Debates of Oct. 21st, 1999

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this morning to speak at second reading of Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

In the throne speech, the government indicated its intention to work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be safe. Its focus will be balanced, combining prevention and a community-centred approach with action to deal with serious crime. This balanced approach is clearly reflected in Bill C-3 which we are debating today.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs extensively studied our youth justice system, travelling to all regions of the country and listening to Canadians. The members visited over 23 sites, involving a variety of facilities and programs. The committee also held a number of round table discussions at which it heard from many interests, both inside and outside the youth justice system. The committee produced an excellent report entitled “Renewing Youth Justice” and the government has responded to that report with excellent legislation.

The minister of justice first introduced the youth criminal justice act during the last session of parliament as Bill C-68. The minister has had the benefit of having heard views on the bill in this House and from others with an interest in the complex issues surrounding youth justice.

While a range of views has been expressed, some find the bill too harsh. Others find that it is not harsh enough. The government and many others continue to believe that the bill reflects a comprehensive, balanced and flexible framework for youth justice.

The minister of justice has reintroduced this bill and looks forward to hearing the views of Canadians through the parliamentary process. We believe this legislation will establish a youth justice system that strikes the best balance to deliver fair and effective measures that Canadians want and deserve.

Canadians believe that our current youth justice system is not working as well as it should in many significant areas and it needs to be overhauled. We know that it will take a sustained effort, involving all levels of government and many other partners to tackle the complex problem of youth crime and to build a fair and effective youth justice system. We look forward to their participation in a constructive fashion for the benefit of our children in crisis. That process is under way.

In 1998 the minister of justice and the solicitor general launched the government's national crime prevention program. Since then several millions of dollars have been invested in community based crime prevention initiatives across the country, dealing at the front end with the root causes of crime, with a special focus on children and youth at risk.

Since its launch the national strategy has supported more than 600 crime prevention and community safety projects throughout Canada. These projects are the products of communities and of Canadians. The Government of Canada is proud to support these grassroots efforts to make our country a safer place for all its citizens. These are investments in our communities and in our youth.

Replacing and repealing the Young Offenders Act with the youth criminal justice act is the next step in a process of tackling youth crime. The new legislation signals to Canadians that a new youth justice regime is in place. The new legislation reflects in its preamble and principles the message Canadians want from their youth justice system: that it is there first and foremost to protect society; that it fosters values such as respect for others and their property; that it insists on accountability; that it provides both violent and non-violent young offenders with consequences that are meaningful and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence; that it be a youth justice system that is inclusive and that engages Canadians in their response to youth crime; and that it does a better job of responding to the needs of victims.

That being said, the needs of youth will always be considered. The new regime will be one which offers hope to youth and will give those who get in trouble with the law a chance to turn their lives around, for their sake, for the sake of their families and their communities.

As the minister of justice has made clear in the House on many occasions, we on this side of the House are not prepared to criminalize 10 and 11 years olds. This is not the best way to address the needs of children who are faced with situations involving unacceptable behaviour. We believe that in those circumstances where a formal approach is required child welfare and the mental health systems are the preferred approaches. These systems have access to a wider array of services that are more age appropriate, family oriented and therapeutic than those available through the criminal justice system.

We are committed to working with our provincial and territorial partners and non-governmental organizations on developing a comprehensive strategy for dealing effectively with children under 12, particularly the small number of children in this age group who are involved in serious offences.

I attended a conference sponsored by the minister of justice on September 27 to 29 of this year. It was called “Working Together for Children: Protection and Prevention”. The conference was an important step in developing a collaborative approach to address problem behaviour by children. Participants from across the country exchanged information and ideas regarding best practices in dealing with the interrelated issues of child offending and child victimization. Again, prevention is always the ultimate objective.

The youth criminal justice act includes provisions for more meaningful consequences for the most serious violent young offenders. It expands the list of offences and lowers the age at which youth would presumptively receive adult sentences. In the legislation, youth 14 years and older who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

In addition, a fifth presumptive category for repeat violent offenders would be created. Young offenders aged 14 and older who demonstrate a pattern of violent behaviour will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

Bill C-3 contains an important change to what may be the most controversial aspect of our youth justice legislation, the publication of names. The debate on this issue essentially involves two legitimate and competing values: the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of publicity on the youth versus the need for a greater openness and transparency in the justice system.

The proposed legislation now before the House strikes an appropriate balance between the competing views. It will permit the publication of the names upon conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. Publication of the names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for one of the presumptive offences could also be permitted. However, the legislation provides the crown with the flexibility to give notice at the beginning of a trial that it will not seek an adult sentence. Thus, at the provincial or territorial crown's discretion a young person would receive a youth sentence and his or her name would not be published.

The youth criminal justice act would also replace the current procedure for transfer to adult court by empowering all trial courts to grant adult sentences so that the youth retains age appropriate procedural protections and justice can be provided quickly, placing less of a burden on victims and their families. This will also ensure that the offender, the victim or victim's family and the community see a clear and timely connection between the offence and its consequences.

Bill C-3 contains other important reforms to the youth justice system. In response to concerns by the law enforcement community, judicial discretion would be permitted to allow voluntary statements by youth to police to be admitted into evidence. I spoke to many crown attorneys on this issue. This was the only section of the previous young offenders act that they would like to see changed. In response, we have done so.

Also in response to the concerns of victims, victim impact statements would be introduced in youth court and victim's access to information regarding proceedings would be improved.

The bill also provides for an increased sentence for adults who undertake to the court to respect bail conditions involving supervision of a young person who would otherwise remain in custody and who wilfully fails to comply with those conditions.

The bill provides that provinces may recover the costs of court appointed counsel from parents and young people who are fully capable of paying. The record keeping system for youth records would be simplified and would allow for greater access by authorized people in the interest of the administration of justice and research.

It is important to note that the majority of young people who get in trouble with the law are non-violent and commit only one offence. Unfortunately there are too many examples in our current youth justice system of young people serving time in jail for minor offences.

We incarcerate youth at a rate four times that of adults, a statistic which is hard to believe but is true. We incarcerate youth despite the fact that we knowingly run the risk that they will come out more hardened criminals. We incarcerate them knowing that alternatives to custody can do a better job of ensuring that youth learn from their mistakes.

Bill C-3 includes criteria on the use of custody so that it is used appropriately. Further, the bill includes provisions for dealing with less serious offences outside the formal court process. Police would be asked and encouraged to consider all options including a formal alternative to the court process before laying charges. The police, key partners in this strategy, will be given more authority to use verbal warnings or cautions to direct youth to informal police diversion programs such as family group conferences or more formal programs requiring community service or repairing the harm done to victims.

While every effort would be made to reduce the over-reliance on incarceration, where necessary youth will be sentenced to custody. Bill C-3 includes provisions that respect an obligation to ensure that all young people, particularly the most serious offenders, receive effective treatment and rehabilitation.

That reminds me of a visit the standing committee on justice made to the Pinel institute. We spoke with a number of young individuals who had been involved in very serious crimes. One was a young boy who had attempted to murder his mother and father. That facility had worked very hard with the boy. In fact he had been released when he spoke with us and was back living with his mother and father. Rehabilitation works. Youth should be given the opportunity to participate in such programs.

Furthermore, with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, youth will serve their sentences in youth facilities in almost every case. Successfully rehabilitated youth means fewer victims, restored families, safer schools and stronger communities. To this end Bill C-3 includes an intensive custodial sentence for the most high risk young offenders who are repeat violent offenders or have committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.

These sentences are intended for offenders with serious psychological, mental, emotional illness or disturbances. The sentence will require a plan for intensive treatment and supervision of these offenders and will require the court to make all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration programs.

The proposed legislation also makes an important reform to youth justice sentencing to foster the safe and effective reintegration of youth back into the communities. Under the new law, judges will be required to impose a period of supervision in the community following custody. This will allow authorities to closely monitor and control the young offender and assure he or she receives the necessary treatment and programs to return successfully to the community. The period of supervision administered by the provinces will include stringent mandatory and optional conditions tailored to that individual.

Bill C-3 provides a comprehensive, balanced and flexible legislative framework for youth justice. It was developed after consultation with the provinces, the police, the bar associations, youth justice workers, youth themselves, victims and other Canadians.

The next important phase of the renewal of youth justice is directed at implementation of new youth justice legislation. Youth justice professionals, community members and others will need information about the new system and sometimes training.

The best answers to the complex problems of youth crime lie in integrated approaches. Effective youth justice involves educators, child welfare and mental health systems, voluntary organizations, victims, families, youth employers, neighbourhood groups. It involves just about anyone who works with or cares about kids, our communities and our country.

Additional federal resources have already been made available to support this important challenge of renewing our system of youth justice. The government's youth strategy opens the door to greater public and professional involvement in dealing with youth crime.

The minister welcomes input from Canadians who have an interest in youth justice. I also urge members of the House to move Bill C-3 into committee where Canadians' voices may be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the text of my remarks, because there are no questions and comments for the first three speakers in this morning's debate, I would like to refer briefly to some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the member for Erie—Lincoln.

I note at the outset that the member's speech is virtually identical to the speech of the minister herself when she spoke to the bill on March 22. One of the member's colleagues across the floor just heckled and said, “Why not?” I am trying to point out to anyone who would care to assess the situation that there is a pat Liberal line to this. Quite simply the parliamentary secretary, the member for Erie—Lincoln, merely read what the minister said. He probably had her speech sent to him, changed a few things and then stood up and presented it as his own position.

The hon. member said that first and foremost the bill is to protect society. He went on to talk about consequences, of which there are very few in the legislation. He talked about a new regime, when everyone who studies the bill and compares it to the Young Offenders Act knows it is the same old crap that is merely dressed up and put forward with a new name. It does not change anything. The member said that the government is not prepared to criminalize 10 and 11 year olds. He went on to say in his remarks that the minister listened and consulted with Canadians from coast to coast and listened to the words of her own standing committee, a Liberal dominated standing committee I might add.

What we find is that the government did not listen at all. Yes it consulted and went through the motions of listening, but when we look at what is in Bill C-3, we see that it is just the same old stuff. I say at the outset that not much has changed.

I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the official opposition to address this important issue of youth justice. Reforming the Young Offenders Act was one of the cornerstones of the Reform Party's movement. It is an issue close to the hearts of thousands of concerned Canadians, many of them victims, or the families of victims which of course makes them victims as well.

The role of a responsible government is to listen to the concerns of its citizens and to respond promptly with legislation that is fair, effective and in the best interests of those same citizens. The role of a responsible opposition is to critique the actions of the government, to offer support in areas of agreement, to criticize the areas where we disagree and to offer constructive alternatives to resolve those areas of disagreement.

I intend to address the status of youth crime in Canada, identify the areas in which Canadians want change, commend the minister on those areas addressed in this bill, bring to her attention the areas of the bill that do not live up to the expectations of Canadians and list the changes Reform wants to see in the bill. Those changes will be moved as amendments in committee.

I will first discuss the state of youth crime in Canada. I have spoken many times in the Chamber about communicating with my constituents through a weekly newspaper column. I began writing this column long before I became an MP. I have written several times on the issue of youth crime, approximately 10 times over the past seven years. The response to these columns has been overwhelming in support of the changes Reform has been advocating for well over a decade.

In my column of February 10, 1993, about eight months before I was elected for the first time to the House, I said:

What greatly disturbs me is not just the increase in the number of crimes being committed by our young but their apparent total disregard for authority. Almost daily we can find instances where truly heinous crimes are committed by these young people with no outward signs of remorse. In fact quite the opposite, because they know their punishment will be very minor, if any, they actually boast of their crimes and how they're above the law.

