Debates of Nov. 18th, 1999

Division No. 54

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that has anything whatsoever to do with the bill.

The point I was simply making is that the Reform Party members, the official opposition, are using whatever tactics they can to delay, to stall, to derail the government's agenda as a result of their demand for a national referendum.

As it relates to this bill, we think it is important that the youth justice bill be passed by the House so that the implementation can take place as quickly as possible. For Reform members to try to tie up a bill so significant as the youth justice bill over something else that they have already lost is, to me, almost unparliamentary. It is certainly undemocratic.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member in the Liberal Party mentioned how truth hurts. He did talk on the subject of child pornography. The fact is that 70 people on the Liberal benches signed a letter asking the government to use the notwithstanding clause against the B.C. court decision. Here is where the truth hurts. When it came to a vote, 66 of those Liberals voted against their own signature on a written document.

The House can be assured that during the next election that letter will be sent out to every constituency that I can think of in order to let them know that the Liberals say one thing and do another.

My parents ran a group home in Richmond and in Burnaby, British Columbia for well over 20 years. Over 400 children came through our doors, some for a couple of hours and some for many years.

The law enforcement agencies of the land are without adequate resources. Sports and youth programs across the country are without adequate resources even though the initial intention of setting up the lottery systems was for sports and recreational and cultural programs, not for general revenues. Social housing is also in a major crisis in the country and the Liberals have provided no funding for that.

The Liberals are presenting yet another bill. Is the hon. member going to stand up in the House today and say that the Liberal government will give not just adequate resources but sufficient resources for law enforcement agencies and other agencies across the country in order for them to do their jobs effectively and bring restorative justice to our young people?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a lot of turf covered on that particular issue.

The letter that he refers to is obviously on the Xerox machine as we speak in order to distribute it, and once again as a party, to try to mislead the voters. The reality is that the people who signed that simply said “if necessary”, but that there must be an appeal. There is an appeal. I am very hopeful that our supreme court will overturn that decision.

With regard to the resources in the community, the federal government is not a one stop shop. We have partners in the country. It is called Confederation. Our partners are our provinces. Yesterday the headline—

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

The Onex partner.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Tory member wants to heckle. Yesterday there was a Tory headline in the paper stating that the provincial government was taking a further $800 million out of the Ontario education system at the same time as we have increased transfer payments and have restored funding for health care. We continue to provide an unconditional grant of $950 million to the province of Ontario which could be used and should be used for the items that the hon. member talked about.

The municipalities need to be our partners. The school boards need to be our partners. It cannot all be fixed by waving some magic NDP socialist wand.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be able to enter the debate on Bill C-3.

I would like to divide my comments into two parts. First, I want to talk about some of the provisions within the bill. Second, I want to talk about the justice system in Canada.

If we look at the overall summary statement at the beginning of the bill, one would almost get the impression that this is summum bonum, the absolute best thing that could ever have happened to the youth justice system. This is what it says:

This enactment sets out a range of extrajudicial measures, establishes the judicial procedures and protections for young persons alleged to have committed an offence, encourages the participation of parents, victims, communities, youth justice committees and others in the youth justice system, sets out a range of sentences available to the youth justice court, establishes custody and supervision provisions, sets out the rules for the keeping of records and protection of privacy, provides transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

We would think that was it. What else is left to be done after all that?

There are a couple of things that I would like to look at. Conditional sentences, for example, are possible here. We know that in the past conditional sentences on some of the very serious offenders, such as drug traffickers and people who have committed manslaughter, have not resulted in any material punishment for the people involved. There have been no serious consequences for having committed such very serious offences.

There is another position. Only five presumptive offences have been listed here. They include first and second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. These are the big, heavy duty crimes that must be tried in adult court.

There are some serious omissions here. What about death by criminal negligence? What about bodily harm caused by criminal negligence? What about sexual assault using a weapon? What about hostage taking and illegal confinement? Those are very, very serious offences. I do not believe they are any less violent than the ones under the section in the act. There is a clear indication that amendments to the act are necessary to bring about the true intent of what the act is supposed to accomplish in terms of its purpose.

I would also like to talk about age. The hon. member from Mississauga suggested that we could go down to age eight. No one has ever suggested such a thing. That was the member's dream. We know that 10 and 11 year olds in our society surely know what is right and wrong. They have the ability to make a decision, to make a choice and they do so. We need to deal with them seriously.

The hon. member suggested that most young people are decent and well behaved. I would hope so. The act is not designed to deal with 95% of the people. It is designed to deal with people who have chosen to break the law. That is the problem and that is what we are addressing. Ten and eleven year olds who break the law and who have done so deliberately and with forethought, need to be dealt with in a reasonable way.

Should we include transitional periods? Should we have the restoration of justice and the rehabilitation programs? Absolutely. Incarceration is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about revenge. We have to inculcate in these people a recognition that if they break the law, it is a serious offence and society will not condone that type of behaviour. We want to help them to become contributing and successful members of society.

It is not out of order to suggest that 10 to 15 year olds ought to be included in this legislation. We have seen far too many 10 and 11 year olds take advantage of the fact that they cannot be touched and are not subject to criminal prosecution. It is sad to say but there are some adults who know this and use 10 and 11 year olds to commit crimes on their behalf.

