House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offenders.
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. If the hon. member were following this matter he would know I have said from day one that we would have a regulated fishery, which is exactly what we have had, and that we would enforce the regulated fishery.
The only position the Progressive Conservative Party has is that it would use the notwithstanding clause. What is its position? It has not narrowed it down. We would like to hear what is its position?
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific who was in East Timor for the referendum vote.
What specific steps is Canada taking to help ensure a successful transition to independence by the courageous people of East Timor?
Raymond Chan LiberalSecretary of State (Asia-Pacific)
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been one of the most active countries in helping East Timor. Currently we have about 600 troops in East Timor to bring stability to the region. We have provided significant humanitarian assistance.
We have also been very active in creating the UN transitional administration for East Timor. This will provide security and at the same time administration of justice and will assist in establishing social and civil help in the region.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister knows that the Reform Party is on record as supporting a $2 billion increase in the defence budget.
In fact the chairman of the defence committee, a Liberal member, is also on record as supporting a $2 billion increase in the defence budget. Yet the minister still drags his heels and feet along the ground.
What is the defence minister waiting for? Will he restore funding? Yes or no.
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I indicated the Canadian forces are financially stressed. I am seeking additional resources so that we can do what the Speech from the Throne said, and that is to make sure it has the capacity to be able to do its job.
One thing I do not understand is that in the last election campaign Reformers said they would put a freeze on all spending, including defence spending, for three years and dedicate all surpluses to tax and debt relief. Are they breaking their promise? Are they now changing their position? Who can believe them?
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, despite the crisis uncovered by the auditor general regarding the management of social insurance numbers, the government has decided to reject the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
Has the Minister of Human Resources Development decided to ignore the auditor general's advice and let the mess in the management of SIN numbers and the resulting uncontrolled fraud go on indefinitely?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that officials from the department were at the standing committee this morning. They reviewed the response to the standing committee's report on social insurance numbers.
I believe many aspects of the report given to us by the standing committee were included and are being addressed. I also acknowledge that we will continue to work with the standing committee to ensure the privacy of Canadians in the use of social insurance numbers.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, yet another report gives evidence that the government has failed Canada's children. Whether it is poverty, health or education, the Liberals get a failing grade.
Now we have to ask where the children with disabilities rate. They are at the bottom because Canada has failed in its obligation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Why has the government not insisted that children with disabilities receive the services, support and rights to which they are entitled? Why has the government not done that job?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the report that was issued today recognizes Canada and the work that we have done in support of the UN declaration in support of children. In fact, we are doing very well.
The report does indicate that there are certain areas where we can improve, particularly in supporting vulnerable children, including those with disabilities. I am glad to report that at a recent meeting with social services ministers, the issues facing Canadians with disabilities were a priority on our agenda. I am expecting that together we will be able to improve our record in a continued way.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Indian affairs minister was quoted today in the Halifax Herald . It was reported that he denied ever saying that the Marshall ruling applied to gas deposits or logging. Meanwhile, we do know that in this House he stated in the emergency debate on October 13 “the impact of the Marshall case likely will not be confined to fish and it likely will not be confined to Atlantic Canada”.
My question is quite simple. Will the minister guarantee to the House that before he makes any more reckless, provocative comments with respect to the Marshall decision he will think before he speaks?
Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period
The Speaker
On that happy note, this will conclude our question period for today.
Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC
Madam Speaker, it being Thursday, that favourite time of the week for all of us, I was wondering if the government House leader could inform the House of the business for the remainder of this week and for next week, and where he got his tie, because it is a nice tie.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, fashion criticism is always appreciated, particularly if it is positive. Meanwhile, I would like to inform the House of the following business.
Today, we will complete the debate on second reading of Bill C-3, the youth justice bill.
On Friday, we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, the space station legislation, as agreed earlier today with the other House leaders. Then, we will deal with second reading of Bill C-10, the municipal grants bill. I hope we will be able to complete the consideration of both these bills tomorrow.
Next Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday, we will consider second reading of Bill C-13, the health research institutes bill.
Next Wednesday, I expect to call the report stage of Bill C-8, the marine parks bill.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Ethel Blondin-Andrew LiberalSecretary of State (Children and Youth)
Madam Speaker, as the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I am very pleased to participate in the debate and to express my support for Bill C-3, the proposed youth criminal justice act.
This is very important legislation introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. It is intended to replace the existing Young Offenders Act. Bill C-3 represents a fundamental rethinking and reform of the criminal justice system as it applies to young people.
For the first time there will be a clear statement of purpose and a set of principles in this legislation to guide the treatment of young offenders in all aspects of the criminal justice system. After extensive public consultation, the government has ensured that these principles and the act as a whole are consistent with the values of Canadians and with the best interests of young people. They will act as a clear guide to judges and police in dealing with young offenders. For example, the preamble reinforces values Canadians want to see in the youth justice system: accountability, respect, responsibility and fairness.
The proposed act clearly states that the protection of society is the primary objective of the youth justice system and that this goal is best achieved through prevention, meaningful consequences for youth crime and rehabilitation.
The proposed act contains a statement of principles that clearly provides that young people must be accountable for their actions and that consequences should reinforce respect for social values, encourage reparation to victims and the community and be responsive to the circumstances of individual offenders.
The government has carefully listened to the concerns of Canadians in all parts of the country about youth crime and how our justice system responds to it. We know that Canadians expect government to reinforce values of individual responsibility and accountability. We know that families and communities must be relied upon and supported in the raising of responsible healthy youth. We recognize that Canadians expect youth sanctions to be proportionate to the offence. At the same time sanctions must take account of age and other individual factors as well as the impact on victims and the need, the desirability for rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders back into the community.