In my view this attitude has been created and laws presume that criminals are not really “bad” people but rather simply products of “bad” social conditions. Why is it most of us believe we live in the best country on earth and yet we persist in mollycoddling our criminals because it's not really their fault they do the things they do?

The Reform Party believes that our justice system must place the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives. This is not to say that other objectives such as the protection of the rights of the accused or rehabilitation of criminals, are unimportant. It is simply to say that protection of society is the reason for having a criminal justice system in the first place.

It is amazing that these words were written almost seven years ago and that nothing substantial has been done to fix the problem. Canadians are fed up with young people who have no regard for authority, the community or the law. These young people need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions. In my opinion, the YOA created more criminals than it ever cured.

Let us be honest. The majority of us were not angels growing up. I believe that sometimes kids must be kids. In about a week it will be Hallowe'en which traditionally is a time when kids like to play pranks. It comes from the very statement children make when they come to our doors, trick or treat. If we do not give out a treat we might get a trick played on us.

I remember being a youngster growing up in rural Canada, in northern British Columbia. We used to like to go around, tip over the odd outhouse, soap a car's windshield and things like that. The reality is that we have moved far beyond that over the past 30 or 40 years. Now we see outright acts of vandalism because of a gradual deterioration of consequences for criminal activity.

It is not the pranks that are the problem. It is the crimes that erode communities, damage property and destroy families. It is the acts of violence that strike fear in the hearts of the elderly and the children who endure the harassment and brutality of a generation held unaccountable for its actions. It is the families that hold dear the memories of lost loved ones and the scars of a justice system that slaps the wrists of young offenders who beat, rape or murder.

In my home province of British Columbia, the names of Reena Virk, Dawn Shaw, and Trygve Magnusson represent just a few victims who died at the hands of violent youth. Their senseless deaths demand laws from the government that punish and deter those who commit violent acts and provide mandatory rehabilitation programs during incarceration.

On the subject of those types of cases, I am reminded of something that seems to be quite new in our society, tragically. It has been referred to in different newspaper articles as swarming. This is where children, for no apparent reason, band together as a group and kick some unfortunate person to death or stab someone in a wanton act of violence. Something serious must be done about this. We cannot continue to allow these acts of random violence by youths to go unpunished with a slap on the wrist. Because these people who commit these crimes are young or are teenagers, they end up serving only a few months in incarceration, if that. It is not right that there are no consequences.

Young people naturally think they are invulnerable. Some would argue that this is due to inexperience or an inability to understand the consequences. This may be true for some, but many young offenders are fully aware of the limits of the law and feel they have a free ticket to do as they please until they turn 18. Police officers themselves tell me stories of kids who say, “You cannot touch me, I am only 14. What are you going to do about it?”

This attitude is the direct result of the Young Offenders Act. A piece of legislation intended to give troubled kids a second chance at a successful future has become a means of abetting criminal behaviour. The Young Offenders Act failed to establish a deterrent to crime and, I would suggest, it helped promote it. The tragedies of Taber, Alberta, Columbine High School in Colorado and several other places are horrific reminders of just how bad things can get and how vulnerable we are to senseless acts of violence whether by youth or adults.

The emergence of video games, the Internet and the subject matter emphasized on television, movies and music dictate that parents, society and government must work together to establish parameters for our children. As parents, we must take an active role in screening what our kids see and do and intervene before things get out of hand.

The role of society is to establish standards by consensus and ensure that these standards are represented in the laws passed by our governments. I believe the government's role in this is twofold; first, to provide a justice system that protects society, truly deters crime and rehabilitates criminals; and second, it must address and repair social flaws, dysfunctional families, economic hardships and deficiencies within the education system through effective programs.

It is important to state that it is not the role of the justice system to fix the social inadequacies of society. That has been the major fault with the Young Offenders Act. Its purpose was to deter people from breaking the law and to punish and rehabilitate those who do.

I would like to move on to what Canadians want changed. It is interesting that the minister chose to add the word justice to this act because that is exactly what Canadians want. They want justice. They want sentences to be just, to balance the need to protect society by deterring and punishing crime with the need to rehabilitate offenders and get them back on track. There are no shortcuts to this goal.

There is no greater deterrent than fear of the consequences. Young offenders laugh in the face of authority due to the lack of deterrents. That must change.

Canadians have waited a long time for the government to deliver on their promise to make youth justice a priority and to deliver a youth justice system that actually works. Canadians want: first, sentences to fit the crime; second, violent criminals removed from society; third, effective crime prevention programs; fourth, safe schools; fifth, younger children brought into the system; sixth, older teens and violent criminals to face adult court; seventh, names of violent sexual assault criminals to be published; eighth, the rights of victims to be paramount to that of the criminal irrespective of age.

That is what Canadians are looking for. That is what we hear daily when we consult with them. That is what the government heard, if only it would listen and respond appropriately with meaningful legislation.

It will not take long, but I would like to briefly address what we agree with in Bill C-3.

While much of the bill is a reconstituted YOA there are a few notable changes. These were outlined by the hon. member for Surrey North when he spoke to the bill the last time it was introduced. Anyone interested in a thorough analysis of the issue of youth justice and the bill should look up his speech in Hansard , March 22, 1999. I strongly recommend that people should look up that speech and read it.

I am disappointed that the bill was reintroduced in the same form it was the last time, with only technical changes. The mere fact that the bill languished for months on the Order Paper is a testament to the level of priority the government gives it.

When the House prorogued and the bill was still on the Order Paper, I rather foolishly hoped that the government had seen the light and would have introduced a new version that better represented the concerns of Canadians, the concerns that I just outlined.

Aside from that, there are some small victories in the bill for Canadians. The increased emphasis on police discretion will ensure that minor youth indiscretions can be addressed by police officers with warnings rather than laying charges. This initiative was proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot in his minority report.

The minister makes a big deal out of dealing with violent and non-violent offenders differently. I believe this is an excellent initiative as well, but it was also outlined in the Reform minority report.

Young people who commit non-violent crimes are more suitable for programs such as diversion, restorative justice and community service. It is not necessary to remove these individuals from society, only to ensure that they learn the error of their ways and develop a healthy respect for authority and the law.

In March 1995, in response to the first so-called changes to the Young Offenders Act that the now health minister made in Bill C-37, I wrote in my newspaper column the following:

Our justice system must distinguish between young, first time offenders who commit minor crimes and those who engage in habitual or violent criminal behaviour with no respect for property or even life itself. Despite what some advocates would have us believe, not all young offenders who commit non-violent property crimes are harmless. Many are already habitual criminals with no moral conscience and a warped value system. They do not understand why they should respect the lives and property of other Canadians.

These youth need to know the punishment for their crimes will not be a slap on the wrist like raking leaves at the local park on weekends. These youth need a stronger reason to think before stealing another car. We need to strike a balance between deterrents and accountability, between punishment and rehabilitation.

Most non-violent offenders are excellent candidates for alternative measures, such as conditional sentences, for they pose little or no threat to society, only a need for restitution.

The third area I would like to commend the minister for including is the issue of holding parents and legal guardians responsible for breaches of court ordered conditions by an offender under their care. This initiative was introduced by the hon. member for Surrey North in his private member's bill, Bill C-210, in the first session of this parliament. I know he is not seeking acknowledgement for that, but I certainly know he deserves it.

I want to commend the minister for taking the first steps in publishing the names of those young offenders who commit serious crimes, although I am not convinced that the minister is going to actually get that accomplished. In her speech on Bill C-68, Bill C-3's forerunner, on March 22, 1999 she had the following to say about the publication of names:

The names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault or repeat violent offences could be published in certain circumstances.

What does that mean? The use of words like “could” and “certain circumstances” did not give the impression that the minister is serious about this matter. She has once again abdicated her responsibility to the lawyers and the courts. These may be loopholes that she as a lawyer would like to see in legislation, but I can tell her that these words are the last thing that victims of crimes and their families want to see in legislation.

Referring to the minister's comments in Hansard that day, I would also draw attention to another comment she made in referring to the publication of names. She said:

The debate on this issue essentially involves two legitimate and competing values,

I heard the parliamentary secretary say much the same thing in his remarks a few minutes ago.

the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of the publicity on youth versus the need for greater openness and transparency in the justice system.

Let us look at this. She referred to the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of the publication on our youth. I would contend, and I think most Canadians would contend, that in some way the only thing that is going to rehabilitate these youngsters is if their peers and their community know who is committing the crimes. If their name is perhaps splashed on the front page of the paper when they commit a violent crime like this, they will be held accountable by their community, their peers, their parents and their families. It would be a bit of an embarrassment factor if nothing else. I think it is very misguided to state that.

Young people themselves are among the most outspoken, demanding the necessary change to the publication ban. If for no other reason than to protect the majority from the minority, our young people must know the identity of their violent peers.

I will move on to what the Reform Party recommended. I will begin by congratulating two of my colleagues for the tremendous amount of work and time they have dedicated to the issue: the member for Crowfoot, who just yesterday reintroduced a private member's bill on this very issue; and, the member for Surrey North, whose tragic life experiences and need to implement change in this area motivated him to actually run as a member of parliament.

I will pause and remark that I am blessed with a son who is 16 years old right now. That is the very age that Jesse Cadman was when his life was tragically snuffed out by a young offender. As a parent who also has two daughters aged 20 and 18, I do not want to imagine the horror of finding one of my children murdered. I worry about it every night and pray to God that my children are safe. I cannot understand a government that turns its back on so many senseless deaths and does not bring forward meaningful legislation.

As a member of the justice committee, the member for Crowfoot travelled across Canada hearing from concerned Canadians frustrated by the system. It is puzzling to think that Liberal members heard the very same testimony but only Reform party's recommendations reflect the concerns of Canadians. The Liberal recommendations reflected the concerns and interests of the justice minister and her bureaucrats.

The following are just some of the recommendations the Reform party presented in its minority report: first, make the protection of society the first and guiding principle of youth justice; second, allow police officers to use discretion in resolving minor incidents without laying charges; third, lower the maximum age of the youth justice act from 17 to 15 years of age; fourth, lower the minimum age limit of the youth justice act from 12 to 10 years of age; fifth, differentiate between non-violent and violent crimes; sixth, increase the maximum length of all sentences; seventh, youth facilities need mandatory rehabilitative programs; eighth, minimum six month probation after all prison sentences; ninth, move all 14 and 15 year old violent offenders automatically to adult court while limiting all other transfers; tenth, the person who commits two or more violent offences must be designated a dangerous offender; eleventh, allow for community based juvenile committees in every jurisdiction for non-violent and first time offenders; twelfth, establish federal standards for alternative measures with well defined parameters; thirteenth, publicize the names of violent young offenders, all of them and not just some of them; fourteenth, adult young offender records to be treated the same as those of adults; and fifteenth, require parents or legal guardians to appear at all court proceedings.

I would like to highlight the recommendations calling for the reduction of the minimum age to 10 years old and the recommendation referring to alternative measures, as they are of particular importance to me.

The minister and members opposite have portrayed Reform members as mean and nasty because we want to lower the minimum age to 10 years old. I have news for the minister. Despite her accusations, Reform would never lock up 10 year olds, throw away the key and feed them bread and water. Nothing could be further from the truth.

However, by including 10 year olds in the legislation the government would be protecting these youngsters from those who use them to perpetrate crimes. Many drug dealers use 10 and 11 year olds to sell drugs for two reasons. One is access to other kids. The other is because 10 year olds are exempt from the law. These kids are targets and their participation is a crisis on the rise, especially in lower mainland of B.C.