I would now like to turn my attention to the justice system in Canada. I would encourage every member of this House and every Canadian to read the book Outrage written by Alex MacDonald. He is no ordinary author. This man has been in the business of law and justice for 40 years. He was the attorney general of the province of B.C. He was a lawyer and a minister of the crown. He sat in this House as a member of parliament. This gentleman knows what he is talking about. At the beginning of his book Mr. MacDonald says:

Canada's legal system is heading for disaster, so preoccupied with protecting individuals' rights that it fails to protect the rights of society. More than fair to a few, the legal system is less than fair to the majority of Canadians, sacrificing time-honoured concepts such as Truth and Justice to an unhealthy fascination with process.

This is not an amateur who wrote that. This is a practitioner in the legal system, one who understands. The kind of legislation we have had presented to us and which is contained within Bill C-3 does nothing to change that particular conclusion.

The number one issue that is missing in this legislation is the underlying principles. There is a whole section in the bill dealing with the principles that are involved in this particular legislation, but the fundamental principle of the purpose of justice is missing. The fundamental principle is to ensure that when the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims of crime conflict with the rights of the perpetrator of a crime, obviously the rights of the victim should prevail.

It seems that the only people who are here to protect society, not the law, are police officers, the men and women who enforce the law. They stick their necks out. They are in danger day after day. What does the government do with these people who look after the interests of society? It slashes their budgets and ties their hands. It has a revolving door parole system and an unbalanced justice system.

What does one of these principles say? I want to draw specific attention to one statement of principle in this bill. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(ii) states:

(c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should—

That is not shall, but should.

(ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community.

I agree. The operative word is “should”, not “shall”. If this were a principle, it would say “it shall”. Clearly it is not a principle. If it is, it is one that is so wide open that it is meaningless. It may be more specific.

There is another provision in this bill which I am not sure is a principle. I think it is, but it is not found in that particular clause. It is probably the worst possible clause that could have been in the bill. It is the centrepiece of the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, the Young Offenders Act and it is contained in this bill again. It is word for word, exactly the same sentence. Paragraph 145(2)(b) states:

(b) the person to whom the statement was made has, before the statement was made, clearly explained to the young person, in language appropriate to his or her age and understanding—

It is the officer saying this to the individual. The first point is that the young person is under no obligation to make a statement. In other words, the individual who is accused of a particular crime, apprehended or whatever the case may be is not obligated to speak at all. He can be absolutely silent. This is a real difficulty. What is the result?

Now, what kind of a signal is this to send to teens? It expresses one of the shibboleths of our Law, one which the criminal defence bar is apparently prepared to defend to the death. Never mind that it contradicts the wisdom of the ages when it comes to raising youngsters into responsible adulthood.

Those are the words of Alex MacDonald again.

Every parent who is wise wants to raise his children well. The hon. member from Mississauga talked about the fact that he raised three boys. That individual knows full well that he did very well with his children. He admitted that and I think that is right and wonderful. The wise parent, and I am sure the hon. member from Mississauga knows this only too well, asks when his children are in trouble, “What is it that is causing it? Tell me the whole story”. That is what we need to do. Mr. MacDonald observes:

Sensible parents know that the first step in correcting youthful misbehaviour is getting the miscreant to own up. And they know that acknowledging wrongdoing is in the best interests of the young person, since it minimizes the chance that the offender will repeat.

Sadly, the federal government's lawmakers have yet to grasp this concept. The whole wide world knows that confessing is good for the soul. So why doesn't the Law get it? Surely a duty to speak up serves young people in trouble better than a right to keep mum.

I wish to read a particular case into the record. It took place in British Columbia on Vancouver Island and began in 1988. Peter is the individual.

In the wee hours of October 12, 1988, this young man...and two of his friends, aged 17 and 23, took a cab from the native reserve at Duncan, B.C., to Victoria, some 65 kilometres to the south. They had been partying hard and had several drinks en route to their destination. In their possession were two mean-looking pellet guns, two “throwing knives” and what the 23 year old later called “tools to break and enter”.

After arriving in Victoria at about 4 a.m., the threesome wanted some more beer and asked the cabby to get them some more. After paying off the cabby, they hailed another cab. Two of them were in the back seat and Peter was in the front.

The two in the back seat stuck their guns in the driver's neck, but the driver resisted. In the scuffle for the driver's wallet, Peter, who was in the front seat, stabbed him several times. The man died.

At a friend's house, the young men washed the blood from their clothing, but some remained on Peter's. Later that day, one of the youths casually mentioned that they'd killed a cabby. The RCMP were tipped, and all three were arrested. At the lock-up, Peter was given the Charter caution and was told to call a lawyer and have a guardian come down. He chose a great aunt. However, before the lawyer arrived—the great aunt was there—one Constable Logan engaged Peter in a long conversation. Before it was over, Peter told Logan something of what had happened. The other two youths were to hold guns to the cabby's neck. Peter was supposed to sit in the front seat and “just stab”. Logan then drove Peter to a house where he produced the fatal knife and the cabby's car keys. Later that day, at Logan's urging, he talked with his lawyer.

The next morning, Peter had another phone conversation with his lawyer. Then, seeing Logan, he told the officer that he had left out some details and wanted to add more. Again the two men spoke, and again Peter confessed—

On legal advice, Peter did not testify at his trial in youth court. He was found guilty of second degree murder, and the verdict was affirmed by the appeal court. However, in 1993, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment.