We must keep in mind as we debate this bill that young people are not the enemy. They are just as often victims of crime by youth and by adults. As every parent knows, raising healthy, happy, responsible children is a wonderful yet complex challenge. It requires care, sensitivity, common sense and a clear sense of values and priorities. Similarly the task of addressing the problem of youth crime requires a clear sense of purpose and values and the capacity to respond to the individual situations of each youth and his place in the community.
The criminal justice system must be able to respond to various contributing factors to youth crime. Simplistic lock them up and throw away the key responses are not effective. In fact they have been demonstrated to be more likely to contribute to repeat offenders than to reduce that problem.
I would know that. In the early nineties our territory in Western Arctic and the riding of Kenora—Rainy River of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were deemed to be the two highest areas for recidivism, for repeaters of crimes.
The bill, while dealing firmly with violent youth crime, will just as importantly support the rehabilitation of youth in trouble with the law, the vast majority of whom are not involved in crimes of violence.
We really must examine the bill in the context of the reality of youth crime as it exists in Canada. I draw attention to the recent statistics demonstrating that youth crime overall has been in decline in Canada.
Between 1991 and 1997 the charge rate for young people saw a 23% decrease. It is a small number of youth, comparatively speaking, who are involved in serious or violent criminal acts. The majority of charges against youth are for non-violent property crimes. In 1997 for example, 82% of charges laid against youth were for non-violent crimes such as theft, drug possession and contempt of court orders.
I say this not to minimize the seriousness of these offences, but rather to point out that we know the majority of young people who come into conflict with the law do so temporarily. With the guidance of society they are redeemable. They are capable of changing their lives and becoming productive, responsible members of society.
We also know that 18% of charges laid in 1997 were for violent crimes, representing a 2% drop from the previous year. But we are not complacent about this encouraging statistic.
In the case of violent crimes, this bill will ensure accountability and appropriate penalties and treatment for young offenders. For example, the bill will create an intensive custody sentence for the most high risk youth who are repeat violent offenders or who have committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. These sentences are intended for those with serious psychological, mental or emotional illness or disturbances. The sentence would require a plan for intensive treatment and supervision of these youths and would require a court to make all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration programs. Federal funding will be made available to support the provinces in establishing and operating this new sentence.
Bill C-3 will permit victim impact statements to be introduced in youth court. It will extend the group of offenders who are presumed liable for receiving an adult sentence to include 14 and 15 year olds. It will also allow an adult sentence for any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of an offence punishable by more than two years in jail if the prosecution applies and the court finds it appropriate in the circumstances.
With respect to custodial and reintegration measures, the bill will generally require that youth be held separately from adults to reduce their exposure to adult criminals.
Bill C-3 would permit publication of the names of all youths who receive an adult sentence. In addition, the names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, sexual assault or repeat violent offences may be published. Publication will be allowed if a youth is at large and is considered by a judge to be dangerous.
While the bill will deal firmly with crimes of youth violence, it will also ensure that the criminal justice system has the flexibility to deal with the many other cases involving non-violent offences. In these cases, alternatives to custody are often the best means of promoting rehabilitation and reintegration with the support and assistance of the family and community. We know that young offenders are much more likely than adult offenders to be rehabilitated and to become law-abiding citizens.
For the past five years there have been approximately 3,500 to 4,000 youth in custody on any given day. In 1997 only 25% of young offenders in Canada were dealt with through processes outside the formal justice system. By comparison, the rate was 53% in the United States, 57% in Great Britain and 61% in New Zealand. Our system has relied too heavily on custody as a response to the vast majority of non-violent youth offences and we have reaped the negative reward of repeat offenders.
I quote the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs entitled “Renewing Youth Justice”:
Of the young offenders convicted in youth court in Canada in 1993-94, 40% were repeat offenders and 25% were persistent offenders with three or more prior convictions. Moreover a significant proportion of adults serving sentences in provincial jails and federal penitentiaries “graduate” from the youth justice system. These data buttress the findings from empirical research, which have shown consistently that harsh penalties do not change the incidence of crime post-release.
Maurice Dumas Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau, QC
Madam Speaker, as a member of parliament, I find it appalling that I have to rise to defend the Young Offenders Act, effective legislation the government wants to get rid of. Bill C-3 is as useless as it is dangerous. As usual, the government is taking the easy way out to change legislation that is quite successful.
The Young Offenders Act led to a substantial drop in youth crime. Strangely enough, the justice minister gave us very convincing numbers in this regard when she introduced her new bill in May 1998. According to her, youth crime has decreased by 23% since 1991. She also talked about a decrease in violent crimes since 1995.
The Young Offenders Act must be judged by its results and not on the basis of a misconception.
It would be irresponsible to reform youth justice without taking into account all the relevant aspects of this issue. Since it protects certain basic concepts, such as life and physical integrity, the Young Offenders Act plays a key role in consolidating public confidence in our institutions.
Therefore, parliamentarians have the responsibility to respond quickly to concerns expressed by the public by making appropriate legislative amendments if necessary. However, they must first and foremost see to it that the public has the information it needs to have a good grasp of problems as complex as youth crime.
However, the federal justice minister has failed in her duty to provide that information. By campaigning for a stricter law, the minister is wrongly suggesting that the present system is flawed and is using that as an excuse to hide her own lack of leadership. In fact, Bill C-3 shows that it is easier for the Liberal government to sacrifice good legislation than to promote the effective approach it favours.
To properly understand the reason behind the current amendments to the Young Offenders Act, we must go back to the 35th Parliament to look at the first Liberal attempts at turning the Young Offenders Act into a scapegoat.
On April 28, 1994, the current Minister of Health and former Minister of Justice stated in the House that the move to the right responded to election commitments. I scarcely need to point out that these commitments were certainly not aimed at Quebec voters. In fact, it is hardly a well-kept secret that the Liberal Party's intention was to win over the clientele of the Reform in the west.