The minister refuses to acknowledge that the provinces and the police were interested in these changes and that even the Liberal dominated standing committee supported the idea. It was a recommendation from their own standing committee.

Bringing 10 year olds under the act is a head start to setting them on the right path from a early age. Sadly too many kids are experienced criminals by the time they reach 12 years old and by then it is almost too late to set them straight.

Another recommendation is alternative measures. Alternative measures include several initiatives such as diversion, restorative justice and community service. I am most interested in what is known as conditional sentencing because this is a particular area of critic responsibility for me.

There have been a number of horror stories from adult courts regarding the use of conditional sentences. I state emphatically that those convicted of violent crimes, whether adult or child, must not be given conditional sentences. It is imperative that violent offenders be removed from our society to protect society and provide punishment and rehabilitation and thus a deterrent.

What is conditional sentencing? Conditional sentencing is a criminal code amendment giving judges the authority to impose a sentence to be served in the community. This means the offender would not go to jail but would remain living at home and going on with his or her daily routine of work or school under certain conditions. That is the title.

When does it apply? Conditional sentencing applies in cases where an offender would have normally been sentenced to less than two years in custody. This amendment was the attempt of the Liberals to ease the burden on Canada's overcrowded prisons.

Conditional sentences were never intended to be used in violent crime cases. However the sentencing guidelines are vague and have been interpreted to include all crimes. In an August 1997 decision the B.C. Court of Appeal stated that “if parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742.1 it could have done so in clear language ”.

Many judges have interpreted this law broadly, allowing violent offenders to serve their sentences in the community. Judges have handed down conditional sentences for crimes such as sexual assault, impaired driving, rape and even murder.

Our communities are at risk. I will cite a few examples. In Montreal three men were given 18 month conditional sentences after raping a 16 year old pregnant women and holding her upside down from a balcony. The judge thought that this was part of their culture.

In Winnipeg a youth previously convicted of theft and seven armed robberies and on temporary leave from a Manitoba youth centre received a one year conditional sentence and three years probation for the drive-by shooting of a 13 year old. This is horrific.

In Edmonton a 57 year old man who swung a machete at a 21 year old male, cutting his face and cutting a third of his ear off, got 240 hours of community service and a curfew for that crime.

In Orleans, close to home here, Paul Gervais confessed to sexually assaulting nine boys. He got a two year conditional sentence and a curfew. He is serving his sentence at home.

In Ottawa, right here in the nation's capital, Robert Turcotte strangled his mother to death. He received a two year conditional sentence, 100 hours of community service and a midnight curfew.

The Liberal government's conditional sentencing law allows some convicted violent criminals to serve their sentences in the community, not in prison. What message does this send? It sends the message that in our justice system there are minor consequences for major, serious crimes. Eighty-four per cent of Canadians believe that people convicted of violent offences should be ineligible for conditional sentences, according to a recent national poll.

Amending the legislation is as simple as changing one clause. If the justice minister really wanted to change the law she could do so in one day with the co-operation of the House. Rather than responding to the clear will of Canadians she prefers to let the courts decide these issues.

I am about to reintroduce my private member's bill which lists the crimes that if passed would be excluded from consideration for conditional sentencing.

Along with a large majority of Canadians we support amending the criminal code to exclude dangerous crimes from conditional sentencing eligibility. Someone convicted of a dangerous crime, including murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, domestic violence and drug trafficking, should be ineligible for conditional sentencing.

A recent survey of 450 Canadian judges revealed that 80% of them were leery of imposing conditional sentences due to lack of supervision. They are effectively giving criminals a slap on the wrist. If we cannot supervise criminals we cannot protect society from their acts.

If a child commits a violent crime and causes pain and hardship for another person, what lesson is learned from being grounded? We are not talking about a minor incident of shoplifting or a minor incident of vandalism, perhaps by a temporary wayward child. We are talking about serious crimes. Being grounded is effectively what a conditional sentence is because it limits freedom. That is all it does. How can those who have been injured by a youth feel justified if the offender is allowed to go home and play Nintendo or watch television?

What about other youth who see the lenient sentence handed down to their friend for hurting someone else? What have they learned? Will they consider the consequences prior to committing a crime? The answer is no, because that is what the YOA did and that is what Bill C-3 will continue. It will not change that.

The minister must learn from the mistakes of conditional sentencing for adults and ensure that those mistakes are not repeated with our youth through the legislation.

I want to move on to the minister's actions. As I just mentioned there are three initiatives in the bill which address the concerns of Canadians. I have to wonder what the heck took so long when there are only three.

The justice minister was appointed 864 days ago when she stated that the overhauling of the Young Offenders Act was her top priority and that changes were to be made in a timely fashion. The bill is on pace to hit 1,000 days. I guess we should all be thankful that this is her priority.

The figure of 864 days seems like a pretty obscure one and it does not mean much. It is just a statistic. What significance does it serve? In the 864 days Canadians have been waiting for new youth crime legislation, which they were hoping would include deterrents, over 30,000 violent crimes have left more than 30,000 victims in their wake. That is about 34 violent crimes per day and unfortunately Bill C-3, about which the government is so busy bragging, misses the mark and provides little in terms of real solutions like most justice initiatives of the government. In order for Bill C-3 to be deemed a success it must stand up to one test, and one test only: Does it address the concerns of Canadians?

I will run through them again. Do sentences fit the crime? No. Are violent criminals removed from society? Not likely. Does it implement effective crime prevention programs? Some. Will our schools be safer? No. Are younger children brought into the system? No. Do older teens and violent criminals face adult court? At the discretion of the courts they may. Will the names of violent and sexual assault criminals be published? Maybe. Are the rights of victims paramount to those of criminals? No. They are not.

In conclusion, I am informing the House that the official opposition is, reluctantly I might add because we have waited as long as Canadians have waited for the legislation, unable to support the bill without serious amendments. Our members on the justice committee will be moving amendments that are in the best interest of public safety, deterrence and rehabilitation respectively.

I can just hear the minister in future question periods when asked why violent young criminals are still out reoffending due to lenient sentencing. The minister will probably say something like the government made significant changes to Canada's youth justice system but the Reform Party voted against them.

Let me set the record straight right at the outset. Bill C-3 is deeply flawed. It is not good enough for Canadians who have waited so long. The legislation does not go far enough to protect society. It does not include any measures to ensure mandatory participation in meaningful rehabilitation programs.

The minister again has brought forward a bill that is full of loopholes and allows lawyers and judges to maintain the status quo when it comes to youth justice. Status quo is not what Canadians were hoping or praying for in the area of youth justice.

In summary, Bill C-3 is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Reform Party of Canada. It is not good enough for Canadians, and most important it is not good enough for our youth who cried out the loudest for change. Bill C-3 is simply not good enough.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of young offenders is extremely important, because everyone knows that young people will eventually be part of society. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has paid keen attention to everything surrounding the debates on the Young Offenders Act. It has repeatedly called on the minister not to touch the bill, which works successfully in Quebec. I will explain that in detail in the time allotted me.

I am going to try to prove that it is a good law, that it must not be touched and that it must simply be implemented as Quebec has done since its passage. The results in Quebec have been very good. I think everyone in this House agrees with that. Even the former Minister of Justice acknowledged this at a first ministers conference. He even expressed the hope that all the provinces would implement this legislation like Quebec. Unfortunately, we have before us a bill that is changing some things. I will speak of that in a few minutes.

I listened with much interest to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice—I find it all odd that the minister did not come to the House to defend the bill herself at second reading, instead of her parliamentary secretary—but I think he has failed to grasp the problem.

The government seems to have understood nothing of Quebec's approach. Worse yet, the parliamentary secretary is quoting people from the Institut Pinel, who have said repeatedly they do not want Bill C-3, or Bill C-68, as it was called during the previous session. The parliamentary secretary quotes people from the Institut Pinel. One has to be in a really difficult situation to have to quote people opposed to this bill in order to sell it in this House.

I also listened with interest to the comments made by the Reform Party. True to their vision of justice and to everything they have done since 1993, Reformers unfortunately gave a twisted picture of the situation. The Reform Party member called upon God and prayed. He does not want his children to get attacked by young people, and so on. This is a very negative and demagogic speech, one that should not be made here on legislation on young offenders.

To make such remarks is to mislead the public. These comments do not reflect the actual figures, which are not those of the Bloc Quebecois nor of the Government of Quebec, but those of the federal government and they show that the crime rate is declining among young people. That rate is dropping even for violent crimes, not by much, but it has been steadily falling in recent years, to the tune of about 1% to 2% per year. Quebec is the only province where this legislation is fully applied, and Quebec has played a major factor in that decline, since it has been getting very good results.

In English Canada, the further west we go, the higher the rate of recidivism and the percentage of young offenders. This is interesting, because application existing Young Offenders Act is less consistent as we move from east to west in English Canada, and least of all in the west.

Strange as it may seem, under the Liberals' current system, the less a province applies the Young Offenders Act, the more money it gets. I will get back to this later on. There is a bill that has been outstanding for years for which the government opposite has not reimbursed the Government of Quebec.

The Government of Quebec has decided to invest in people, and particularly in young people so that they can regain their anonymity as quickly as possible on leaving custody and become full-fledged members of society, while westerners are investing in concrete. The way the program is set up, the folks investing in concrete and prisons in which to hold young offenders as long as possible get money from the federal government, while those who enforce the legislation passed by the federal government, the government opposite, are penalized.

I can see why the former Minister of Justice did not keep his post for long: he supported the Government of Quebec's claim. I will come back to this a bit later.

To conclude my remarks about what the previous speaker said, I would like him to take a closer look at the statistics. I would like him to take a closer look at what is going on in his immediate surroundings and try to depersonalize the debate, look at objective figures.

Let him come to Quebec and see what is going on. Let him talk to people like those at the Institut Pinel. Let him read what eminent criminologists and university professors have written. Let him observe the approach taken by crown lawyers in cases. Let him examine the results in Quebec. I am certain that he will see that the approach he is recommending is not the right one.

That having been said, I will develop my argument further. I will begin with an extremely important quotation, just to make the point that it is not only recently that Quebec has been addressing the issue of young offenders.

After several years of application of the Young Offenders Act, a judge was mandated by the Government of Quebec to investigate how the legislation was being implemented, whether there was room for improvement in its day to day application. This made it possible to see whether the government could provide more support, more backing, to the agencies applying that act daily, and whether the legislation could be improved in order to help them more.

I refer to the report by Justice Jasmin addressing the young offender issue. His report was released in 1995. The debate has been going on for some time. Today we are discussing Bill C-3, which was numbered C-68 during the last session. Nothing was done over the summer, but I will get back to that later. I have a great deal to say and I doubt 40 minutes would be enough. I will try to give hon. members the main thrust.

The quote I am about to read from the Jasmin report fits in very well with today's debate. He writes:

It is often easier to amend legislation than to change our approach to a problem. It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency. Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve them. One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches. This loses sight of the fact that adolescents are still in the process of evolving and laying the entire blame for their delinquency at their door is implying that society and their environment were of no importance.

It was no weak conclusion that Mr. Justice Jasmin reached following his consultations. I support his conclusions 150%. If a young person 14 or 15 years of age commits a violent crime or kills someone—at the start of his life—I think society's approach is at fault. I think society is responsible for that somehow.

I am not saying that society must assume all the blame. When we look at the case a little, when we see a 14 year old or 15 year old committing such a crime—repugnant, I agree—when we look at this young person's situation, level of education, community and friends, we realize quite often that the parents are totally absent,. We realize that the young person has committed a very serious crime but is not the only one responsible.

Is “being locked up”, as they say in the lingo, going to resolve the problem? In the short term perhaps.