The court had no doubt that Peter's statements were basically true and that Logan had been frank and polite in all his dealings with the youth. Nevertheless, it held that Constable Logan had slipped up in the way he had obtained the admissions. Therefore, the words had to be treated as if they had never been spoken. To do otherwise would sully the law's fair name.

The upshot was clearly that three young men had committed murder, at least second degree murder. Their individual complicity might have varied some but that ought to have been a matter for sentencing. Clearing Peter meant that the court did not have to deliberate on the serious issue and the real issue of the crime. MacDonald continues:

Criminal cases, especially those concerning young people, must slide away from the adversarial model, with its gladiatorial combats and prosecutors devising strategies to out-manoeuvre those of the defence. The presiding judge should lead an inquiry, independently if need be, of the two sides—more inquisitorial and less adversarial.

“Legal fairness”, as in Peter's case, all too often gets the better of truth seeking. And ignoring truth can grease the slippery slope on which a young lawbreaker finds himself, hastening a life-destroying future life as a criminal.

Those are very serious observations by the former attorney general of the province of British Columbia.

It is clear that the truth is sacrificed on the altar of legal technicalities and process. Such a system is not a justice system. It is a legal system. It does not generate respect for the law, for society's values, for personal responsibility or accountability, nor does it engender respect for law enforcement officers.

The hon. Alex MacDonald then makes this observation. He talks about the legal and justice system as being governed by Prodigal's law that process expands to fill the time and money available. That is a very serious indictment. I will use the Winnipeg connection in this regard to illustrate how the process expands to fill the time and the money available:

In 1984, “Joe”, a 17-year old Winnipeg lad, brutally raped and murdered a 3 year old girl. Her body was found in a garage, blue panties at her feet, her rectum torn and bruised, her skull fractured and her neck broken.

As soon as the body was found, the police began to round up possible witnesses, among them this 17-year old. Attending at the police station, Joe gave an account of his whereabouts that, checked out, proved to be false. He also tried to shift the blame onto someone else.

The young man was confronted with shreds of scalp and clothing that could be his. Again, he tried to pin the crime on another saying, “Yeah, like I said, he took her to a garage and she was crying for her grandmother”, details that could only have been known by the guilty person. He then conceded, “I grabbed her...took her to the garage...blacked out”.

The police ceased their questioning, arrested Joe and read him his Charter rights. He conferred with his lawyer for 37 minutes. When she left, not asking the officers to stop any further questioning, the police resumed their inquiries. Once more, Joe voluntarily admitted to the crime. On the way to the detention centre, he pointed out the apartment building where he abducted her, pointed to the garage where he bludgeoned her to “stop her screaming” and even pointed out the bloody cinder block he used. At the trial, which was held in an adult court, the judge let the jury hear Joe's tape-recorded admissions, which he'd made prior to his lawyer's visit. But what he said and what he pointed out to the police after seeing his lawyer were ruled out. Joe was convicted of first-degree murder.

The matter went to appeal, where the court ruled just the opposite, rejecting Joe's admissions made before seeing his lawyer and allowing everything he said and did afterwards. A new trial was ordered—

There was one trial. It was appealed. The appeal overthrew the decision and a new trial was ordered. He was convicted at the new trial but it did not end there. This case began in 1984. In 1991, seven years after the crime was committed, a third trial was ordered. Joe was convicted by the supreme court in 1991, seven years later.

What reasonable person could expect that a law like this one would take seven years to come to a conclusion? We need to come to the point where we recognize that the values in society need to be protected and that the rights of an individual also carry with them responsibility.

What seems to be developing is that the rights of individuals are important but their accountability and their sense of responsibility is secondary. We need to shift our justice system to where it becomes a justice system that seeks the truth and convicts on the basis of the real issue rather than on the basis of legal technicality and process.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one. If the hon. member had his choice, would it be his opinion that Canada would be better served without our charter of rights?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The implication that the charter of rights is the cause of problems is not the question.

The point is that the charter of rights does not include accountability and responsibility. Everyone has rights and that is fine, but with those rights comes the need to be responsible and accountable because we make choices on the basis of our rights and the rights of others.

My freedom is not pervasive for everybody. My freedom begins with me and ends where somebody else's begins. We must recognize that. I commend the member for asking me the question so that I could clearly indicate the intent of what I was trying to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a short question about diversion programs. I mentioned them earlier in my speech and I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice does not seem to understand the fact that individuals who are 10 and 11 years old are not eligible for youth diversion programs as contained in the bill. They are not included in the act. I would like my colleague's comment on that.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the community of Maple Ridge for its diversionary focus. It has done a lot more than just bring in a diversionary program. It also has a strong program of restorative justice. It is a leader in Canada in that regard.

Not only do I support that, but it is important that with those diversion groups and committees emphasis is placed on responsibility and accountability. Individuals need to recognize that they committed a crime, intruded into the lives of other people, invaded their sanctity and their property. That has to be made clear.

The diversionary programs do exactly that, so that criminals are confronted with the victims, with the damage they did, and hopefully a certain remorse can be generated. A new value system can be oriented so that they recognize that not only do they have rights but victims also have rights and they need to work together. That is why this program is so successful. It is also the reason there ought to be a command for this kind of a program for kids who are 10 to 15 years old.