By passing Bill C-37 at that time, the Liberal government was introducing into the Young Offenders Act a whole series of automatic provisions which would greatly affect the fragile equilibrium of the youth justice system. By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to be automatically referred to the adult court system, this government watered down once again the specific nature of the youth justice system. At the rate things are going, soon the only connection it will have with youth will be in its title.
Continuing in the same vein, in May, 1998, the Minister of Justice introduced her youth justice renewal strategy. In particular, she announced her intention to extend the referrals to 14 and 15 year olds.
All parties involved in Quebec viewed this with alarm. Some asked “Where exactly does the government get the information that stiffer sentences were going to have any impact whatsoever on the crime rate?”
The Quebec stakeholders were bang on. Not only was the reform not necessary, but the solutions being put forward by the minister are misguided and risky.
On March 19, some fifteen organizations from Quebec publicly reaffirmed their opposition to Bill C-68. The Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse and the Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Quebec, to name just a few, held a press conference at which they reaffirmed Quebec's consensus and flatly opposed the Minister of Justice.
The message was a very straightforward one. They told the minister they wanted nothing to do with her bill. They rebutted the minister's claims that her flexible system will allow Quebec to enforce the legislation as it sees fit.
Criminologist Jean Trépanier, a recognized youth crime expert in Quebec, was scathing, when it came to the minister's much-touted flexibility. At the press conference, he said “The so-called flexibility seems to be a political trick. Quebec's judges cannot ignore sentences handed down in other courts”.
Cécile Toutant, another very respected voice from Quebec, also took aim at certain of the bill's measures. This criminologist, who is responsible for the youth program at the Pinel institute, condemned the new measures allowing for the automatic imposition of adult sentences on 14 and 15 year olds. According to Ms. Toutant, the time served in jail has nothing to do with the protection of the public.
A very large coalition in Quebec is opposing Bill C-3. The youth justice coalition now includes about 20 organizations that work with young offenders.
Those who will have to live on a day to day basis with the new legislation do not care about the concerns of this election-minded Liberal government. They are the ones who will have to implement the new act. The spokesperson for Quebec's youth centres association was very clear when he said that if the bill is passed, we will have a real mess.
Quebecers do not want that mess. Therefore, we will strongly oppose Bill C-3, which is a prime example of lack of political courage.
Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-3. For years the Reform Party has tried to implement and give the government constructive suggestions to improve our youth justice system.
Today I am going to focus, in part, on the issue of prevention. The most important thing the government can do in dealing with youth crime is to prevent it. It need not look any further than the work that has been done in Canada and in other countries for ways to prevent crime.
Let us look at the antecedents of crime. Children who are incarcerated frequently have a common denominator. Many of these children have endured lives of trauma. They have been subjected to drug abuse, violence, improper nutrition, or a combination of the above. Many have been subjected to drugs and alcohol in utero, which have produced an epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects, not only in the general population, but also in the sub-population of those children who are incarcerated.
While this does not exonerate them from the crimes they have committed, it gives us an understanding and an insight into why these children have committed offences.
Recent neurological and neuroscience experimentation, particularly using the positron emission tomography unit, shows very clearly that the most important development of the brain takes place in the first six to eight years of life. During that period of time the neurons in children's brains develop the important connections which enable them to understand and process information properly, to empathize, to have sympathy and to develop appropriate interpersonal relationships with others. If in that developmental stage children have an opportunity to develop without trauma and abuse, in a proper environment, in a loving, secure environment, with adult care, we would have children who have the best opportunity of developing interpersonal skills which will enable them to become integrated members of society as adults. If damage occurs during the development of the brain there is the risk of numerous psychological problems.
I have worked in jails both as a correctional officer and as a physician. I was struck by the number of children who have been subjected to lives which we would not want to wish on anybody. We know that subjecting children to those kinds of traumas during their developmental stage will likely result in future problems and we need to prevent that.
A head start program or an early intervention program works very well. If we look at the program in Moncton, in which the Minister of Labour and her husband were leaders, the program in Michigan, the Perry preschool program, and the program in Hawaii, the healthy start program, we see some dramatic results. The Hawaii program is an early intervention program which makes sure that children have their basic needs met and it strengthens the parent-child bond. They saw a 99% drop in child abuse rates.
If we look at the programs in Moncton and Michigan, which have been in existence for over 25 years, we see that there was a 60% drop in youth crime, a 40% reduction in teen pregnancies, less dependence on welfare and fewer kids dropped out of school. As an aside, in my province of British Columbia this is a serious problem, with 30% of students dropping out before their time.
The bottom line is that an early intervention program uses existing resources to strengthen the parent-child bond, teaches parents to be good parents and ensures that children have their basic needs met. A loving, secure environment, proper nutrition, freedom from trauma, abuse and violence will give us the best chance of having children who will become integrated members of society and who will not run afoul of the law. Ultimately there was a $6 to $7 saving for every dollar that was put into these program.
I hope that the Minister of Justice, whom I know has been a very big supporter of this, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Health will work with their counterparts and use the motion that was passed by Reform in May 1998 calling for a national head start program, which would ensure that all children across Canada have, if they so choose, access to the program.
The program would not only be for so-called traditional high risk families. It would not only be for the poor and the impoverished, because there are huge numbers of children in some of the most affluent environments of our country who are treated as little more than pieces of furniture. While those children may have a Mercedes Benz in the driveway, it does little to help them have the loving, caring, secure environment with proper parenting and good adult supervision that they require to develop that neurological and psychological base which will enable them to be productive, integrated adults of society.
I ask the ministers to work with every member of the House to make sure this becomes a reality. If they do not act, if they fail to deal with this now, they are planting the seeds for future problems. The solutions are out there. Canadians have been leaders in head start programs. We have been leaders in prevention. Now all that is required is for the government to take the bull by the horns and deal with the problem in a productive, cost effective way.
