basis.

I enjoyed the member from Kamloop's comments. One thing he mentioned was that in his study of the issue in his riding, many of the young people who were incarcerated or who were in various stages of rehabilitation had mentioned that the only thing that differentiated them from someone else or one of their peers was that they happened to get caught. I think there is a fair bit of truth to that.

I think there are a lot of young people who do end up running afoul of the law but are not of a criminal bent. These young people will do what young people sometimes do because of the intrinsic sense of mischief that exists. It is very important that we find ways to identify those people and find ways to deal with them relative to the crimes they have committed as opposed to those who actually demonstrate sociopathic tendencies and are capable of far greater crimes.

The opportunity to rehabilitate someone who has committed a crime of mischief or an aberrational offence will be far greater than it will be for someone who has more of a psychological profile of a criminal.

It is also important that we work with parents in a preventative sense and in a more holistic sense. We need to identify and assist parents in developing the types of parenting skills that are necessary.

I happen to believe that provinces are, in many cases, better at some of the preventative remedies than the federal government. Part of that involves constitutional and jurisdictional boundaries, but the provinces would be far closer to the actual situations, particularly in terms of strategic social investment, than the federal government would be.

One example of a program that I think has great potential is one that the provincial government in Ontario has been working on. Dr. Fraser Mustard co-chaired a study on early childhood intervention and headstart. I believe we will see the province of Ontario pursue a policy of headstart and early intervention. I hope that as part of that policy we will seek to identify some of the situational commonalities between those that ultimately end up falling afoul of the law. I think we will find significant overlap.

That links very closely to economic factors and opportunities. It is difficult enough for parents who have a relatively good income to raise children. It is an increasingly complicated, difficult and challenging world. For parents who do not have adequate income and do not have economic opportunities, it is evermore difficult.

We must be extremely careful to balance social policy and economic policy. We must recognize that while all of us probably agree on the end, some of us differ on the means to get there. We use the justice system to deal with our young people as a way to deal with those people who have fallen through the cracks, but ultimately, this place and all the provincial legislatures in the country should actually be preventing and reducing the number of young people who do end up falling through the cracks. We would all be better served by that. It would involve dealing with the realities of the situation and the root of the problem.

One of the best headstart programs in a Canadian context operates out of Moncton, New Brunswick. The Minister of Labour spent a great deal of her life working on building that headstart program and deserves credit for her contribution to Moncton and to Canada. I am certain that program has resulted in significant change to the lives of those children who have gone through that headstart program. Goodness knows how many young people have had their lives and directions changed based on participation in that program. How many parents are now proud of their children and the young people they have raised partially because of the assistance of that program?

It is very important that we take a look at not just examples of headstart and early intervention programs in Canada but also examples that exist around the world, particularly in inner city communities in the U.S. that have pursued some of these things.

It is also important to create a culture of responsibility through the education systems in Canada. This can be difficult because the justice system is largely federal and youth criminal justice is a piece of federal legislation. However, we are dealing with a problem that emanates, to a certain extent, from education and could potentially be ameliorated, diverted or improved by a better educational focus on areas of responsibility. There is a requirement for better provincial and federal co-operation in some of these areas to ensure that, across the country, provinces are pursuing education systems that teach a little bit about responsibility.

How about citizenship? I continually hear from constituents that there is very little today to teach young people about citizenship. They talk about the importance of not just responsibility to one's family and one's friends but of responsibility to the country and of trying to devote some of our young people's incredible amount of energy to build a better community and a better country?

These are all things that can be achieved if there is a co-operative effort to deal with the realities and the root causes of the problem and not always with the big stick approach at the end.

While we are pleased that the government has gone a ways toward improving the youth criminal justice with this legislation, we are not satisfied that it has gone far enough in certain areas. On the real root causes of the problem, we do not think that the government has really done an adequate job of approaching those issues. There are members opposite who will point to specific programs designed to benefit children, but Canadians need the types of programs that provide for a culture of opportunity that would benefit all Canadian families, including children.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague mentioned the roots of criminality. This is one of the main issues we have to address when dealing with youth crime. What is the root of the problem?

We have heard some interesting arguments linking the increase in crime to the increase in poverty. Unfortunately, in the bill now before the House, instead of looking for the roots of criminality, the government is going for a bandaid solution, not a proper solution.