No reasonable parent or reasonable member of society would say that 10 or 11 year olds who have a choice to make should not be subject to a strong rehabilitative program and a diversionary program so they can recognize what they have done and then behave more successfully and co-operatively in society.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all Canadians read Alex Macdonald's book. It is a very good book and a real eye-opener. I commend my colleague for bringing it to our attention in the House.

I am certainly aware of the reaction of my constituents and how they feel about the current Young Offenders Act but also how they feel about the proposed new youth criminal justice act. What is the consensus in my colleague's riding? Has he gone to his constituents and presented what the government is proposing, and how have they reacted to it?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is an excellent question because it has two parts.

Back in 1994 I had the honour to present a petition containing about 25,000 signatures that was started by high school students in Kelowna. They asked that the Young Offenders Act be amended because it was a joke.

We had a meeting about two weeks ago in the constituency dealing with some of the provisions of the proposed act. The people knew we had the Young Offenders Act and were to have the youth criminal justice act and asked what had changed. That was their first reaction.

The name has changed. Indeed there is more flexibility in the new act, and we went through some of it. One of the points I made this morning with regard to the justice system not being in fact the justice system but being a legal system is one point that they drove home over and over again.

Another point they made was that no matter how good the legislation is that is presented to the House we as parents, as educators and as leaders in society need to recognize that young people have to be taught and shown what is right and what is wrong. It should be incumbent upon every leader in the community, teacher, parent, church or whatever group, that once they have dealt with young people there should be no equivocation that a joyride in a stolen car is an acceptable the right of passage into adulthood.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we resume debate I wish to inform the House that the period for 20 minutes speeches has now expired. Members will have 10 minutes in debate without a period of questions and comments.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in what I believe is a very important debate on a piece of legislation that will affect our society as a whole. I know that my constituents have been asking for this legislation.

The youth criminal justice act recognizes that the protection of the public, people like you and I, Mr. Speaker, and our families and loved ones, must be the main objective of any effort to renew the youth justice system.

This new act is a balanced approach to replacing the Young Offenders Act. It takes steps to address society's concern about violent and repeat youth crimes, as well as the need for a system that promotes accountability, respect, responsibility and fairness.

However, it goes beyond punishing offenders as the Reform Party would have us do. It promotes crime prevention. It offers alternative sentencing methods. It provides for rehabilitation in order to prevent repeat offences. Quite simply, just a punishing will not fulfil these needs.

This legislation is part of the youth criminal justice strategy which focuses on three key areas. The first is prevention, to address the root causes of crime and to encourage community crime prevention efforts. The second is meaningful consequences that hold young offenders accountable, help them to understand the impact of their actions and allow them to make good on the harms they have done to both their victims and the community. The third and very important component is rehabilitation and reintegration to ensure that youth who have committed an offence receive the treatment and have access to the programs they need to prevent them from reoffending.

I believe that this focuses not only on punishment but also on prevention. Rehabilitation is extremely important. I agree with many of my colleagues in the House of Commons, and many of my constituents in Guelph—Wellington, that breaking the law must have serious consequences. However, it is my hope that the prevention measures contained in the youth criminal justice act will help to lower the youth crime rate and therefore prevent years of grief for the offender, the victim and the community.

I feel that rehabilitation is extremely important. All too often we see a pattern by young offenders. This act will help to break that cycle of jail and crime and jail and crime and jail, by giving young offenders access to counselling and other programs that will help them to understand that the law must be upheld, not broken, and that they can and will be valued members of society if they are willing to contribute to society in a constructive manner.

Programs that help to rehabilitate, supervise and control youth as they return to their communities help to protect the public because these programs help to prevent further crimes. This is something we can all be happy about. This component in Quebec has been extremely positive. We in all parts of Canada want to work on those successes.

As mentioned previously, where crimes do occur I believe that there must be meaningful consequences. I applaud my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on her move to ensure that these consequences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. It is very frustrating for a society to see any offender receive a sentence that does not equate with the crime committed.

The changes proposed in the youth criminal justice act will help to ensure that justice is done. For example, the age at which a youth can be tried in adult court will be lowered from 16 to 14 years of age. Those who are convicted and receive an adult sentence will have their names published. Their records will be treated as the records of adult offenders.

These measures are not aimed at putting children in jail or at ruining their lives but rather at ensuring that serious crimes have serious consequences. Less serious offences could receive community based sentences that will help both the offender and the community to recover and move on.

In all cases youth will face consequences that promote responsibility and accountability to the victim and to the community, as well as to reinforce the values of society by helping the offender to understand the impact of his or her actions.

I will take a few moments to highlight some of the changes proposed in the youth criminal justice act because I feel they are important changes which are worth noting. The youth criminal justice act will establish a more efficient process. It gives the courts the power to impose adult sentences where serious crimes have been committed. This change, while respecting the due process of rights of the accused, also relieves the burden facing victims and their families.

The offences for which a young offender could be raised to adult court have been expanded to include a pattern of convictions for serious and violent offences. As a parent and a member of the Guelph—Wellington community this change gives me great peace of mind. I feel it goes a very long way toward ensuring that our streets remain safe. Victim impact statements will also be introduced.

Another important change that I would like to highlight is the provision for harsher penalties for adults who willfully fail to comply with an undertaking made to the court to supervise youth who have been denied bail and placed in their care. When the court places a young offender in an adult's care that adult is accepting the very serious responsibility of ensuring that youth in his or her care complies with the court's orders. This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

This measure responds to a proposal made by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey North, and I would like to commend him for his efforts on this issue. I personally feel that this is a very important measure that sends a very strong message to parents. The role that they play in bringing a young offender to justice is an important one and parents must continue to play an active role in helping their children to become productive members of society.