I would like to talk about the issue of dividing the Young Offenders Act. Reform for a long time has been calling for ways to deal with the Young Offenders Act in a much more expeditious way. We divide up two populations of people. One group consists of habitual violent offenders, whom we believe should be incarcerated so they will not harm individuals in the public domain. The other people we should look at are first-time non-violent offenders. We should try to find alternative ways, such as restorative justice, to give these people the best chance to leave the cycle of crime, punishment and recidivism that is far too prevalent in the young offender, and indeed the adult system that we have today. My colleague from Surrey, British Columbia, has been a leader in that.
How people are defended in our legal system is another issue that is very important to the people in my province. Our system right now is very costly. I personally propose that a public defender system be looked into. It would get rid of the expensive nonsense that is taking place in our courts today where lawyers use and manipulate the system to ensure that cases are dragged on far too long, sometimes to the detriment of their clients. There are better ways of doing this. We need to look at a public defender system that ensures the accused has a safe trial and is represented properly, but that there are savings to the taxpayers. We need to have a more efficient system that will not clog up the judicial system as it does today.
Our courts across the country are clogged. They are clogged in part by the bureaucratic and legal entanglement that we have allowed to creep into the system. A public defender system is not the magic bullet that will cure this but it would go a long way in streamlining the system so that we have a fair judicial system.
It is interesting to to look at the American experience. When it compared a public defender system to one where individuals had the right to access government-paid individual lawyers, it found that the public defender system provided just as good a defence for the individual. There was no difference in sentencing, and there were huge savings to the taxpayers. The public defender system is something the Minister of Justice could look at and implement if she so chose to.
The corrections side is another issue that is very important to the people in my province. Because of a lack of resources in my province, it is eliminating psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors and anger management counsellors who are necessary to ensure that the people in jail have the treatment they require so they do not commit other crimes and be convicted in the future. The province is now firing all those people and letting the correctional officers have a one-week training course so they can become counsellors.
The correctional officers do a fantastic job of being correctional officers but they are not counsellors. As a result of this short-minded, myopic plan that the government has, the bedrock of our rehabilitation is being removed. We will sow the seeds of future problems if we do not address this problem right now.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Madam Speaker, our young people are our future. We rely on them to built a better future for our society.
With Bill C-3, the federal government wants to reform the youth criminal justice system and turn it into a system based on repression and not what it should be based on, reintegration.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the issue of youth violence. I have two teenagers who are still going to school, and I sometimes worry about the violence in the schools and in our society. This is why me must educate our youth.
As adults and parents, we have a duty to make our children aware of all the violence surrounding us. Towards this end, our society has developed very effective tools to try to eradicate adult violence as well as youth violence. All my colleagues would agree, I am sure, that Quebec is considered a real model in the fight against youth crime.
Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in all of Canada. Why? Because Quebec authorities have been able to implement the Young Offenders Act effectively in keeping with the new social realities in Quebec.
The Quebec government made a very positive commitment to invest in crime prevention and social rehabilitation, instead of building prisons as the right wing in western Canada would have it.
The Young Offenders Act is very good legislation that has had very positive effects in Quebec. It should be left intact, at least in Quebec. If the rest of Canada wants Bill C-3, good for them, but everyone in Quebec is against changing and replacing the Young Offenders Act.
Bill C-3, just like its predecessor, Bill C-68, is being challenged and rejected by the majority of those in Quebec who work directly to fight youth crime: criminologists, social workers, police officers and lawyers.
Even the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, which is made up of organizations as credible as the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Association des chefs de police et pompiers du Québec, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Société de criminologie du Québec, and many more, is opposed to this bill.
Opposition to Bill C-3 is not only coming from Quebec. In the rest of Canada, more and more people are speaking out against this bill, including the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and the Child Welfare League of Canada, just to name those two. We can even say without hesitating that the former justice minister of this government is also against this reform of the Young Offenders Act, since he said during question period on April 28, 1994, and I quote:
We do not think for a moment that violent crime is going to be resolved in this society by tinkering with statutes or changing acts. The fact of the matter is that the criminal justice system itself is not going to end violent crime. It only deals with the consequence of underlying social problems. It is crime prevention that must have at least the equal focus of the House of Commons.
Since all the partners in the youth justice system in Quebec and Canada have opposed this reform, how can the Minister of Justice explain and justify it? The explanation is quite simple. Believe it or not, it is electioneering.
The sole objective of the Minister of Justice is to woo the electorate in Western Canada away from the Reform Party. That is the real reason behind Bill C-3. The reform she advocates cannot be explained any other way. Government statistics speak for themselves.
Let me quote a few. Youth crime is declining in Canada. Between 1991 and 1997, it dropped by 23%. Since 1995, the number of young people charged with violent crimes has gone down by 3.2%.
In 1997, the national crime rate reported by the police for all age groups had dropped another 5%, and this for the sixth consecutive year. As a result, the rate was the lowest it has ever been since 1980.
The number of young people charged with Criminal Code offences has gone down 7%, continuing the general downward trend seen since 1991. The number of young people charged with violent crimes has decreased by 2% for the second consecutive year. I should also emphasize that a majority, or 53%, of the crimes young people are charged with are property crimes, while 20% are violent crimes. And the list goes on.
The minister is bragging that Bill C-3 is a model of flexibility, and that the provinces will be able to keep their own preferred youth justice system. That is completely false. There is no flexibility whatsoever in this bill.
The Coalition pour la justice des mineurs represents 18 organizations. It studied Bill C-3 and made a stunning finding, and I quote:
Thus the alleged flexibility given the provinces in applying the law is nothing more in fact than a series of limited powers resting on the shoulders of the crown prosecutors. Nowhere in the bill do we find confirmation of the right of the provinces to apply their own model.