I do have some concerns when I see a child who was raised in a low income family, or maybe a single-parent family or under a number of circumstances that could have led him or her to commit crimes and become a problem for society, being told “From now on, you are going to be treated like an adult criminal”.

The problem is that this young person, instead of being rehabilitated, going to school and becoming a good citizen, will be sent to prison, a school for crime, where he will be in contact with confirmed criminals. My concern is that, when he is released, he will be even more frustrated with society.

How could a young man have respect for society when he feels he does not get any respect from it? I do not want to be too categorical, but I think that in that school for crime, his frustration with society will just build up, and he will learn more about crime. When he is released, he will probably be a much better criminal. He could also have a thirst for vengeance, and the problem will still be there. Since he will have become a young criminal, he will remain a burden for society for many years.

This debate is very important. I am concerned when I hear some people say that young people should be punished more harshly. But I do understand the basic philosophy of the Reform Party. I know many members of that party have been involved with or have themselves been victims of young criminals. I can understand the frustration.

This kind of frustration sometimes lead to a thirst for vengeance, and we tend to say that we need more stringent laws against young offenders. That reaction is quite normal, but I wonder what the consequences would be for society and for young people.

Since the prison systems are there, I hope, to protect society, a more repressive attitude will not help us solve the problem. Far from it.

A few moments ago, a member talked about prison systems in aboriginal communities. I heard about one system where it is agreed that young offenders have to be isolated from society for a while but, instead of being sent to jail with other offenders, they are sent to spend some time in the forest, which I think is a basic aspect of aboriginal culture, to reflect on their actions and to take responsibility for those actions.

There are alternative measures that have not been examined carefully enough. They could yield better results than the Reform proposals, which, unfortunately, have found favour with the government.

I do not know if most members of the Liberal caucus believe in this approach. I hope this is not the balanced approach mentioned by the government, leaning to the left on some issues, leaning to the right on others, and all that to score political points.

I hope the Liberal members opposite are truly convinced this bill will improve society by putting more young people in jail, by treating them like adult criminals when they are not always fully aware of the seriousness of their actions. I think this is not the way to increase that awareness.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has been very articulate and vigilant in speaking passionately about the young people in poverty in Canada and the fact that typically in the House we do not really deal with some of the deeper issues which deal with that reality, as opposed to the perception.

In fairness to the government, this legislation deals with justice. It is very limited in terms of the scope it can take to address some of those issues. We need to spend more time pursuing some of the social and economic policies that can help reduce the poverty and dependence that can lead to it.

It was interesting that he mentioned the issue of natives and the penal system in Canada. The situation exists as well in the U.S. where there is a disproportionate percentage of visible minorities in the penal system. Part of what happens in both countries is a systemic racism that reduces opportunities for minorities. Then there are opportunities through archaic drug laws that create a loophole for people to make money.

If we look at the history of organized crime, or go back to prohibition, typically those who participated in organized crime were of an ethnic background that denied them opportunities in the mainstream. They sought opportunities where they could find them. In some cases those opportunities came to them because the government had laws that did not make sense, whether it was prohibition or the drug law.

Many people feel our current laws on recreational drugs may be particularly tough and do not reduce the usage of those drugs among young people. Instead they increase the number of young people who ultimately end up running afoul of the law. They may be decent people who get caught doing something that is a crime of mischief more than a crime of misanthropy and ultimately are penalized as hardened criminals.

There are a lot of issues to be discussed and I appreciate the hon. member's question.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a little question for the member from the Conservative Party, as well as all the members from the Liberal Party.

Bill C-3 contains very dangerous measures. I would like the member from the Conservative Party to tell us what he thinks about two of them: lowering the age limit of young offenders that could be submitted to adult sentences, and releasing young offenders' names.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's questions. The difficulty in the limitation of this piece of legislation is that it is justice legislation which has to deal with the problem. Once it has gone too far preventive measures cannot be met.

In terms of lowering the age of accountability there are some reasons this is possibly a positive measure. The idea is not to punish or to incarcerate 10-year-olds. The fact is that in many urban settings organized crime is preying on young people and utilizing some as young as the age of 10 years to pursue crime because it realizes there is a loophole in the law by utilizing young people.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to represent the good people of Dewdney—Alouette by entering into the debate on the topic of the youth criminal justice act, Bill C-3.

I would like to start my speech today by talking a bit about the philosophical perspective that underpins this piece of legislation and many, if not all, pieces of legislation the Liberal government brings forward in this place. We in the official opposition have a differing philosophy which is the reason we oppose much of what is in the legislation but not all of it. There are some steps in the right direction.