I would also like to point out that the youth criminal justice act provides for new ways to deal with minor offences. Some young people are brought into the formal justice system for minor offences that are not always best dealt with in a traditional manner. The changes proposed in the bill establish a range of informal programs and alternatives for less serious offences. These new consequences will still be meaningful, but may not necessarily involve jail time. Instead, they focus on ways to repair the harm done to the community and to the victim.

Serious offences will still be dealt with through the formal court process. The youth criminal justice act is a key component of the federal government's youth strategy. I believe this strategy will be a success because it involves partners at every level of government as well as in the community: provincial and municipal governments, law enforcement officials, members of the legal profession, social service and child welfare agencies.

Over the last few years the Guelph police service has moved to a more community based, inclusive approach to law enforcement. It has been extremely successful. It has been so successful because the community as a whole now feels that it has a greater role to play in protecting our society. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Guelph police service for all of its wonderful work. Guelph—Wellington is lucky to have such a talented and dedicated police force.

I believe that the youth criminal justice act helps to ensure all of these things: a justice system that promotes accountability, fairness, respect, new measures aimed at crime prevention which include the community as a whole, meaningful consequences when crimes are committed, and programs that help to rehabilitate the offender while easing the pain of the victim and society. I am very pleased to see that these changes are talking place.

The public, the victims and I want the bill. To do anything less would be wrong.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to the next speaker, over the course of the morning, in the rotation that we traditionally use, there has been some disagreement on whether the rotation has been exactly fair. What we will do over the course of the afternoon is try to get a couple more Bloc members into the rotation. Just so everybody understands, that is what will happen. We will be going back and forth, but during the course of the afternoon we will get a couple more Bloc members in.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents and my party to address Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.

We thought that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada would have used the opportunity provided by the throne speech delivered on October 12 to let this very controversial bill, formerly Bill C-8 during the first session of the legislature, die on the order paper, like so many other bills.

Indeed, the primary purpose of a throne speech delivered half way through a mandate is to allow the government to adjust some of its policies, to review certain bills or to let them die on the order paper. Such was not the case with this legislation.

The minister is reintroducing the same bill, in spite of the numerous concerns expressed by the public, particularly in Quebec, and is pursuing the same goal, which is to fight Reformers on their own turf, on the right, so as to improve her party's image in western Canada.

Bill C-3 does not merely amend the Young Offenders Act, it repeals it. In it the minister sets out the new principles applicable to youth crime, which means that the basic principles of the Young Offenders Act, including respect for adolescents' special needs, will be replaced by new ones that have nothing to do with the specific characteristics of youth crime.

My colleague responsible for this issue, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, suggested in a letter to the minister this summer, sent after he learned that the government was proroguing the session, that she take advantage of the opportunity provided by the throne speech to withdraw her bill for the following reasons:

Your reform has no justification. Statistics clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the way the law is being enforced in Quebec, based on the special needs of adolescents and individual treatment tailored to the specific characteristics of the adolescent and not to the nature and seriousness of the offence he or she has committed.

Statistics in Quebec demonstrate just how right my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was. As I have already said, Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in Canada. Yet in her bill the minister maintains her focus on seriousness of the offence and on repression, rather than reintegration. Why does she insist on this? What is she hiding, if not a desire to move to the right along with Reform, to the detriment of children?

This bill, if implemented as drafted, risks marking young people for life and turning them into hardened criminals rather than putting them back on the right road. The most intriguing element in this situation is the fact that the minister, in agreeing to what she calls a degree of flexibility, an opting out mechanism, shows that she has some doubt about her bill.

The minister claims there is flexibility, because provincial prosecutors will have, in each case, to decide whether or not they are opposed to the imposition of adult sentences on 14 year olds.

This same government, which intrudes all too often in areas of provincial jurisdiction in the name of a sacrosanct national standard, will allow, with this bill, differences in application that will be left up to provincial prosecutors.

In Quebec, a number of organizations belong to the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs. They believe the minister is making a serious mistake by making repression the focus of her bill. These organizations include the Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the École de criminologie of the University of Montreal, the Montreal community legal centre, 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 crown prosecutors' office, the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, the École de psychoéducation of the University of Montreal, the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, the child welfare league of Canada, the Canadian criminal justice association, the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec and the Société de criminologie du Québec.

This is quite a number of organizations that are close to adolescents and that think the minister is making a mistake.

There is another example that warrants considerable thought, although it is somewhat different. Last Thursday, in a riding next to mine, in the town of Valleyfield, the Association des groupes d'intervention en défense des droits en santé mentale du Québec was holding a conference on isolation and restraint, on surviving and eliminating them.

Interviewed in La Presse , Dr. Tomkiewicz, renowned world over for his work in juvenile delinquency said:

Isolation and restraint accomplish nothing. I cannot see how they are therapeutic. With adolescents, the first thing to do is to talk to them, listen to them, get to know them, in short, treat them like individuals with their own story, and a capacity for love. Since 1960, I have been reducing the aggressiveness of young people through creativity, art, theatre, film and photography, and it works.

And this took place just recently, last week, not far from my riding.

Members will agree that what he has to say bears no resemblance to the Liberal philosophy, a policy which I would describe as repressive.