At a press conference held by this group of organizations with an interest in the situation of young offenders, lawyer Jean Trépanier, a criminologist and member of the Quebec bar association's sub-committee on young offenders, was very clear in his criticism of the flexibility of Bill C-3.
According to him, the so-called flexibility touted before the bill was tabled seems to have been a political ploy. Judges in Quebec will not be able to disregard sentences handed down elsewhere.
The people I have just quoted are not members of the Bloc Quebecois. They are not involved in politics. They are experts and they are unanimous: Bill C-3 must disappear. That is the bottom line.
Another aberration in this reform of the youth criminal justice system is that the age threshold for the imposition of an adult sentence is 14 years. The question that arises is the following: What study or statistic is the Minister of Justice drawing on when she includes such a provision in her bill? I put the question. Naturally, I will be given no answer, because no statistic or study has shown that imprisonment has a real impact on crime rates.
If the Minister of Justice had done thorough and documented work, she would have seen in a number of studies that violent delinquents can be rehabilitated. If she thinks that leaving 14- or 15-year old adolescents to waste away in a cell will help young people return to society normally, she better think again.
Such practice is ineffective. Imprisoning a 14- or 15-year old means opening wide the doors of the school of crime, which is what prisons are.
Quebec has proven that rehabilitation is the key to success for young offenders. Why would the Minister of Justice not even consider Quebec's youth criminal justice model then?
With Bill C-3, the minister is destroying 16 years of very positive practice in the area of youth criminal justice. What for? Only to pick up a few votes in Western Canada. This is incredible and unacceptable.
Another totally pointless provision of Bill C-3 is the one allowing the names of young offenders to be published. Why not write “wanted” under the picture of those kids while at it?
I would recommend that the minister consult her colleague, the Minister of Health and former Minister of Justice, on that subject. On June 20, 1994, during question period, he stated and I quote:
The provisions to which the hon. member refers are intended to ensure that when young people make a mistake of that character, yes they are punished and yes they have learned a lesson, but they are not through the publication of their names in the media stigmatized for life, prevented from completing their education or from gaining employment. Surely that is in the public interest in this country.
The minister should make the same statement in this House.
I will conclude by saying that there is no doubt that the federal government should withdraw immediately from the administration of criminal justice and leave it to the provinces. Thus, justice would truly serve the people, and not a government which wants to buy votes at the expense of public safety in Quebec and Canada.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the old Young Offenders Act.
I want to begin by asking members to consider the concept of justice. When we talk about the youth criminal justice act, which is essentially the Young Offenders Act, it is really important that we take the time to examine some of the terms that we throw around fairly loosely and really see what is inside them.
The first term I want to start with is the whole idea of justice. What does justice mean? Everything I have ever read and my common sense tells me that there are a couple of things inherent in the idea of justice. The first one is that there should be punishment. The second one is that it should be proportional to the crime that was committed.
Both in this legislation and in the old Young Offenders Act, I find that these two components of the concept of justice are sometimes missing. We do not see punishment sometimes, certainly not proportional, to the crime that has been committed. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Under the Young Offenders Act and under Bill C-3, the new youth justice act, we see maximum sentences for crimes that in some cases may seem okay, such as 10 years for murder, but very often we do not see sentences that are meted out that really do fit the crime. When a young person takes another person's life, steals the rest of that person's life, the 50 or 75 years ahead, it seems inappropriate to me that sometimes we hand out sentences of three years or five years, but so often that is the case.
It is no wonder the justice minister is saying that the Young Offenders Act is easily the most offensive piece of legislation in the eyes of the public today. It was the justice minister who said that. I am not saying something that is simply my opinion or the opinion of members of my party. We have heard it from the lips of the Minister of Justice. It really is reflected in the public today, the idea that too often we see sentences handed down that really are not justice in the minds of the public because they do not punish people for crimes they have committed and there is no proportionality.
There is no recompense in the form of some kind of appropriate punishment for the years that are stolen from people in the event of a murder. Sadly, that leaves the families left behind bitter. They feel victimized again when these sentences are handed down. That would be the first criticism I have of this legislation. It does not deal with that old concept of justice.
I do not think anybody believes we should be overly harsh. I do not think anybody believes that we should throw the book at a 13 year old because he was shoplifting. That is ridiculous. We do not want to do that. We think that the idea of alternative measures is good. In fact, it is one that we proposed a number of years ago. The government is desperately trying to take some credit for it, but it was a Reform Party initiative.
We believe that everybody should have a second chance providing the crime is not too serious. They should have the chance to admit responsibility for something they have done and ultimately try to make up for it. In doing all of that perhaps they may learn a lesson that what they have done has hurt the victims of their crimes. It is very important that we continue to embrace that concept.
I talked recently in my community with victims of crime who have gone or who are about to go through this process. They could see the merit in it. I am proud that members of my caucus have proposed this, as the member for Crowfoot has done.
There are other issues I want to touch on. In Bill C-3 there is a lot of rhetoric but there is very little in terms of new aspects that would give comfort to the public. One of the biggest criticisms the public raises whenever we have new criminal justice legislation with respect to young people—and it seems like we have had a lot but they never seem to get it right—is the fact that we are not supposed to talk about who has committed these crimes. In some cases they are violent crimes. Many people argue that the public does have a right to know who these people are when these crimes are committed and they are convicted of them. There is some common sense and merit in that. There are a couple of reasons.
One reason is very straightforward. If somebody has committed a serious crime, armed robbery or even murder, and is sentenced, gets out of jail and we never do learn the name, in some ways that may put the public at risk. People should have the right to know that their neighbour has committed a very serious crime. Then they can take some steps to protect themselves. Sadly, the history in Canada is that there are certain instances where people have been convicted of extraordinarily serious crimes, have preserved their anonymity because of this law and have gone on to commit heinous acts.