We must acknowledge that the Liberal government moves forward in some areas that are positive. There are some steps forward in the legislation but many that simply do not restore the balance of the justice system with regards to youth justice as could be provided through this piece of legislation.

We have waited for the legislation for a great deal of time. I believe my colleagues have been mentioning that length of time all day today as being around the 864 days the current justice minister has been justice minister and has talked about bringing in the legislation in a timely fashion. If this is what is called a timely fashion, I would hate to see what length of time it would take if the justice minister were taking her time on something. It is quite amazing it has taken this degree of time to get to this point.

I would like to go back to the underlying philosophical perspective that seems to be apparent in much of the discussion today. The government talks quite a bit about offenders, their background or what may have happened to them which may have caused them to enter into an offence. That is a consideration that needs to be taken into account. That is certainly something we would take into account as well.

The scale seems to be tipped over a bit too far in that direction. The current government is dealing with that rather than restoring the balance within the justice system, which is what we would seek to ask the government to address by putting forward some positive, proactive solutions that we think are missing from the legislation. I will touch on some of those points a bit later.

Apparently it has become important to the Liberal government to get its message out, the communication pieces out about what it is doing. The message may go out that the government is acting on youth justice and is firming up the law to make our streets safer. It seems to be most concerned about getting out that message rather than the actual tool of legislation which will make an impact at the street level on the great concerns of many Canadians in this area and many others.

The Liberal government's main concern seems to be its messaging. If it gets the right spin, if it gets the right story out to enough people, it can garner support by saying it has addressed the youth justice issue, for example. I encourage Canadians to look beneath the surface of not only this piece of legislation but every piece of legislation that comes before the House to see what is their effect and direct impact on people and on the system.

This piece of legislation fails to meet its goal in many different areas. That is too bad. The Reform Party will continue to put forward some positive proactive solutions which we hope the government picks up on. Failing that, we will certainly work hard in every way possible to form a government to put those solutions into place.

Personal responsibility, accountability and consequences are issues that should be at the foundational level of the legislation. If an individual participates in an action, he or she should be held accountable for it. The Liberal government seems to be too quick to excuse the behaviour of people based on their age, their background, their experience or something that has happened to them.

My party would advocate the idea of personal responsibility. Young people should be held accountable for their actions. Our position has been misrepresented by others in this place today. We are not advocating harsh treatment of young people. We are saying that it is harsh to ignore them, not to help them at a very young age, not to include young people in the youth justice system so they can get help and access to rehabilitative processes at a younger age.

My colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned earlier that if we wait too long there is a group of young people that can be exploited by the fact that older individuals can seek them out to participate in illegal activities without any fear of reprisal or fear of being held accountable for the action. That is simply wrong and needs to be addressed but is not addressed in the legislation.

It was mentioned in the House today that we are talking about a small number of young people that choose to participate in illegal activities. I agree that a small number of young people choose to participate in those kinds of activities, but they cause a great deal of damage and harm and are a concern to the public safety. Even though it is a small number, when stacked up against the number of offences that occur it is a concern which we need to address. The Liberal government has failed to clearly address it through the legislation. That is a shame. We will continue to give the government some suggestions and solutions.

I will talk about some things that are happening within my own community of Dewdney—Alouette. In the city of Maple Ridge there is an individual who is very concerned about the youth justice system. She is so concerned about it that many years ago she took the time to go down to the local courtroom and monitor some of the cases involving young people.

The minister responsible for amateur sport is very interested in this discussion and I appreciate his concern. I hope he is taking notes. I would be willing to send him a copy of my speech right after I have finished. I know he would be willing to look at it.

The individual in my riding is named Lola Chapman. She has dedicated a lot of her own time to set up a very innovative and successful court diversion program. It is based on the notion that young first time offenders have an opportunity to go through a diversion program rather than the regular court system.

I know diversion is mentioned in the bill. That is good. It is one tool that can be used to address some very serious concerns about young people. The court diversion program developed by Ms. Chapman has become very effective.

When individuals are referred to the program there is a quick turnaround between the time they commit the offence and the time they come before the youth justice committee. Sometimes it is within a week if not shorter than that. The longest period of time may be two or three months. Rather than having to wait for a court date a year or a year and a half away, this system works quickly and effectively. It has garnered a lot of praise within my own area and could certainly be used as a model throughout the country.