Bill C-3 broadens the group of offenders who may be tried in adult court to include 14 and 15 year olds. It establishes a sentence of custody for young people at higher risk and repeat offenders in cases of violent offences.

The example I gave earlier is much more consistent with the enforcement of the legislation in Quebec and the vision of the Bloc Quebecois than the repressive philosophy of the Liberal party.

According to the newspaper article on the conference, several other guest speakers shared Dr. Tomkiewicz's views. Among them were Gilles Gendron, a professor at the University of Montreal, Daniel Michelin, of the Centre jeunesse in Montérégie, and Marc Bélanger, of the Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse.

I cannot understand why this government, which has been spending millions on consultations in various fields for the past year, supposedly to avoid making any mistakes, is now ignoring not only the recommendations of specialists, but the experience and excellent results obtained in Quebec.

Once again, we note that the problem with Canadian federalism lies more in its implementation than in its form. That is why I hope that the minister will take into account the views of and results obtained in Quebec and amend this much contested bill.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have figured out the order of debate.

There is probably no other subject that gets Canadians more animated than the subject of youth justice, and we are having another example of that today. There are days that the debate generates more heat than light, so in that context I would like to at least offer some statistical information with respect to charge rates.

In an international crime comparison, out of every 100,000 youth, Canada apparently charges about 7,900 with offences, and of that 7,900 it incarcerates 447. Interestingly enough, the United States for that same 100,000 youth only charges 5,000. Arguably, we have a much more charge based system than does the United States, that great bastion of law and order.

Interestingly, the custodial rate per 100,000 youth is 311 in the United States as opposed to 447 in Canada. Again, great ironies upon ironies. We think that we are the softer, gentler, sweeter nation, but we incarcerate youth at a greater rate than does the United States. By the way, those figures are exactly reversed when it comes to adult sentencing.

Hopefully that will go some way toward dispelling the myth that youth crime in this country is out of control, that we have a system that is soft, that mollycoddles these little children and that all they need is a good spanking and then they can be sent home. In fact, I would argue exactly the reverse. On statistics alone, we have a charge based system which probably needs to be examined. I think the entire system needs to be examined. I commend the minister for having the courage to put up this bill to create these issues.

The real fact of the matter is that youth based crime is on the decline. I know that may not be of great interest to editorial writers and writers of headlines, but it is true. Youth based crime is on the decline. It really has absolutely nothing to do with legislatures, parliaments and things of that nature. It is a demographic fact. We are simply producing fewer youth who will produce the crime. That is the good news.

The bad news is that there is another cohort on the way that will demographically and statistically start to produce more crime. These are virtual statistical facts. Again I commend the minister for at least, while we are having a downturn in the crime rate, dealing with this. We recognize that she has consulted widely and responded quite well, in my view, to the issues.

One of the problems that Canadians see with this issue is that we are soft on crime. If I had a dime for every time that phrase was repeated I would probably be able to retire and give up the apparently golden pension to which I am entitled, if I last for another election.

I direct members' attention to clause 6 of the bill, the presumptive offences. I make two notes with respect to the presumptive offences. The first five offences are first degree murder, second degree murder, the attempt to commit murder, manslaughter and aggregated sexual assault. The big change here is that instead of having these youth tried in adult court, where the lawyers get to argue whether they should be put up to adult court, the crown will now simply say “Your Honour, I am electing and my election at this point is that I am seeking an adult sentence for this person”. At the beginning of the trial that issue will be put to bed and the crown, the defence and the judge will get on with the trial and decide at the end of the trial if the conviction entitles this individual to an adult sentence.

The other interesting point is the sixth offence. This is not an offence to which adults are subject. I am sure it will create some interest and controversy at committee. It is called the serious violent offence. One can get an adult sentence for being convicted of a serious violent offence which may not be one of the first five offences.

A serious violent offence for which an adult could be sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years, which is committed by a young person, after clause 41 comes into force, for the person who committed the offence, at least two judicial determinations will be made under subclause 41(8), at different proceedings, that the young person had committed a serious violent offence. In other words, this is a bit of “open the door and put the kid away” because this person would be convicted at two separate judicial determinations as a youth who is, if I may use the vernacular, out of control.

I think the minister has responded in as effective a fashion as one could reasonably hope for in the context of our charter of rights and freedoms. It is a creative response to concerns of many Canadians that we are pretty soft on youth.

Fortunately the minister has not left it there. She has outlined the sentencing principles and purposes. The criminal code contains sentencing guidelines, allowing parliament to speak to sentencing judges, indicating the type of thinking that we want judges to apply to individuals convicted of particular offences. That kind of pattern is copied in clause 37 with a unique direction to the judges themselves. They are reminded that they are dealing with youth.

The purpose of sentencing under clause 41 is to contribute to the protection of society by holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

There are four principles of sentencing articulated by parliament to sentencing judges: the protection of society, accountability, meaningful consequences, and the promotion of the individual's rehabilitation into society. That in turn will lead to different sentences from time to time which may be different than one would get as an adult.

The other area in which parliament is giving instruction to the judges in this matter is under clause 3. What the judges are being asked to consider, which is separate from other sentencing principles that they may apply to this particular instance, is what was the degree of participation of the young person in the commission of the offence. What was the harm done to the victims.