I could tell a story that would probably break everyone's heart about that happening in British Columbia in the past but I do not have the time. It is extraordinarily important that we restore the idea that people who have committed a crime and have been convicted of it be held accountable as well by having their name published, known to the public. That is an important aspect of justice. Sadly we do not see it addressed here.
I also want to talk about the issue of 10 and 11 year old children who all too often end up committing what would be crimes if they were old enough to be convicted of them. Again the youth justice bill does not address that issue. It does not deal with it. We know from reading the newspapers that there are many instances of young children who commit crimes. They are caught burning buildings down for example. In some cases they are even being recruited by older young offenders to help them commit crimes.
It would be a good idea to give the authorities the authority to deal with 10 and 11 year olds in the law. It does not mean putting them in jail. It would be a good idea to allow the authorities to use alternative measures to deal with these 10 and 11 year olds so that they could go to them if they have done something. If they admit their responsibility, they could face their victim. The victim could explain to them just what kind of harm these young people had done to their lives. Hopefully if they have a conscience, they will feel some guilt and some sense of shame. It will help them to avoid a life of crime and a lot of heartache down the road.
The government for reasons that are not clear to me has not addressed that. I do not understand it. We know that the public is anxious to give the authorities some way of dealing with these young people who are doing those sorts of things. It is very disappointing to me and my colleagues that we are not doing this. I would argue that we are really doing a disservice to young people when we allow this to go on without any kind of recourse in the form of giving authority to police to deal with this. Ultimately we condemn them to repeat their mistakes over and over again. Not only does that hurt the victims; obviously it does, but it hurts those young people too.
If we could deal with them when they are 10 and 11 we would have a better of chance of turning them around than when they are 15, 16 or 17 years old. I would argue that the government has failed when it comes to recognizing that important flaw.
Finally I want to say again that the government too often argues that violent crime is a thing of the past in Canada or at least that it is on its way down and it is not a big issue any more. In my riding this year, we had the horrible murder of Jason Lang allegedly at the hands of a 14 year old boy. It behoves all of us to take the issue of violent youth crime seriously. We cannot pretend that this is no longer a problem. It is a problem. It is happening too often. We have seen other examples, recently in Toronto for instance.
Let us not pretend that this is not happening any more. Let us take these issues seriously. It is our job as legislators to do that. Unfortunately this legislation simply does not do it.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak in this debate and to point out some of the misinformation from the Reform member opposite. I do not think it was deliberate. Perhaps it was only the lack of time on the part of the member for Medicine Hat to read the entirety of the bill or to fully understand what is contained in the bill. He referred to the fact that there was nothing about an authority for the police to exercise extrajudicial measures for example, and I will speak to that.
I hope to cite the specific sections in the bill for the information of the member and so that the greater public may be fully informed as well.
Before I do that let me just say by way of preamble that Bill C-3, the new youth criminal justice act, was introduced in the House earlier this year precisely to fulfil the government's commitment. The bill was introduced by the hon. member for Edmonton West, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to replace the Young Offenders Act. We have something here that is new, in fulfilment of the government of Canada's commitment to reform the youth justice system in Canada for the betterment of our society.
In the interests of youth and all concerned, we would like to distinguish better between violent and non-violent offences, to provide appropriate measures to deal with both levels of offences, to strengthen efforts to rehabilitate our young people who committed these crimes and to encourage the use of effective, meaningful alternatives to custody for non-violent offences committed by our youth.
Indeed, this bill addresses some of the concerns raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I hope he will take this into account in his further commentary on the bill.
Let me also add that this bill was developed after extensive consultation with provincial and territorial officials, front line workers in the field, police, legal professionals, judges, members of the academic community and non-governmental organizations. What that means is that following extensive consultations with all these groups of individuals, what we have in this bill in a real sense is the distilled wisdom of these experts on this issue. This bill also has built in respect for federal and provincial jurisdictions, that is, flexibility on the part of any province to give it part of its own creation, so long as it fulfils the thrust of the total bill itself.
I remind the House that when the bill was tabled earlier this year by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, she said: “Canadians want a youth justice system that protects society and instils values such as accountability, responsibility and respect. They want governments”—meaning all levels of government—“to help prevent youth crime in the first place and make sure there are meaningful consequences when it occurs”. The new youth criminal justice bill has been designed precisely to achieve these goals.
Before I go to the principles of the bill, let me define so that it is clear in the minds of Canadians what we mean when we speak of youth. In this bill youth refers to a child and to young persons. The difference between the two is defined clearly in this bill in clause 2, Interpretation. It states:
“child” means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be less than twelve years old.
“young person” means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be twelve years old or older, but less than eighteen years old—
We have a very clear understanding of what we are speaking about in terms of the ages encompassed in this bill.
Now I will speak to the general principles of the bill itself. There are four principles. It is very critical that we let Canadians know about the principles, because when we understand the essence of the principles, we understand better the thrust of the bill itself. I am convinced that when members opposite truly, fully understand and acknowledge the beauty of the principles, no more criticisms will emerge.
The first principle is that the principal goal of the youth criminal justice system is to protect the public by preventing crime, by addressing the circumstances underlying the offending behaviour of young persons, by ensuring that young persons are subject to meaningful consequences for their offences, by rehabilitating young persons who commit offences and by reintegrating them into society. Who can quarrel with the first principle of the bill to protect the Canadian public by those various means?
The second principle is that the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and emphasize the following: first, by fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity; second, by enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights including the right to privacy are protected; and third, by greater emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration. Who would disagree with this principle that recognizes the difference between a youth and an adult, between a child, a young person and an adult?
The third principle is that within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should: first, reinforce respect for societal values; second, encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community; third, be meaningful for the individual young person; fourth, respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic difference; and fifth, respond to the needs of young persons with special requirements. The essence is self-explanatory.