A 14 year old going to prison will be released one day, but the problem will not be resolved when that young person comes out.

Unfortunately, this is the approach advocated by the Reform members and, very disappointingly, no doubt in order to garner a few votes in the upcoming elections in Alberta, represented by the Minister of Justice, the minister gave in to the very right wing demands of the Reform Party.

As far as justice is concerned and especially as far as young offenders are concerned, Reformers and Liberals are tarred with the same brush. It makes no sense.

Earlier, I said that this was not the first time we have debated this bill, because it was first introduced by the Minister of Justice on March 11, 1999 as Bill C-68. Immediately after the bill was introduced, just reading the preamble and the first few clauses I felt that a major amendment was called for and that the government was tearing down huge portions of the Young Offenders Act, when there was nothing wrong with it.

Little by little, support grew. In Quebec, there was a significant public outcry at the time—we are talking about the months of March, April and May, 1999. The Government of Quebec defended its stand and then kept the heat on the Department of Justice. It brought out quotes from the former Minister of Justice in the same Liberal government to show that there had been a change in approach and that what one minister had said was plainly contradicted by his successor.

I would have thought the Minister of Justice would have given this issue some thought over the summer, because it is without a doubt one of the most important bills she will introduce in this parliament. What is passed today will affect generations to come. We cannot amend the Young Offenders Act every six months, or whenever the government appoints a new justice minister. This is probably the most important bill that the hon. member will introduce in her capacity as Minister of Justice.

I thought, wrongly, that the summer vacation would help the minister come to her senses. But no. Today, she is coming back with her old Bill C-68, which, through some administrative sleight of hand in the House, has now become Bill C-3. Nothing is changed in this legislation, even though many people clearly showed that it should be amended and even withdrawn, so that the current Young Offenders Act would remain in effect.

I told members that, as early as in March, April and May 1999, people in Quebec were unanimous in their opposition. In fact, I challenge the government to quote or to name a single Quebec organization applying the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis that supports the amendments proposed by the minister. Criminologists, social workers, police forces, legal experts, everyone is saying that the minister is headed in the wrong direction.

In Quebec, opposition is significant. It is very significant within the provincial government and I believe it will grow even more in the next few days. It may be that we have to send an even stronger message to the federal government. The Liberals may not have got it the first time.

I am told that, while opposition voiced in Quebec and the message sent by the coalition against the reform of the Young Offenders Act was ignored by the Minister of Justice and the Quebec Liberal caucus, it was well received by certain groups outside Quebec.

Opposition to this bill is increasing, not for the reasons advanced by the Reform Party but for the ones advanced by the Quebec coalition, which is against the amendments the minister proposes to make in this important area.

When a minister decides to intervene in something, no doubt this is because he feels justified in doing so. I indicated earlier that there had been a drop in the crime rate. It has dropped by 23% since 1991. In Quebec, where the young offenders legislation is enforced, the results are even more conclusive .

The intention of the bill before us is not to amend the Young Offenders Act. I say this because there are still members on the government side who maintain it is so. They say “The bill before you, members of the Opposition, is a bill to amend the Young Offenders Act”.

This is not true. Bill C-3 repeals the existing young offenders legislation. It starts completely from scratch. The government ought perhaps to acknowledge this. Regarding the Young Offenders Act as it is applied today—and I cannot get into it clause by clause because it is a highly complex piece of legislation—but I think that the hon. members will understand clearly why we are opposed, just from its main thrust, its main principles and orientations.

At the present time, it is section 3 of the Young Offenders Act in its present form—all judges up to and including the justices of the Supreme Court agree on this—that shows the true policy thrust the legislator wished to give to the legislation and what he intends to do with young people in conflict with the law.

Section 3 is very long and I will not read it in full, but I will read some of the principles by which a judge must be guided when he hands down a decision involving a young offender.

This section says:

Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons.

It goes on to say:

a) While young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions.

b) Society must, although it has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent criminal conduct by young persons, be afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour;

It is not true to say that the purpose of the present act is not to protect society. In the first three paragraphs of section 3, that is most certainly put forward as its purpose.

This section also says:

c) young persons who commit offences require supervision, discipline and control, but, because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs.

“Special needs” is an extremely important phrase in section 3(c) on which many judges, including those in the supreme court, have commented, pointing out that Quebec approached things differently by taking into account the special needs required in a given situation.

It also says, and I quote:

The protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation.

I hope that members opposite, including the parliamentary secretary who is paying close attention to my comments, realize that the existing act, passed by this government, provides that the social rehabilitation of young offenders is preferable to any other measure. This is what the current act says. In some cases, extrajudicial measures known as alternative measures should be considered for young offenders.

It is also said that while the Young Offenders Act provides for jail sentences, taking measures other than judicial proceedings should be considered.

The act also says that “Young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, including those stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or in the Canadian Bill of Rights”. And so on. These are extremely important provisions.

Does Bill C-3 include anything similar? As members know, a bill is made up of a title, sections, parts and schedules. The content of the act itself is more important than what is found in the explanatory notes or in the preamble.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this issue and stated that while the preamble provides guidelines, one must look at the wording of the act itself.

None of what I read, which comes from the declaration of principle found in section 3 of the existing Young Offenders Act, is to be found in Bill C-3, which is before us today.

Instead, the government has included, probably to keep people quiet, a vague reference to these principles in the preamble of its proposed legislation. It is as if it were saying “Come on, you folks in the Bloc Quebecois, the principles are there in the preamble”. It is a meaningless sham. There have been court decisions that say so. When the whole bill is read, it becomes evident that the preamble is not reflected in the application of the legislation. The judges will have to interpret it, that is certain, but they will do so according to what is in the legislation.

It can be seen, then, that there is a considerable difference between the two texts, the current Young Offenders Act and the bill we have before us.

Another argument that is often raised by those on the other side of the House is flexibility. The Minister of Justice, or her department, has managed to cast a spell over a number of the Quebec Liberal MPs, or maybe the Prime Minister himself, since he must have had a hand in it all. They, because there is more than one, have told me “What are you complaining about? Quebec will be able to do as it pleases, there is flexibility; there is the possibility of opting out”.

Yet, upon examination, we find there is no flexibility. The flexibility the Minister of Justice talks about, to the effect that Quebec can do what it wants, the flexibility the minister claims there is in this bill and would make it possible to continue to apply the Young Offenders Act, is nowhere to be found.

Let someone show me where it is stated. I have gone through the bill more than once. I could not say how many jurists have looked at it in Quebec, how many institutions have studied it. No one, whether criminologist or lawyer, no one has found any clause that offered this flexibility to Quebec.

However, there is an indication that, under some circumstances, it could be done on a case by case basis. That is not funny. The minister can do what she wants with the bill, may I say, because she is introducing it, but she will not be applying it. That will be left to the provinces.

She is putting undue pressure on the crown attorneys who are going to evaluate, in each case, whether they will treat the young person as an adult or as a young person, who is therefore not fully responsible for his actions and deserves special attention. The Minister of Justice is not going to be the one to carry this burden. The Minister of Justice of this “beautiful, great, finest country in the world” known as Canada is not going to feel the pressure, but Quebecers will, because they will be implementing this law in Quebec.

With all the demagoguery I am hearing today, it will be easy to get a crowd together and put huge pressure on the crown attorney who will have a given case, who will have to draw conclusions, who will have to make recommendations. I think the minister lacks courage. If she wants to act this way, let her take on the burden and insist that young people in specific situations be treated as adults. She should not put that burden on the shoulders of one or more others. She should say so clearly, which she has not done in her bill.

There is also the whole principle of our not living in a closed society in Quebec. Even if we wanted—something I wish with all my heart—Quebec to be able to do as it wished in all areas, including justice, because we would be sovereign, we must for the time being live with the tools we are given. Quebecers must live with legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada.

They cannot completely shut it out of and say “We will have nothing to do with what is going on in English Canada concerning the implementation of the new act”. Incidentally, the title of the bill is rather telling. It reads “An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts”.

It refers to “criminal justice”. Whatever happened to the guiding principle of the Young Offenders Act? We will not be able to remain silent. We will not be able to say that we will completely ignore what is going on. The lower and upper courts in the other provinces will interpret this legislation. Some day, their rulings will have a bearing on what goes in Quebec. Comparisons will be made and it will be difficult to reconcile flexibility with the imposition of similar sentences.

Indeed, the imposition of similar sentences is also a principle included in the new legislation. What does it mean? Does it mean that Quebec will have to impose a jail sentence on a young offender because Ontario does it? What does it mean in concrete terms?

Frankly, this is a useless and dangerous bill. It provides for harsher sentences. The government obviously decided to crack down on young offenders, but this bill does not reflect today's reality.

Let us take something else that is completely ridiculous, the publication of names. In what way will publishing the names of young offenders in newspapers help their victims? How will it advance the justice system to brand these young people for life?

There are no studies indicating that it would do any good to make their names public. There are no experts who think that publishing names will in any way reduce crime. I have never heard anyone say “I think that victims would feel better if they saw the name of the 14-year old who attacked them, raped them or killed someone's child in big letters in the newspaper. I think it would do me good. I think it would help me to get through all this”.

The ones pushing for this are the ones looking for sensationalism, the ones looking for easy votes on the backs of those dealing with these situations. What I fail to understand is that the so-called Liberal government across the way has decided to go along with them and allow the publication of names for certain crimes, specific ones I admit. This is completely unnecessary.

Let us look at the cost of a radical change in approach where young offenders are concerned. Even the minister admits that the reform she is proposing in Bill C-3 will involve additional costs. Even the Department of Justice is prepared to pay, since the government is getting tough and it looks good. How it is perceived by the public is more important than whether the public's real interests are being served. It is so easy to use a bill like this one for political gain.

I do not support that. I believe there is a better way of doing things.

Before introducing a new system, before introducing new principles, seeking new interpretations, trying to get the young people locked up, printing names, trying to solve the problem by getting it out of sight behind prison doors—when everyone agrees that prisons are the universities of crime—why not instead, keeping that in mind, say “We will free up $343 million more over three years for crime prevention and application”. I see the parliamentary secretary nodding in agreement, those are his department's figures. But before the government thinks of putting new funding into that, it ought perhaps to think of paying its bills.

The federal government owes the Government of Quebec the tidy sum of $87 million, because the Young Offenders Act is being enforced in Quebec and prisons are not being built as they are in western Canada.

The former Minister of Justice acknowledged at a federal-provincial conference of ministers of justice that the federal government owed Quebec money. The government ought to give some thought to paying us. It ought to think about writing us a cheque before it starts investing new money in a piece of legislation no one in Quebec wants.

In western Canada, the harmful effects of this legislation are becoming more and more evident, and people are beginning to understand the non-repressive approach used in Quebec. Ours is an approach of social rehabilitation. We believe that we are helping young people by investing in them when they are having problems with the law. When they are given help, I believe that 90% or 95% of them go back to being regular members of society, after their release.

There are very few repeat offences when the young people have properly followed the mandatory plan mapped out for them, when they have had the proper follow-up by specialists.

Since my time is getting very short, I will address my remarks particularly to all the Quebec members of this House sitting on the government benches. Where are the hon. members for Beauce, for Laval-Ouest, for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, for Verdun—Saint-Henri, for Outremont? Where is the former president of the Quebec bar association and now the member for Brome—Missisquoi? Why are they not opposing this?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must remind the hon. member that we do not speak of the absence or presence of members in the House.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think you perhaps missed this subtlety of the French language. It means: where do they stand with respect to this bill and not whether they are in the House or not. I know; you did not need to remind me, but I hope that you will give me back the few moments you took away from me.