Members will note that we have made considerable efforts with the victims rights bill to include victims in the process so they have a meaningful role to play. This includes any reparation made by the young person to the victim or to the community, the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence, and previous findings of guilt. I address members to the clause which concerns serious violent offences. It also includes any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person and the offence which are relevant to the purpose and principles of this clause. These are the guidelines and principles which parliament is giving to the judiciary.

I look forward to this bill arriving in committee. I look forward to the examination of clause 6, as to whether it is appropriate. I look forward to the examination of clause 37, as to whether it is appropriate, and whether all of the principles have been covered.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I watched with interest during the spring of 1999 as Bill C-68 began to unfold in the House and speaker after speaker dealt with it at great length. I can tell the House that much of the debate at that time made me angry. I spent a lot of time listening to this debate and I was very upset about what I was hearing from many of the different parties. Frankly, I did not like either the tone or the content of much of the debate.

I can now say that anger has been replaced with an overwhelming sense of sadness. I do not know which is better. I feel in a very profound way that we would not be having the kind of debate we are having today if we had a better grasp and a better comprehension of what we really need to do in the area of the criminal justice system as it relates to young people.

I am not a lawyer and I will be making my remarks in a less technical way than some speakers. I am speaking more as a parent and as an inner city resident of a large Canadian city where this is an issue of great interest because we have problems with youth gangs, street gangs, issues of vandalism and violence. I get many calls to my office regarding safe streets and the problems of the youth justice system.

I would like to remind members of the House that ultimately this is a bill about children. We have to somehow keep that as our primary focus in all of the remarks we make. That should really set the tone for much of this debate. We have to keep in our minds that we are dealing with kids.

When I see provisions in Bill C-3 which contemplate 25 year sentences for children as young as 14, I am very concerned. It makes me think that the members of this House who are advocating this have given up on the idea of rehabilitation and that incarceration of young offenders is dealing more with retribution than with any hope of rehabilitation. I remind people that the concept of an eye for an eye keeps going until the whole community is blinded.

I would also like to remind the House that it is only within this century that we have even recognized the sanctity of childhood in civil society. I am making reference to the fact that it was only in this century that we even banned child labour.

Up until the early years of this century children went into the mines with a fuse between their teeth because they were small enough to crawl between the crevices and the cracks. We saw no problem with exploiting children in that way. They were simply little people. Thankfully, we have gone past that. We won those debates and those arguments, at least in this country. Although, I would point out that it does not seem to bother Canadians much in other countries. The Canadian government has yet to sign ILO convention 138, which deals with banning child labour, and it has yet to sign ILO convention 87, which deals with the worst forms of exploitative child labour. We would like to see some movement in that regard, if we are serious about the sanctity of childhood, not just for our own privileged kids, but for kids all around the world.

It remains for Bill C-3 to try to do something to answer the question of how we treat children who run afoul of the Canadian justice system. I have heard many ideas in the House. We all know the bizarre spectre of one well known member who wanted to go to Singapore to study how to beat children more effectively, or what size rod we should use to whack kids with.

This debate has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. It has gone through the whole range, the whole spectrum, in an attempt to criminalize children and deal with kids who run afoul of the criminal justice system as criminals. That will have predictable consequences. We will be the architects of our own issues when we treat children in that way.

New Democrats are tough on crime, contrary to popular opinion. We are also tough on the causes of crime. That is where we prefer to spend our energies. That is where we believe we get the best value for our invested dollar, dealing with the root causes of crime. We all know that the jury is in on the issue that chronic long term poverty is one of the key factors in the rising level of crime in our communities.

Why we continue to tolerate chronic long term poverty in the richest and most powerful civilization in the world is beyond me. Child poverty is a national embarrassment. Even the government is starting to get the message. It has had 10 years in this House of Commons. I am very proud that in 1989 it was the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Ed Broadbent, who moved the motion to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000 and it was adopted unanimously. It is very rare to see unanimous endorsation for a private member's motion in the House of Commons but in 1989 people felt compelled and they felt strongly enough about the issue that it was a unanimous vote.

In 1989, 14% of Canadian children were living in poverty. By the same measurement in 1999, 10 years later, and within months of the year 2000 which was to be the deadline, the national rate of child poverty is 27%. Instead of eradicating child poverty and all its predictable consequences, we have seen it virtually double. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, an inner city riding in the city of Winnipeg, the neighbourhood of Point Douglas is a provincial boundary and the rate of child poverty there is 57.7%, almost 60%.

Until we address the fundamental root causes of crime which I argue is poor kids living in poor families, poverty, we are not going to be able to design any legislation that is going to truly meet our needs.

I recognize that Bill C-3 has many qualities to it. Many of these points were reached by consultation with the community and activists in the field.

I have already drawn attention to one clause which I have serious reservations about. A child as young as 14 years old could receive a 25 year sentence for first degree murder instead of the current maximum of 10 years for young offenders sentenced in youth court. I find that offensive and I have a great deal of difficulty with it.

There is an interesting clause which I noticed. Parents or guardians could face a jail sentence in serious cases of up to two years if they fail to supervise their children who are released from custody. This is an increase from the current maximum penalty of six months in jail or a $2,000 fine. Normally when a child is charged with a crime under the current Young Offenders Act a parent or guardian signs an agreement with the court to supervise the child and to enforce certain conditions until the charges are heard.