The fourth and last principle is that special considerations apply with respect to proceedings against young persons in particular. In this principle we see very clearly that the bill addresses the interest of the accused because that is the Canadian judicial principle. It also addresses the issues of victims and the concerns of parents.
We have here a bill that addresses the totality of what we ought to do were we to really advance the cause of the youth justice system in Canada.
With respect to extrajudicial measures, the following principles are very clearly stated on page 7 of the bill in clause 4, which I will read for the record:
(a) extrajudicial measures are often the most appropriate and effective way to address youth crime;
(b) extrajudicial measures allow for effective and timely interventions focused on correcting offending behaviour;
(c) extrajudicial measures are presumed to be adequate to hold a young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour if the young person has committed a non-violent offence and has not previously been found guilty of an offence; and
(d) extrajudicial measures should be used if they are adequate to hold a young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour—
The extrajudicial measures have been designed to provide an effective and timely response to the offending behaviour, encourage young persons to acknowledge and repair the harm caused to the victim and the community, to encourage families of young persons including extended families and the community to become involved in the design and implementation of those measures, to provide an opportunity for victims to participate in decisions related to the measures selected, to receive reparation, and to respect the rights and freedoms of young persons proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
In this new youth justice act we have truly the essence of Canada. Lastly, if I may conclude on this point, even warnings, cautions and referrals may be done not only by police officers, which the member for Medicine Hat thought was lacking but is in the bill, but also by prosecutors.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Madam Speaker, it is my turn to rise in opposition to this bill.
I listened intently to the member opposite who said that the bill reflected the Canadian reality well and respected Canadian values. It is quite surprising, when one looks at the statistics, to find out that the situation is completely the opposite of what the member just said: the crime rate has actually declined.
The Bloc Quebecois is a reflection of Quebec society. And this society, through a coalition, is expressing its opposition to this bill. Even if others members have already listed them, I believe it is important to name the various groups in this coalition to show representative it is.
There is the Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, the École de criminologie de l'Université de Montréal, the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Institut Philippe-Pinel, the Association des chefs de police et pompiers du Québec, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Bureau des substituts du procureur général du ministère de la Justice du Québec, the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, the 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 Association canadienne pour la justice pénale, the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec and the Société de criminologie du Québec.
This makes a great many people who think this bill is nonsense. Let us first look at the facts. Statistics from Statistics Canada or other bodies—the justice minister is aware of these—show that, between 1991 and 1997, the number of young people charged has dropped by 23%. It did not go up, it did not stay the same, it went down by 23%.
Charges against young people for violent crimes has dropped by 3.2% since 1995. Young Canadians convicted of criminal offences are incarcerated at a rate four times higher than adults, and twice as high as American youth. What is the government trying to achieve? It wants to go even further. It makes no sense.
Let us look at the numbers for one year. In 1997, the rate of police reported crime decreased for the sixth year in a row, falling 5%. This decline resulted in the lowest rate since 1980.
Rates decreased for almost all violent offences, including sexual offences, which stand at 0.9%. Robberies dropped by 8%, homicides by 9%. The number of young people charged with Criminal Code offences is down 7%, which is consistent with the general downward trend recorded since 1991. The number of young people charged with violent offences has dropped by 2% for the second year in a row. It should also be noted that the majority, or 53%, of charges against young people involve property crimes, while 20% involve violent crimes.
Violent crime is down and yet the minister persists with her bill. Violent crimes include homicide, attempted murder, physical assault and sexual assault, other sexual offences, kidnapping and robbery. The rate of such crimes decreased by 1.1% in 1997. Not too impressive, at first glance, but this is the fifth consecutive year.
The number of young people charged with crimes of violence has gone down for the second year in a row. It dropped by 2% in 1997. In the course of the last decade, the number of young people charged with homicide has remained relatively stable at approximately 50 a year. The national homicide rate dropped 9% in 1997, reaching its lowest level since 1969.
We could go on and on citing statistics, but I want to get back to the remarks of the member opposite, who said that the government was responding to Canadian reality.
If that is what the bill was doing, it should be geared down, because things are improving. The youth crime rate is decreasing, but tougher measures are being introduced. What a reaction.
The arguments are political in nature. The statistics show an increase in the crime rate the further west one goes. It would seem that the crime rate is higher in certain areas of the country. The Reform Party members, coming from the west, are reacting to this state of affairs.
The Minister of Justice, probably with an eye to re-election, is taking account of the political climate that exists in that region of Canada. She is, however, the Minister of Justice for all of Canada. In Quebec, all the organizations I named at the beginning of my speech are opposed.
The Quebec justice minister, who represents my riding, has been fighting a battle this is far from over and will only be when the federal justice minister withdraws the bill. The Quebec minister introduced an amendment that could somehow exempt Quebec from this bill, but this amendment was not considered in order.
Despite all the representations made and the support given by all Quebec organizations involved in this area, Ms. Goupil was not able to bend the will of the federal justice minister. Apparently, ideas from Quebec are not as good as if they came from western Canada, which is closer to her. She wants to get re-elected.
It is unfortunate that bodies of public opinion that may prevail in a particular region or are fuelled by the media can influence justice to such an extent.
I sometimes jump in my seat, in the morning, when I read the first seven or eight pages of some newspapers. We see pictures. Not those of young offenders, of course, because it is not allowed in Quebec. So far, it has not been allowed elsewhere in Canada either. But what does this bill intend to do? This bill will do away with this anonymity. It is going the other way.
I am not saying that this is what the minister intends to do. I certainly hope it is not, but there seems to be a shift toward publishing the pictures of young offenders under the age of 18 in certain newspapers, in Quebec and in Canada, with all the consequences this could have on their families.