It is a good program because it deals with the issue of personal accountability. There are key individuals within the community who sit on this panel. They include the mayor of one of the cities, the inspector of the RCMP, a lawyer within the community, a school principal and a member of the ministry. It is a good representation of key influential people within the community. Young people have to come before the group and talk about what they did and then some suggestions are made.

I know my time is growing short and I will have an opportunity to speak again. Might I ask for unanimous consent to table this proactive positive solution which outlines the diversion program within my own riding of Dewdney—Alouette so all can see what great work is being done?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, during question period, I asked a question to the Minister of Industry but it was answered by the Minister of Revenue, who is also responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada.

It concerned the request made by two Quebec ministers to meet with the Minister of Industry to discuss Bill C-6, which will be superimposed on what already exists in Quebec for the protection of personal information.

There is a law in Quebec that protects personal information, and the Quebec government wants to be heard by the federal government on this issue and express all the fears and objections it has concerning this bill.

By the way, this position is not without support. Several witnesses defended it before the committee. The Quebec access to information commission, the Quebec bar association, the CSN, the Chambre des notaires and the Conseil du patronat all said the same thing, that is, they are very concerned about the impact of this duplication, the problems it will create, when Quebec consumers are probably the best protected of all. After passage of this bill, these people will find themselves in a very muddy situation.

Some things have to be said, and the House should not be misled. The minister has alluded to the fact that there had been discussions between governments and that the federal government had responded to the fears and concerns of the Quebec government.

I have here the correspondence between the Quebec government and the federal government. First, on November 11, 1998, the minister received a letter explaining why there were differences and enforcement problems.

The minister replied. The Quebec government wrote another letter on January 25. This time, two ministers of the Quebec government signed the letter. I do not have time to read it in full, but I will quote at least one part of it.

With respect to clarity and fairness, as we were saying in our preceding letter, because of the overlap in standards and procedures that Bill C-54, if passed, would give rise to in Quebec, the bill is a step backward. It complicates the life of members of the justice system, it causes uncertainty about the rules and, thus, it penalizes both Quebec businesses and consumers.

Consequently, the minister cannot tell the House that there were satisfactory discussions with the Quebec government, that everything is fine, that we are talking to each other and harmonizing. There is no willingness to harmonize on the part of the federal government.

In its brief to the federal government, the Quebec bar association, in support of the recommendation of the access to information commission, said the following:

To avoid all confusion and make sure that Quebecers can continue to benefit from a comprehensive system of personal information protection, we submit that Bill C-54 should be amended to say clearly that the federal act will not apply to businesses covered by the Act respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector.

That is the Quebec act. The Barreau went even further. It added, and I quote:

We would go further. To avoid confusion and legislative overlaps and duplications in Quebec, we believe that the bill should include a specific reference to the Quebec act to establish that it applies to areas of federal jurisdiction.

We favoured the reverse approach, that is that the Quebec act should apply to all federal institutions and all federally regulated organizations.

Why does the government want to railroad the bill this week? There is very serious opposition to it in Quebec and also in Ontario. I know that the Ontario Ministry of Health has problems with the bill. Why refuse the meeting? Why not wait before passing the bill?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-6 will provide exemptions for private sector activities governed by the provinces, if one of them has already passed legislation essentially similar to federal legislation to protect personal information.

The Province of Quebec has already passed legislation to protect personal information, legislation that is essentially the same as that proposed by the federal government. The organizations covered by the Quebec legislation will be exempted from the application of Bill C-6 in the case of transactions taking place entirely within Quebec.

The federal bill will add to the protection provided by the Quebec law for consumers in that province. These laws apply to different activities, and the federal law fills in the gaps in the coverage provided by the Quebec law.

Bill C-6 resolves problems and situations that can simply not be covered by provincial laws, however rigorously they are drafted.

One example might be a company with its head office in Alberta that gathers information on consumers in Quebec. Neither of the provinces is under the authority of the other and therefore a federal scheme is required.

Once Bill C-6 has been passed, the privacy of Quebecers will be the best protected in Canada, since they live in the only province that has enacted legislation to protect personal information in the private sector.

As far as national security is concerned, I would like to repeat what has already been said and that is that the police and government authorities will be able to do no more and no less than they do now.

I think Bill C-6 is good legislation for Quebec and good legislation for Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)