Where do these members stand? Why do they not rise to criticize this bill? The member for Brome—Missisquoi, a member from Quebec and the former president of the Quebec bar association, which is supposed to represent its members properly, where does he stand? “Elect me, I will defend you, the legal community, in Ottawa”. I heard him say that at a forum, perhaps he should be reminded of that.

I will close very succinctly, by listing the persons or groups who have spoken out in Quebec against this bill: the Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the École de criminologie of the University of Montreal represented by Jean Trépanier, Aide communautaire juridique de Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants. The Institut Pinel, quoted by the parliamentary secretary in support of his bill, spoke out strongly against it.

The police chiefs' association, the Conférences des Régies régionales de la santé, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Quebec Crown Prosecutors' Office, the Association des CLSC et CHLSD du Québec, l'École de psychoéducation de l'Université de Montréal, the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, the Ligue pour le bien-être de l'enfance du Canada, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec, the Société de criminologie du Québec, not to mention the Government of Quebec and all the judges who, through the messages they are sending, stress the merits of the current Young Offenders Act.

In conclusion, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.”

The government must go back to the drawing board. It must do its homework and consult, among others, the Government of Quebec, which has been asking for weeks to meet with officials from the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice must also realize that things are done differently in Quebec, and she must come to her senses.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion, the amendment is in order. Debate is now on the proposed amendment.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, after the passionate comments of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and his reference to the demagoguery of the Reform Party, I am afraid my salty comments from the east coast may not be quite so dramatic.

I do think it is important that we reflect upon the nature and the reasons for the introduction of the new youth criminal justice act.

It was stated by a member earlier that the old Young Offenders Act was appropriate, that it worked well in Quebec. I concur with the member. I think he is right. I think Quebec took the Young Offenders Act when it was introduced, applied it in the way it was to be applied, spent the resources in the areas where they needed to be spent and showed how that act could work.

Unfortunately other provinces did not have the resources, or chose not to implement the Young Offenders Act in the same way. I say that having had some experience with it.

I began my career as a lawyer just as the Young Offenders Act was introduced and became law. I can say unequivocally that in the province where I practised it was an exercise in frustration to appear day after day in the courts with young people charged under the Young Offenders Act. It was an exercise in frustration for the judiciary who did not have access to the types of programs the Young Offenders Act envisioned. It was an exercise in frustration for the crown. It was an exercise in frustration for the defence counsel, to say nothing of the frustration felt by both the families of the young offenders and the victims of crime.

As we approach a new piece of legislation it is important that we examine whether or not that legislation can correct some of the problems that have arisen over the last few years.

I do note that this legislation is now Bill C-3. It was Bill C-68 in the last parliament. Perhaps the government changed the numbering because it always seems to have problems with bills numbered C-68.

The symbol of justice is the scales of justice. They are an important symbol for a number of reasons. They indicate the need for balance. They indicate the need to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of society. They indicate the need to balance what goes on in the courtroom against what is perhaps demanded by society.

Justice is not a simple matter; it is complex. Justice and crime affect all communities and all the people in those communities. Children are a responsibility. All of society has a role in the upbringing and concern for our young people. When we deal with a bill that affects justice, crime and children, that bill requires careful examination by those people who represent all of the people in this country.

There are some things in the bill which I wish to address. I should point out this is the third time I have addressed this piece of legislation in some depth.

The legislation will continue to apply to young offenders between the ages of 12 and 18 years. There was some call for the bill to apply to children who were 10 and 11 years old. I say unequivocally that is not the position of the New Democratic Party. We believe that for children who are 10 or 11 years old the appropriate place to deal with them when they do not follow the rules of society, when they appear to be misled, is through social services and help to the family by the community. I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice listened to those many groups who came before the justice committee, of which I am a member, and argued that the law not apply to 10 and 11 year old children.

It would be interesting to contrast that with the children's agenda in the Speech from the Throne which we heard two weeks ago the focus of which was on children.

To somehow say that 10 and 11 year old children have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in the way that we demand of those who are charged with criminal offences is a stretch. The Minister of Justice listened to those groups and I can say that we concur.

There is an emphasis on prevention and alternatives to jail for non-violent offenders. They are found at clauses 4 and 5 of the proposed legislation. Those too are appropriate issues for the minister to introduce.

We know, and again I can give some evidence of my own, that in many cases what happened with the old Young Offenders Act is that there was an absence of discretion, that police officers, school teachers and people who routinely came in contact with young people ended up referring matters to the courts, even if they were the most simple matters where some cautioning or some exercise of discretion may well have dealt with the matters.

I have seen in the courts young people coming in charged with damage to property because they got into an argument with a schoolmate over a school locker or where young people end in court on trespassing charges because they walked across a neighbour's lawn. There is no need to clog the courts up with these kinds of offences when we have serious matters that have to go before the courts.

We applaud the sections of the act that provide for cautioning by police and for the exercise of discretion by those in authority. It increases the emphasis on community based sentencing with which we concur.

There are some other areas that are perhaps more contentious and some areas that require further debate and examination. There is a reverse onus in the legislation on young people between the ages of 14 and 17 years who are charged with serious violent offences.

When I say there is a reverse onus I mean for particular prescribed offences these young people will be tried as adults unless they can prove to the court that they should not be. That is a fundamental change from the other Young Offenders Act where the burden was on the state to prove that the young person should be tried as an adult. It places a reverse onus on young people to make the case that they should not be. It is a heavy and onerous burden.

When we talk about resources to the provinces one thing we have to think about is that the young person is also given the right to counsel in the legislation. That is appropriate. It is very difficult for an adult lay person to argue a reverse onus without legal counsel, let alone a 15 year old.

If we are to ensure that a young person has the right to counsel it begs the question who will pay for it. Where is counsel to come from? There is some provision in the act that when parents can afford to pay they will pay the legal costs of their children, but the statistics will tell us that there is a huge portion of young people who come before the courts whose families cannot afford to pay for legal counsel, never mind the ethical considerations as to whether or not a non-accused person should be paying the costs of counsel.

We see the beginnings of what flows through the act and that is a downloading of costs on to the provinces. While there is some contribution by the federal government toward legal aid programs across the country, we can see that the role of legal aid lawyers will increase dramatically with the legislation and its reverse onus, and that will be a further cost to the provinces. We have to examine that very carefully.

In addition, there is a provision that requires some other consideration, and that is special sentencing for young people who suffer severe psychological problems. We have to question whether or not the place for people who have severe psychological problems is in the courts in the first place.

In the criminal code there is an understanding that adults can be found not criminally responsible because of psychological problems. That is an area I will be examining carefully on the justice committee.

We do not have a problem with the publication of names of young offenders convicted of serious offences unless a judge determines otherwise. The public has called for and demanded that in some situations the names of young offenders be published so the community and other young people will know if there is a serious offender among them. My party and I concur with that.

Members of the Reform Party objected to the minister's comments when she said “in certain circumstances”. The act provides for some judicial discretion in that regard. I comment on that because it has been said that there ought not to be that discretion, that these are loopholes. I think that is how they were referred to.

In reality we have to provide some discretion to the courts. We cannot foresee each case that will come before a court. That is why we have judges. If it were easy to say that every person charged with this crime will face this penalty, we would not need the judiciary. We would have a clerk who could tick off the list and say what is the absolute penalty for someone charged and found guilty of violating a certain section of the criminal code, and nothing else would have to be taken into account.

The sentencing process is a complicated process because no two offenders are the same. Nor are two victims. Nor is the impact of a crime the same on every person. Within parameters the court needs some discretion on how it deals with offenders, especially young offenders.

In terms of the publication of names each case will require certain thoughts, which may well be best left to the judge who hears the case. That is why the discretion is there and why we would consider it important.

I have some concerns about the sections of the act that change the rules governing confessions of young persons and the admissibility of those confessions in the courtroom. I say that only because young people are not as sophisticated in many ways as adults. They do not understand their rights in the many ways adults do. We must be somewhat careful when we make a determination of a confession given to a person in authority. The way it worked under the old act was that any statement to a person in authority, whether or not a police officer, had to be examined very carefully by the court. We will examine that very carefully.

I began by talking about the right to counsel of the young person and the downloading of that cost on to the provinces. I am afraid that many of the positive aspects of the legislation, and there are some, will simply not be affordable for the provinces. I am afraid we will make the same mistake with this legislation that we made when the Young Offenders Act was introduced. We said that there were all kinds of principles. The government said that there were ways to deal with young people, but the provinces did not have the resources to do that.

This act provides even more methods of dealing with young people. I have mentioned police discretion and community sentencing are good ideas but they cost money. Let us be frank. To have special sentencing provisions for young people who suffer from psychological problems will cost money.

Unfortunately many people do not realize that the cost of the administration of justice falls to the provinces. For a province like Nova Scotia, which faces a huge deficit and has just cancelled programs for charities, it is questionable whether or not it will have the funds to prepare for some of the positive aspects of the legislation.

The Minister of Justice and the government will say that they have committed funding to help the provinces, that they have committed $206 million. What they do not say is that it is over a number of years. It is not in one year that $206 million will be given.

There is no clear indication of how that funding will be distributed across the country. I have made this statement before. The last time I spoke to the legislation I indicated my concern was that the $206 million committed by the government were not enough, especially if we looked at it on a per capita basis.

If the money is to be distributed to the provinces on a per capita basis, it will mean very insignificant funds for provinces with smaller populations and there will not be enough funds that are necessary to fulfil the purposes of the act. That would represent perhaps $2 million in Nova Scotia. For that province with its debt load to administer what the federal government is asking it to administer will simply not be possible. Again we will have an act that will frustrate the victims, the judiciary, the families of young offenders and counsel.

My party and I have some concerns about other aspects of the act. I will indicate to the House some of the statistics. Right now provinces are paying upward of 70% of the costs of administering the youth justice system. As we implement a more complex system with wider parameters those costs will escalate and the provinces will have a very heavy burden in trying to fulfil their responsibilities under the act.

There are other areas that cause us some concern. Life sentences for youth convicted in adult court give me some concern. I know I differ from my colleagues in the Reform Party on this point, but we have to wonder whether or not sentencing young people to a full life sentence will ever serve to rehabilitate them. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois said that the prisons are our training schools for further crime. We know that.

We support measures to increase the emphasis on youth in community based diversions and alternatives and the increased focus on rehabilitation. There are not as many details as we would like to see in the act and I am concerned about the costs.

It has been said that it is not the role of the justice system to deal with social problems. When we deal with young people in particular we cannot divorce the two. It is no accident that there are huge numbers of young people who come before the courts from families in poverty. It is no accident when we look at jails, especially those south of the border, that they are full of people from poor sections of the United States, especially minority groups. It is no accident that our prison populations have a greater proportion of aboriginal people who come from poor reserves.

We cannot address the problems of dealing with crime unless we can also deal with what causes crime. The prevention of crime should be our ultimate goal. Clearly, when someone breaks the law and commits a heinous crime, it has to be dealt with swiftly, in a meaningful way as stated in the act and in some cases severely. However we cannot say there is no room for social issues in justice issues. The two are so inextricably linked that it is almost impossible to talk about one and not the other.

We have to recognize the groups such as the Church Council on Justice and the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs that appeared before the justice committee. They have been mentioned in the Quebec context by my colleague from the Bloc. All of them had recommendations. They had my word, and I think the word of members of the justice committee, that we would take into account their concerns when we examined the bill.

I also want to say that the provinces addressed concerns to the Minister of Justice which have not been addressed. We will now have an opportunity to see how Manitoba responds to this with its new government, which has expressed concerns about youth gangs, about young people 10 and 11 who were coerced into crime and how we could best deal with them.