In my youth, I was taught a number of basic principles that I never forgot. We must remember what our parents taught us. The other day, I was talking about the catechism, which sets out the nature of a mortal sin. Three conditions must be met. It must be a serious offence, committed with full awareness. They must also be wilful consent. Is a 12 or 14 year old fully aware of the seriousness of what he is doing? No. Who in the House has not, in his or her youth, done something rather stupid, something that he or she regrets now?
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC
They should stand up.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
I do not dare do what by the hon. member for Jonquière just did by asking those who did not commit anything stupid before the age of 18 to stand up. Perhaps there would not be many. I do not want to cast too many stones because, if I were to look into my own past, I might find something wrong, but surely not anything serious.
In conclusion, a bill to increase should follow an increase in crime. Yet, we see the opposite happening. Youth crime has decreased. Yet, the minister wants to cave in to Reform arguments to ensure her re-election.
Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the old Young Offenders Act.
This should have been before the house in the early 1990s. I say this in reference to my former career as a mayor in Manitoba. The municipalities have been lobbying the government since the early 1990s to make the appropriate changes. There have been numerous resolutions from municipalities at the local level, as well as through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It was all for naught obviously. It has taken almost ten years to get a bill to amend the Young Offenders Act to this floor.
We all agree that there is a huge difference between violent offenders and those who are not violent offenders. We need to keep that separate.
I remember at one time the solicitor general's department sent out survey forms to all of the municipalities, asking them what they thought were the necessary changes. Most of us, willingly and co-operatively, filled out the forms and sent them back. Unfortunately we never heard from the solicitor general's department. I do not know whether that was surprising or not back in the early 1990s.
Time and again, with society changing, the rules need to change to keep up with the changing society.
The most common reference to the Young Offenders Act came from our enforcement people, the RCMP, telling the municipalities that they do their job and catch the violators, but their hands are tied because of the Young Offenders Act.
It is unfortunate that in recent times small-town Canada, always thought of as being a safe place to live, has been waking up to the real surprise that it is not such a safe place to live. Even in my own small city of Dauphin we have encountered very violent youth crimes. One example was when youths got together and broke into a senior's house. They robbed and battered that senior citizen, who subsequently passed away. This is the kind of experience that is traumatizing small-town Canada, which does not really know how to deal with the turn of events.
Vandalism is another issue that I hear about constantly wherever I travel. My riding is very large. I deal with about 80 municipalities on an ongoing basis. Vandalism is so bad that it has reached the point where the police will not even bother to deal with it. In fact, it is so ridiculous that during the summer break when I left Ottawa to return to my home riding in June, lo and behold, as I approached my property, the side of my garage had been spray painted. I later found out that it was done by a youth gang in the community. Believe it or not, I live kitty-corner from the police station, within shouting distance. I can see the police station from my front yard.
These are the kinds of concerns that Canadians have, certainly in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River. The Young Offenders Act needs to be amended. It is long overdue.
Last week during the break I met with a dozen municipalities at a group meeting with the RCMP to talk about this very issue of youth crime and police matters. There is no doubt that over the last few years a lot of problems arose because of cutbacks to the RCMP. It is my understanding that this year, from looking at the estimates, the budget has been increased by $11.8 million. Then I noticed that the government levied an extra $35 million for gun registration. I really wonder which is more important in this country, registering people's firearms or looking after our RCMP, which is badly needed.
The consolidation of our police force has also created a problem. I would say that consolidation came as a result of cutbacks in the budget. Over the past year we have heard in the House the many instances when police had to basically park their cars and their other vehicles because of the lack of funds to operate and repair them.
It comes down to the very point that people in this country, whether they live in cities or in small communities, want to live in a safe community. We all want to see a police presence. These were the concerns raised by the collective group of municipalities that I met with last week. They want the police to have the ability to enforce the law.
It is all right to take a preventive approach. We all believe that prevention is the best approach, but there are situations that arise which go beyond prevention. Things happen, laws become breached, people get hurt and property gets damaged. How do we deal with these people who do not follow the rules of society?
The Young Offenders Act, as it currently operates, does not work. We are told over and over again that it does not work. In other words, the police need help as much as the citizens of this country. They need the help of this House putting together good legislation that will serve the people in a responsible and effective manner.
I have encountered many instances of vandalism. For example, a small business had its front window broken. Who became the victims? The whole community became victimized. Unfortunately, we are all victimized because of the unaccountable and irresponsible behaviour of youth.
At this point there seems to be no way in which society can deal with these youth. In fact, it is so bad that in the small town of Birtle, Manitoba, the chamber of commerce had to hire a night security guard to patrol the main street of the community, believe it or not, because there was so much vandalism. The businesses were literally being penalized through the cost of vandalism. They found that hiring a security guard to do the night watch changed it totally. In other words, they are doing the job that the police should be doing.
I cannot understand why this government has not reversed the numbers when it comes to gun control and the budgetary requirements of the RCMP. Perhaps it can rethink that one before the estimates come before the House next month.
The Young Offenders Act has been criticized for many, many years. There is no doubt that violence in many cases cannot be prevented, but we believe prevention is the best approach.
Because of the lack of change another thing the Young Offenders Act has created in some communities in rural Canada is the sense that a curfew is necessary. It is really unfortunate that some communities need to think about looking for tools and other vehicles to help the police do their job. I know that curfews are probably not the whole answer, but they may be part of it.
The Reform Party supports the repealing of the Young Offenders Act and establishing a definition of juvenile offenders within the criminal code. Amendments should be made so that the Young Offenders Act would include young offenders aged 10 to 15, serious offenders aged 14 and 15, with offenders 16 and over tried as adults.
The Young Offenders Act should also permit public access to court proceedings in cases involving 14 and 15 year old offenders and in cases where the public's right to know supersedes the need to protect the youth's identity.