Given the fact that my time is at an end, those are just some of the concerns we have. I can indicate at this point, given the costs associated with the program and the inability to implement it because of funding, that we have serious questions about supporting the legislation.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to what my colleague from the NDP has said with regard to this bill and I always appreciate his comments. I sat on the justice committee with him for a short time and I was always impressed with his clarity of thought, although at times we differ from a political point of view.

He touched upon the fact that we cannot separate the role of the justice system from dysfunctional families and the problems in society that lead to youth crime. I would like to ask the hon. member this question. If poverty contributes to youth crime, inasmuch as we have seen, according to the statistics, that there has been a dramatic increase in youth poverty since the Liberal government took over in 1993, does he suggest that the policies of the government have contributed to the extent to which youth crime has either grown or remained constant during this period of time?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to respond to the question. As indicated by the hon. member for Crowfoot, we did work together on the justice committee. In fact, I remember us having a debate, I think at the University of Ottawa, on the proposed legislation. I think it is helpful to always hear two sides of the argument. When I talk about a balanced approach, I like to think that sometimes we manage to find that ground.

He raises an important question. We know that the economic policies implemented by the government have resulted in more children and more families in this country living in poverty than was the situation when the government took office. We know that despite a pledge to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000, in fact the gap between the haves and the have nots has increased. When I talk about poverty and community, I mean more than simply ensuring that all children have the same material goods.

I would like to talk about what is happening in my part of the country, which I think is happening in other parts of the country as well.

If we look at children and children who are at risk of committing crime, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that they have a sense of community and community values. If children belong to a community, then they respect that community. Children need to have a sense of place, a sense of connectedness to place and they need to have a sense of history. We know that in the maritimes and I think other communities know it as well.

Children in my community know who their grandfather and their great grandfather was and they have an extended family. While they may not have all the material things that are necessary, they have that sense of value from the community.

We are creating a nation of migrant workers. That is what the economic policies have done. People from the east have to move to the west and people from the north have to move to the south and leave behind their values, their communities and their sense of place. As that happens children are affected. It is serious when that happens to children.

There are two kinds of poverty. There is the poverty that happens to a child when they are deprived of their community and their community values. When we say to people in certain parts of the country which are not in the centre “Too bad about your economic problems. Move.”, we do something to those children.

There are also the material things. There are children who live without adequate shelter. We know that homelessness is increasing in this country. There are children who live without adequate food. I commend my colleague, the member for Crowfoot, who introduced a motion concerning headstart programs to make sure that children in this country have breakfast before they go to school.

We know that without those things children have no reason to have input into their community. Why would they respect the laws and values of the community if the community does not respect the needs and requirements of those children?

They are linked, and I thank the hon. member for the question.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am the next speaker, so I will ask a brief question. I would address it to my colleague and fellow Nova Scotian. I have listened very closely to his remarks. As well, the intervention by my friend, the member for Crowfoot, was very timely and well placed.

I embrace much of what the hon. member said when he spoke of the feeling of disconnected children in the country, in particular in places that he is familiar with, the maritimes, where there is a transitional way of life that often leads families to move elsewhere, to uproot from their communities, perhaps in the hope of returning some day. This often leaves children drifting.

We know as well that the commentary with respect to the economic impact on those who get involved in criminal activity is very real.

No matter how far-reaching and how interventionist the legislation may be, without the proper funding it is not going to achieve the desired effect. Throughout the commentary on the bill, both in the House and later at committee, I think we will see that the emphasis and the philosophy is perhaps correct, to put it on the front end and to try to address the root causes and intervene in an early fashion, as opposed to waiting until a crime has been committed. However, without the resources it is going to be virtually impossible.

My friend touched on this in some detail in his speech. I am wondering if he could elaborate on where those resources should be placed specifically, as well as the programming that is envisioned by the bill, the programming that talks of getting children involved in sports programs, for example, locating difficulties with respect to education, perhaps diagnosing psychological illnesses, perhaps even going to the drastic step of removing a child from a home, which child welfare has the authority to do.

It appears to me that this legislation, as well intended as it may be, is simply going to further download the responsibilities that are already being carried by the existing agencies. It is going to put further pressure on these agencies, which are currently underfunded. We know, and the hon. member touched on it, that the legislation does not carry with it sufficient financial backing to accomplish all of these wonderful goals and these airy principles that are to be accomplished.

Would my hon. friend comment on that?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be as brief in my response as my colleague was in his question, because I know he is speaking next and I am always anxious to hear what he has to say.

Let me give an illustration as to where the funding might be placed. Community group after community group has come to see me in my office with ideas on how to deal with the issues of youth crime. These are grassroots communities. These are people who come together and say “We know there is a bit of a problem and we want to deal with it”. They have put forward all kinds of plans, some of which I have given to the minister of justice, dealing with youth centres.

One of the best examples that is tragically falling short of funding in my community is having a police officer in the junior high school; community based policing where young people have a role model who is an officer of the law, who can help them work out problems, who can relate to them on a day to day basis.

This program has operated in a junior high in my community, Sherwood Park Education Centre, and it has been an excellent program. Unfortunately, as money dries up there are real questions as to whether that can continue.

Those would be some of the programs which I think would help at the community level to deter crime.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3. I am pleased as well that the reconvening of parliament and the gathering of members of parliament back to this place will allow us to continue the debate of the Liberal government's youth criminal justice act, now known as Bill C-3, formerly Bill C-68, which was another poorly put together bill.

The proposed replacement of the current Young Offenders Act is one which has received a great deal of attention, and rightly so, and a great deal of consternation throughout the country. It will be an entirely new piece of legislation that pertains specifically to youth in this country.

Youth justice is certainly a matter of great concern for all Canadians, for the Progressive Conservative Party, the government and all opposition parties. In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough I hear regularly from people who are affected and who are extremely concerned about the direction in which youth criminal justice is going in this country.

I also find that the concern that is expressed very often by the government has resulted in an extremely lengthy waiting period with respect to the introduction of this legislation. We know that it was throughout many election campaigns a priority that was spelled out in documents. However, it took the government 18 months before first introducing this bill in its original form, Bill C-68. With much fanfare, in March 1999 the bill was finally tabled by the minister of justice. We also know, as is very often the practice, that much of it had been media tested and leaked prior to its introduction here in the House, or I should say its introduction through the press gallery.

Then, on the eve of parliament reconvening this fall, there was a prorogation. This delayed the opening of the House by three weeks and we know that there were huge issues burning in the country at the time: the proposed hostile takeover, the fisheries crisis that is absolutely a tinderbox which is about to explode on the east coast, as well as the refugee crisis. We also know that there are problems within our justice system. It is absolutely shameful that the government again chose to delay dealing with problems which I have mentioned, as well as the introduction of this very necessary legislation.

One would have thought that throughout the summer months of reflection this might have prompted the minister of justice to strengthen or perhaps revise some of the act. This did not happen. There are no sweeping changes in the legislation that appears before us. Bill C-3 is the mirror image of Bill C-68, but for the fact that the justice department did, in fairness, go through the problem of spell-check to correct some of the language so that at least the French and English languages correspond.

We have waited an eternity for Bill C-3, but it is, we are quick to acknowledge in the Conservative Party, an attempt to replace what was a very ineffective and in many instances a very dangerous piece of legislation. I am talking about the former Young Offenders Act. However, this particular bill, I personally feel, will not live up to much of the billing that has been placed before the Canadian public. In response to overwhelming public pressure to toughen up the act the Liberal government has employed a process of smoke and mirrors to give the appearance that this is in fact what is happening.

I say with all honesty that this is not the case. That is not to say that simply toughening up the act is going to address the problems that exist with youth crime in this country. That is not to say that there are not any positive elements in this bill. In fairness, all opposition members and government members who have preceded me in speaking in this debate have indicated that there are indeed some very positive elements in Bill C-3.

These are not new nuances. These are not changes that have not been contemplated in the past. In fact I find it almost ironic that much of what we are talking about in this debate is actually a return to philosophies and methodologies in the criminal justice system that we have used in the past under previous legislation such as the juvenile offenders act, legislation which has come full circle now in terms of how we react to young persons who become involved in criminal activity.

There is certainly one very positive element of this bill that I would be quick to recognize and that is the concept of parental responsibility. This bill attempts to bring adults, and parents specifically, more into the system. One can agree very quickly that this is a necessary element. There has to be a more holistic approach, a family style approach, to the problems that often lead up to and continue to exist when a young person runs afoul of the law.

This degree of accountability, not only for the young person but for the parent, is crucial in addressing youth crime. It is a fair question, I suggest, for a judge to ask a parent in a courtroom in an open fashion, “Where were you when your 14 year old was breaking into your neighbour's house? Why was your child out on a school night under the influence of alcohol or drugs committing a criminal offence? Why is your child acting out in such a violent way?” These are relevant questions, and questions that I feel a parent should be held to account for as well.

The entire issue of the age of accountability is something that is dodged by this particular piece of legislation. I am quick to point out that it is a suggestion that has been certainly echoed by members of the opposition, but it originated in a report that was commissioned by the government itself. This was an idea that was not just floated by opposition members and it is not just an attempt I suggest to try to find fault with the act. This was a recommendation by an expert under the financial auspices of the government.

It raises the hackles on the necks of government members when they hear the suggestion, and they point out that we already have many agencies in place to address youth under the age of 12 who are not encompassed by the old act or the new act, that these agencies are the ones most properly suited to deal with youth in contravention of the law. However, I am very quick to remind the government and the House that the legislation does not bolster the support that is needed in the areas of child welfare and early intervention.

There are an increasing number of youth under the age of 12 who are completely untouched by our criminal justice system. It is the rapid response, I would suggest, that is most important in dealing with crime at an early age, and allowing our criminal justice system to react. This is not a bar on placing children into those agencies. We already know that our justice system works very much hand in glove with those social services, with those agencies. This is not to suggest for a minute that the criminal justice system will be solely responsible for children under the age of 12 who run afoul of the law. It is simply to suggest that we have to have a mechanism that will bring them into the system in a quick and effective way.

Police officers are often faced with an extremely frustrating situation where an 11 or sometimes even a 10 year old—and it seems unthinkable but it does happen on occasion—is involved in a very serious offence perhaps involving a weapon, perhaps involving threats or a violent act. Under the current system and under the system that the new legislation will put in place, police officers are virtually powerless. They can contact the agencies, but they do not have at their discretion the same elements that would exist under the criminal law.

This is one of the many reasons that I have introduced a private member's bill that would do just that. I know other members of the House have some reservations about this, but it is not solely to hammer youth under the age of 12. It is simply to widen the net, to broaden what the act encompasses.

If there are positive elements, and there certainly are positive elements in the act, why would we not want to have those early interventions, those elements that will hopefully focus our attention on the root problems of crime, applied to a broader age group of young people in the country?

There are other sections of the act that I would like to address as well. Bill C-3 certainly does not address the financial responsibilities that are also encompassed by the administration of criminal law in the country, and that is true of the old act. It has been declining since 1984. It has been getting steadily worse when it comes to the federal government's commitment to the provinces and the administration of criminal law in the country. I am not going to broaden that by discussing criminal law generally, but with respect to the administration of the Young Offenders Act, the federal government has completely abrogated its responsibility in holding up its financial end of the deal. That is true in the province of Quebec, Nova Scotia and right across the country.

This is something I know the province of Quebec, in many instances, has focused its attention on. It has in fact initiated more programs and put more provincial funding into it, perhaps at the expense of other programming, because it recognizes the importance of it. The province of Quebec is perhaps a leader in many of the areas of programming that the government envisions will be brought about as a result of changes in the act.

Bill C-3 gives the provinces increased responsibilities; they will have to offer with more programs and become more involved in the administration of this legislation.

For now, there is no new funding in sight from the federal government. A number of experts, including the government's, agree that the age of accountability should be lowered from 12 to 10. This is not designed to punish young people, but to make them accountable to the justice system.

Intervention at the earliest possible juncture is the most effective way to get youth back on track before its too late. The government says that it will do this with the new bill and, to an extent, it does focus its attention on that area of the law. Clause 34, for example, is the medical and psychological report clause to determine if a youth is in fact suffering from some affliction or disorders that need to be treated and not necessarily punished.

This is not a new concept. It is certainly one that the Conservative Party, others in the House and those in the criminal justice system are quick to embrace and recognize. However, we do know that there is a lack of federal commitment to provincial rehabilitative programs and to mental health counselling. This commitment is what are needed. This is where the focus has to be.

What the act does, in simple terms, is to identify the problem as a priority and drop it in the provinces' lap and walk away. That is simply not good enough.

Young females in conflict with the law is a rising problem in the country. There was a very serious case that drew a great deal of attention across the country involving a young woman named Reena Virk in the province of British Columbia. This again is something that is highlighted across the country. Young women are becoming more increasingly involved in the criminal justice system as a result of many of the other social problems that exist.

This is again why I hearken back to earlier comments. If the government, through this legislation and this initiative, wants to focus its attention on the front end problem and on bringing about change that will assist young people to stay out of difficulty with the law, the preventative side of justice, the restorative justice side which is at the end but which puts greater emphasis on personal interaction with victims and those who can truly assist, identify and perhaps cure or treat some of the problems that led to the difficulty in the first place, that is fine. Philosophically, members of the House would agree that that it is the right approach.

However, the government is not putting in place the resources that are necessary. It has identified what it wants to do. It has made a great deal of fanfare and drawn a great deal of attention to itself as having brought this bold new initiative about, yet it is not prepared to pony up and pay for the programming that is going to be necessary. It has increased the responsibilities and the burden that is going to be carried by the provinces, the agencies, the police and the judicial system for those programs that are specifically aimed at addressing the problem. It has walked away because there is not one dollar more that is going to go into this program as a result.

The difficulty itself is a very complex one. Sometimes in this place we suffer from oversimplification in telling people what they want to hear. This is not a problem that is going to go away quickly. As with previous legislation aimed at the criminal justice system, I would suggest that there is going to be a lag time. The true effects of the legislation may take years to actually develop in the country.

Because of the complexity and diversity of the country, it may have a different affect in some provinces. I am focusing specifically on the ability of the provinces themselves to administer the act because we know there is a huge discrepancy in the country currently as to the financial ability of the provinces to provide services to their people.

It only stands to reason that if we increase the provinces' responsibility without increasing the proportionate resources then it will be exacerbated further. The differences that currently exist means that the have not provinces will be further burdened and will fall further behind. This is truly a very broad sweeping problem.

The focus in the Chamber is most often between the province of Quebec and the provinces in English-speaking Canada. I come from a region in Atlantic Canada where we are suffering grave differences between our ability to provide for our people through social services, through criminal justice and through employment than the rest of the country. This will be played out through this legislation as it is with all legislation.

Canadians expected more and they were led to believe that they would get more through the legislation. They were led to believe that there would be a tougher response in certain instances for youth involved in violent acts, acts involving the use of weapons or sexual violation. That is not the case.

The transfer provisions that were touched on by many of the previous speakers are a bit of a ruse in a way. They give the impression that we are taking a young person into the adult court system. This may cause many people to shudder and think, “Oh, my goodness, we are bringing a 14 year old or 15 year old into an adult court where he or she will be treated in a much harsher way”.

The reality is that in many instances the sentences that are handed down at the end of the day are actually less in terms of the time that the person would be incarcerated as a young offender because—and I hate to use this expression because it is somewhat of a misnomer—but truth in sentencing existed under the old Young Offenders Act. That is to say that if young persons were sentenced to 18 months they would serve every day. They would remain in a young offender facility for that full period of incarceration. We know that is not the case in the adult system.

This is not to say for a moment that incarceration is always the way. We know that the programming that is often available is not sufficient. We also know that simply removing a person from society will not fix them. It is often the last resort brought about to protect society when necessary from a person who has exhibited violent, anti-social behaviour.

The concept of simply bringing a person into adult court and saying that it will fix the problem because he or she will be treated in a harsher fashion is not necessarily the truth of what has happened. I believe it is incumbent on the government to be very up front about what the system change will really amount to.

The programming that is available in a youth facility is often the more appropriate one. Often times bringing them into adult court exposes them to this atmosphere that has been discussed, which is that they will learn more sophisticated ways to commit crimes. They may be further victimized in an adult facility. There is an extremely dangerous element to this quick fix type solution that is being proposed.

As has been stated many times, there are elements where this particular legislation has moved in the right direction. I, like all members of the justice committee and of the House, look forward to participating at the committee level and to the changes that may be brought about through that level of participation.

I congratulate the participants who have taken part in the debate, as well as those who participated at the committee with their testimony. I look forward to further following the legislation as it moves through this place.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say and I note that he at least admits that we do things differently in Quebec and even that it is a model the government should follow, and that Quebec is a leader in this field.

Does the member know that no one in Quebec wants the amendments the minister is proposing? Does he know that the people in the Crown attorney's office, those who initiate proceedings under the law, do not want the minister's bill?

Defence counsel in Quebec, those who defend young people, do not want it either. According to some retired judges, if the law passed by this parliament is applied, this law will be disastrous for the 16 year investment, in Quebec, in an approach, a very Quebec model.

I provided a list earlier of all those who are opposed, and I think that anyone involved to whatever extent in applying the Young Offenders Act would repeat it before a parliamentary committee. Not one organization, lawyer or person working daily with the Young Offenders Act in Quebec today supports the minister's bill, or this amendment. Is the hon. member aware of that?

Should the government not budge, not do anything, the Bloc Quebecois will try to introduce an amendment to have Quebec exempted from the application of Bill C-3 so it may continue to apply the Young Offenders Act as it stands.

Can I count on the support of the Conservative Party, since it recognizes that we apply the law in Quebec and are leaders in the area? Can I count on the support of the Conservative Party in the ultimate attempt to exempt Quebec from this law, which will be devastating for all young offenders and society as a whole?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who is also a member of the justice committee and a fine contributor to the same.

The simple answer is no. I certainly would not support, and I know members of the Progressive Conservative Party would not advocate, a system of justice that was different in one province as compared to the other provinces in Canada.

I am very quick to recognize the fact that the province of Quebec has very much been a leader in the administration of justice and the administration of many of these innovative programs, restorative justice model programs that are most effective when dealing with youth. Why should we and the rest of the country not celebrate that and embrace some of those initiatives that have been taken by the province of Quebec? We draw a great deal from Quebec in all sorts of areas as do they from the rest of Canada. It is part of the great partnership that we enjoy.

I would not in any way envision why the province of Quebec would want to opt out of this legislation. I do recognize that there are many elements of the justice system in Quebec.

I was part of the committee which heard from many witnesses. I know there are groups within the system that do not want to see all of the changes that are encompassed by this bill. But there are very positive and practical elements that I think even the member would admit are necessary. Changes with respect to the admissibility of statements. Changes with respect to the inclusion of parents in the process. Changes that in some instances are going to require greater attention and a shift of focus from the current way things are done in the country.

Quebec is a very adaptable province. I am sure Quebec is going to see that there are positive elements that it can work with. I am sure all members of the House look forward to bringing some of those other changes forward that we would like to see happen at the committee. I have every confidence that my learned friend will do the same.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for presenting his feelings and thoughts on the bill. He is a member of the standing committee on justice. I have always accepted his interventions with a great degree of interest and respect.

The Young Offenders Act has created such strong responses over the years from the people of Canada. They signalled the changes they wanted so strongly to the government and to the justice committee of which I was a member when we travelled about the country and listened to them. However, this bill is couched almost entirely in terms of what the legislation will allow the courts to do. It does not grant authority to the courts to move 16 and 17 year olds who commit serious offences into adult court. It says that the trial will occur in juvenile court and then the crown prosecutor will have the opportunity to argue that an adult sentence should apply.

The courts in this land are under the gun right now from certain circles, including members of the House, for being judicially active. Even the business of releasing the names of those who have been convicted of violent offences is not something that is directed by the legislation or by the elected representatives of this country. It is going to be left in the hands of the courts to decide based upon the circumstances, regardless of what the people want, whether or not the names of those convicted of violent offences will be published.

I wonder if the member, being a former crown prosecutor and I understand a good one, would be prepared to comment on this aspect of the bill. Is it not leaning to greater complaints, whether right or wrong, of judicial activism? The courts are going to be left with having to make a decision that the legislators, in this case the Liberal government, have refused to make and implant within the legislation. Rather than the legislators telling the courts what we want done on behalf of Canadians, again we are going to leave it in the hands of the judges of this land.

Would my hon. friend be willing to comment on this aspect of the bill in light of the criticism some of the courts are receiving concerning judicial activism? This is simply because legislation is being passed by the government, legislation that is so open ended that the judges can go in a number of different ways. In this case it is contrary to what we have heard Canadians say they want done about the Young Offenders Act.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will try to address the points made by my colleague from Crowfoot who was a valued member of the justice committee. I know he has tremendous practical experience having worked as a police officer within the justice system for many years. I will not comment as to my own abilities as a crown prosecutor.

I will try to address the issue with respect to transfers. I personally took part in a number of transfers from youth to adult court under the old system. They were extremely cumbersome, perhaps even more so than a trial itself. At the end of the day, one was left to wonder whether one could even call upon the victims who were often forced to testify two, three and four times as a result of those old provisions. I welcome this change in terms of having one trial.

However, I take issue, as the hon. member has pointed out, with the decision being made at the very end of the trial after it has taken place in youth court, which is often subject to different rules of admissibility, and with whether this is actually the proper focus.

The question addressed to me is more specifically aimed at judicial activism. This perhaps should form the focus of an entire debate. It is not something we can deal with very quickly in this context. I agree we have to empower judges, but with legislation such as this we sometimes have to put parameters in place. The way to do that in some instances is to have definitions of certain crimes that require mandatory minimum sentences.

I do believe that for the most part judges themselves behave in a responsible way. Unfortunately, there are some that do not. When that happens, perhaps we should look at methods of dealing with judges.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act. At the very outset, I want to indicate that it is a very important piece of legislation. It underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada to deal with a very complex issue as it relates to youth justice.

As the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I sat on that board for 10 years. I can tell the House firsthand that the senior officer and rank and file levels, along with all members of the police service, worked diligently in this area to ensure that we had a justice system in place, especially as it related to our young people. With 700 police officers and civilians, we were cognizant of the fact that this was an important area and one that required the kind of attention the Government of Canada is now prepared to move on. From that sense I am very pleased to see this legislation proceed.

By quick way of review, I remind all members of the House that our government launched a strategy for the renewal of youth justice on May 12, 1998. This process has been going on for quite a while. Subsequent to that, the youth criminal justice act was introduced. Then the federal budget announced $206 million over three years to ensure that programs were put in place to help achieve the objectives of this legislation. The point in indicating that is to say that now is the time to move on with this, get it to committee and let Canadians have their say with respect to this area. I am pleased that we are moving in that direction and doing so expeditiously.

The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice recognized the foremost objective of public protection. It distinguishes legislation and programs appropriate for the small group of violent young offenders and those appropriate for the vast majority of non-violent youth offenders. It takes a much broader and more integrated approach that emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation. That is very key to this whole debate.

The issue facing those of us who are interested in the youth justice system is not whether the system should be tough or lenient, but whether it should be made to deal with crime in a sensible way. The proposals as outlined indicate clearly that youth crime should be met with meaningful consequences. What is meaningful depends in large part on what the young offender has done.

For example, most of us believe that youths who commit minor thefts or have been in possession of stolen property should be held accountable for their actions and rightfully so. However, last year we sent 4,355 youths into custody when their most serious offence was one of the minor property offences. Another 4,332 youths were put in custody for the offence of failure to comply with a disposition, typically violating a term of a probation order. These are both offences. Those who are found to have committed these offences should be held accountable and we know that. These two groups of offences constituted over one-third of the custodial sentences handed down to youth last year. That quite frankly is unacceptable. Being the lead jailer of children in the western world is surely not the preferred answer to youth crime.

The median custodial sentence for youth is 45 days. As taxpayers this will cost us as much as $9,000. No one is saying that these youth should not be held accountable for their actions. They should be and they must be. Their offences should result in meaningful consequences, but we must ask ourselves whether taking these youths to court and sending them to prison is invariably the best way to accomplish this. We need to ask ourselves whether it makes sense to spend $9,000 locking up a minor thief or someone who has violated a curfew.

The choice is not one of doing nothing or putting a young person in prison. There are programs in all parts of Canada, including my area, for holding young people accountable for what they have done that do not involve courts or jails but involve the victims. The youth criminal justice act recognizes that extrajudicial non-court measures are often the most effective way to deal with less serious youth crime.

The act supports the use of such measures wherever and whenever possible that would be capable of holding the young person accountable. The act clearly provides that these measures should encourage the repair of harm caused to the victim and to the community. They should also promote the involvement of families, victims and the community in ensuring an appropriate, meaningful consequence for the young person.

In order to encourage the use of creative and effective consequences for young people, the act supports the appropriate exercise of discretion by police officers and prosecutors. The act also recognizes that a range of approaches can provide meaningful consequences, including police warnings, formal police cautions, referrals to community programs, cautions by prosecutors and extra judicial sanctions, for example apologies to victims, restitution and community service.

When the formal court process is required many sentences other than custody can provide meaningful consequences for youth crime. Community based alternatives, for example, are often more effective than custody. They are encouraged by the new legislation, particularly for low risk, non-violent offenders, alternatives that require young people to repay victims in society for the harm done, teach responsibility and respect for others and reinforce societal values, Canadian values. When these front end measures and non-custodial sentences are used effectively the provinces can reinvest the money saved into crime prevention strategies that will address the legitimate concerns of Canadians about crime.

As part of its strategy for the renewal of youth justice the federal government has committed itself to a wide range of prevention programs. In this context it was not surprising to learn that public opinion polls show that over 85% of Ontario residents would prefer money to be invested in crime prevention than in additional prisons for youth. Almost as many, 79%, would prefer us to invest in alternatives to prison for youth rather than prison construction.

The other side of the coin is that by dealing sensibly with minor crime we can refocus the system on serious crime that Canadians have legitimate concerns about. The new act's sentencing principles make it very clear that youth sentences should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person. Custody, then, will be targeted to youth that commit violent and serious repeat offences.

In the new legislation judges will be required to impose a period of supervision in the community following custody that is equal to half the period of that custody. This will allow authorities to closely monitor and control the young person and to ensure that he or she receives the necessary treatment and programs to return successfully to the community.

The period of supervision administered by the provinces will include stringent mandatory and optional conditions tailored to the individual. If a youth sentence, for example, would not be adequate to hold a young person accountable, the court may impose an adult sentence. The new legislation would make it easier to impose adult sentences for the most serious violent crimes. We are expanding both the list of offences and lowering the age at which youth can receive an adult sentence.

When the legislation is passed, youth 14 years of age and older who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.

We are also creating a fifth presumptive category for repeat of violent offences. This too underscores a commitment of the Government of Canada to move in this area and do it in an appropriate Canadian kind of way.

The proposed legislation also provides for a new sentencing option for the most violent, high risk young offenders. The intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order provides greater control and guaranteed treatment to address the causes of the young person's violent behaviour. This is a kind of individualized treatment of intensive supervision which must be approved by the court and will assist us in curtailing youth crime in these areas.

I want to conclude by saying that youth crime cannot be legislated away. I think we all know and understand that. We can, however, deal more appropriately with it than we do at the moment. We can set up an effective set of programs outside the youth justice system and custodial and non-custodial rehabilitation programs within it which would reduce crime and hopefully will.

I believe Canadians think that in this sense we are on the right track. Our method of criminal youth justice is appropriate. It is a complex issue and I think we are doing it in a very effective way.

Let me simply conclude by saying that certainly the residents in my area of Waterloo—Wellington, and I believe those across Canada, support our balanced approach to this very complex issue.

Now is the time to act. Let us move the bill on to committee. Let us have Canadians have their say with respect to this area. Let us do so expeditiously. With great foresight we have brought forward legislation in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington on his remarks and his contribution to the debate. As a former police officer he speaks from a very practical viewpoint, which is extremely important when dealing with matters of criminal justice. He also brings a very non-partisan tone to the debate, which I applaud. It is something that we need more of on matters of criminal justice.

My question for him is with respect to the elements of the bill that would put greater power into the hands of the police to exercise discretion in the field, that is for them to make judgment calls on whether this is a matter which should proceed through the criminal justice system. The police are put in the often unenviable position of making that first call, making the decision on whether it is something for which they lay a criminal charge, lay an information, or perhaps proceed to a crown prosecutor for greater advice.

Does the hon. member agree that increased discretion also carries with it obvious increased time, increased resources and increased necessity of the police to spend time doing something that perhaps they traditionally have not been entrusted with? Does he believe therefore that the requests of the Canadian Police Association, many of the stakeholders and many of the provinces in calling for greater resources to be attached to the bill are on the right track and that his government will have to respond by laying down more dollars?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the very good question.

Those of us who are working with community based policing know full well the importance of getting out into the community, especially with respect to young people, to ensure that we deal with them in an effective and meaningful way. We have done it in the past and we continue to do so. It underscores the commitment of not only the police but also the wider community to do the right thing when it comes to young people wherever they live in Canada.

With respect to resources and the kind of commitment that are necessary to deal with young people, the hon. member makes a very good point in terms of the local police agencies having the kind of resources necessary to do the job effectively and well.

When we give the kind of discretion that is being proposed it requires additional work, but I have to tell the hon. member that the policing profession is very professional. It carries out its duties with a great sense of loyalty and dedication, knowing that it must do the right thing, especially for young people. The kinds of training programs that are put in place underscore that kind of commitment to professionalism and dedication.

I am convinced that with the proper and necessary resources the police will act in the appropriate way. They really are unsung heroes. They put their lives on the line daily for all of us. We need to congratulate them repeatedly for the kind of work that they do, especially in the all important youth area.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the government member's speech and we agree on one thing: when it comes to the Young Offenders Act, Liberal, Conservative and Reform members all see problems where there are none.

All the hon. member said in support of the bill, with his quotes and statistics, is that Ontario taxpayers were in favour of reinvesting, of the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offender. But this can already be done through the Young Offenders Act, and I am wondering if he is aware of it.

All the examples he gave in support of Bill C-3 are things that can already be done through the YOA. This is why, in Quebec, there is a unanimous consensus against the justice minister's bill.

The problem with the YOA is not its wording, but its enforcement. In Ontario as in the western provinces, it is not being enforced. However, when it is, the re-offending rate for serious crimes such as murder and armed robbery is less than 5%—I believe it is 2%, but I do not want to mislead the House.

These are the statistics you get when you enforce the Young Offenders Act properly. And the fundamental changes being proposed here will not improve the legislation. The government is taking the positive aspects of the current legislation and adds to it such ridiculous provisions as the publication of the names of young offenders in the newspapers.

What purpose would that serve? It would only brand them for the rest of their lives. One day, the 14 year old who was sent to prison or went through the highly repressive system we want to set up, will get out. And he will be what, 24 or 25 years old? But once he is out, what will he be able do after having been branded a criminal for the rest of his life?

This will not in any way help the society whom we claim to be fighting for, whom we are trying to better protect by improving the legislation. The existing legislation does. Did the hon. member take the time to read the current Young Offenders Act and did he notice the so-called major changes the minister wants to make?

Also, does the hon. member realize that the only province where everyone agrees the legislation is enforced properly, and I am talking of course about the province of Quebec, has a very high success rate? Why change the law, when it is in the western part of the country that things should be changing.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. I have read the existing legislation and I am also very cognizant of the new proposed legislation.

When the government launched the strategy to look into the whole youth justice initiative and the renewal we are now presenting we certainly looked at the Quebec model as a model that had a lot to offer in terms of what it represented for Canada and Canadians, wherever they are.

So it is that we incorporated those kinds of facets into the new legislation, recognizing that we have a lot to share and a lot to offer. We did so in a spirit of co-operation, knowing that for young people across Canada we could bring the best from all areas including Quebec and do so in a very positive way.

That is exactly what we have done. We have done the kinds of things that are necessary for our young people to put systems in place that benefit them and society as a whole.

[The Speaker]

We still have a few minutes remaining. I will come back to questions and comments, if members wish, after question period. However I would like to go to Statements by Members now as it is almost 2 o'clock.

United Nations Day

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, the eve of United Nations Day, citizens around the world are organizing a vigil. Their goal is to put pressure on their respective governments to provide adequate funding for the United Nations.

Many national governments do not pay their dues to the United Nations, which seriously weakens many organizations in that body. For example, the United States alone owes more than $1 billion in dues. Canada is in the minority, having no debt toward the United Nations.

This vigil has been organized for the past three years. In 1998 it was hosted in 42 cities around the world. This year the event is called the millennium mobilization, to recognize the entry of the United Nations into the 21st century. It is an organization which has done much to help our intergovernmental relations, to help rehabilitate war torn countries, and to fight poverty and starvation.

The United Nations needs not only moral support from its members but also financial support to continue its projects and programs. Therefore I urge all members of the world body to contribute accordingly.

Food

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Liberal government a lesson on the value of work. It is said that we can live a minute without air, a day or two without water, and a week or two without food. Some of us might last a little longer.

Food is a basic essential for life. We can do without a doctor for years if we do not get sick. We might get by without a lawyer for years. We might get by without politicians for a century or maybe a millennium, but we cannot live without farmers.

The farmer's work has huge value because without the farmer, we starve. Where is the equal pay for work of greater value here? Why is the government ignoring the plight of farmers on whom we depend for our very lives?

History shows clearly that a nation can lose its sovereignty if it loses its independent secure food supply.

It is food. It is farmers. It is pay for work of immense value. It is time we recognized farmers for what they are worth.

Science And Technology

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is celebrating National Science and Technology Week from October 15 to 24.

Canada has made a commitment to become the world's smartest natural resources steward, developer, user and exporter, the most high tech, the most environmentally friendly, the most socially responsible, the most competitive and productive.

During National Science and Technology Week, Natural Resources Canada opens its doors to the community to communicate the importance of the sustainable development of our energy, forest and mineral resources. Through public open houses and educational sessions for students, departmental staff provide an up close view of everything from rocks, minerals and mapping to forests and the insects that inhabit them, from metals and energy resources to GPS technology.

More and more Canadians look to science and technology to improve their lives and address important issues such as climate change.

I call on all members of the House to join with me to salute the men and women who help make Canada a world leader in science and technology.