There are other changes recommended under Bill C-3. The justice system will begin tracking young offenders for years after they have been released from jail and force them to take part in a probation type initiative that will consist of a period of tight supervision and extensive halfway programs. The current practice allows young offenders to walk away with no strings attached or probationary restrictions. Clearly Canadians have spoken that they want that tightened up. That provision is in Bill C-3 and it may give some satisfaction in that regard.

The proposed legislation needs to be a balancing act focusing on getting tough with violent repeat offenders and shifting more emphasis toward community based programs for youth and families. The bill is really a reworking of the Young Offenders Act without significantly changing it in a meaningful manner and will likely fail to substantially change the current system of youth justice or alleviate the public's legitimate concerns about youth crime. The NDP has some serious reservations and concerns and I will outline some of them.

We have concerns that new provisions for the publication of the names of offenders will be more readily available. They can release names of young offenders. Those provisions already exist and we do not believe that needs to be expanded in any way.

The life sentence of 25 years I have already dealt with. It really abandons the concept of rehabilitation if we are sentencing a 14 year old child to 25 years in prison. This is retribution. This is revenge. This is not rehabilitation.

On increasing penalties for parents and guardians, again I think this is something which most Canadians have strong feelings about. It puts an undue burden on the very low income families where much of the youth crime and violence actually occurs. Because of the connection which I have already pointed out of poverty being the main cause of crime and poor kids living in poor families, it is going to probably be a low income family that is being given this increased penalty. That kind of punitive measure on a single parent family for instance victimizes the family that much further and drives them deeper into poverty.

The bill will place a substantially increased financial and administrative burden on the provinces. We believe a great deal of what is in Bill C-3 increases the workload of the provinces to a very large degree without any compensation or corresponding funding.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I am out of time. How time does fly.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the present Young Offenders Act, here is what the Coalition québecoise pour la justice des mineurs, the membership of which has already been listed by my colleague, had to say:

Before doing away with 16 years of practice, adjustments and precedent to go in a direction that breaks with almost a century of tradition, parliamentarians must ask whether this is a worthwhile effort. Will they have the courage to defend a piece of legislation that is unanimously supported by those who know and use it, or will they give in to the lobbyists, who are experts in using disinformation to advance a program that is as petty as it is reductive?

Let us summarize the present situation. First of all, Bill C-68 was introduced in first reading by the Minister of Justice on March 11, 1999. It was an outcome of the youth justice system renewal strategy announced in May 1998. Bill C-68 died on the order paper when the House was prorogued.

After the Speech from the Throne, Bill C-3 was introduced on October 14. Aside from a few changes in form, all aspects of Bill C-3 are identical to Bill C-68. The Bloc Quebecois and all stakeholders in Quebec are opposed to this reform, deeming it pointless and even dangerous, as far as its anticipated effects on the reduction of crime in the long term are concerned.

In Quebec, reform of the Young Offenders Act is quite simply not going over well. Bill C-3, like Bill C-68 before it, is denounced by all those who are in the front lines in the battle against youth crime, in other words those most familiar with it: criminologists, social workers, and police and legal authorities.

What we are interested in is not a repressive approach but rather the expertise acquired in Quebec in implementing the Young Offenders Act, which has proven itself.

It is not only Quebec that is opposed to this bill, however. More and more voices are being heard throughout Canada expressing opposition to the simplistic policies of this government in the field of justice. They include those of the Canadian criminal justice association and the child welfare league of Canada, which joined with that of the Quebec coalition in calling on the minister to withdraw her bill.

The Young Offenders Act allowed Canada to substantially reduce its juvenile crime rate. Since 1991, the rate of juvenile crime has dropped by 23%. This same law enabled Quebec to have Canada's lowest juvenile crime rate.

What fate has the Liberal government in store for such an effective law? The wastebasket. Bill C-3 does not merely amend the Young Offenders Act, it repeals it. This means that the basic principles of the Young Offenders Act, which include “respect for the special needs of adolescents”, will be replaced by new principles foreign to the peculiarities of juvenile crime.

The legislator's silence will make it clear that taking the special needs of adolescents into account is no longer the primary rule in juvenile justice. In fact, the new principles are focused more on making young people responsible for their actions.

When one reads these passages and sees the effectiveness of the present Young Offenders Act, one wonders whether the members have ever lived with young people. One wonders how well they know them.

I have heard some pretty incredible things today. Can we talk about a hardened criminal in the case of a 12 year old? That is what I heard in the House. Let us stop citing sordid examples, which are generally the exception, when what we need to be doing is coming to the assistance of these young children.

The topic of adolescents—because the bill talks about adolescents—should not provoke hysteria. This House must learn to speak about these children with love. The rehabilitative approach we have adopted in Quebec forces caregivers to assess children, to get to know them and to provide encouragement, because a 14 year old should not go to jail, he should not be sent where he will learn all about crime.

When one has a family—particularly a large one, which broadens one's expertise—one sees that no one child reacts the same way to a given situation. How can we apply a rigid law to these adolescents when, in real life, we know how these young people, who have a soul and creativity, react? They can be saved with rehabilitation programs adapted to their reality.

I heard the member for Mississauga West say that a child's basic values are instilled by the age of seven. It is certainly odd that we can talk about rehabilitating adults, but not about rehabilitating young people. If a child is fully shaped by the time he is seven, then there is nothing we can do here. Adolescence, these days, is longer than before, into the twenties according to some studies. Parents of grown children are aware of this.

What can be said about the 14- to 16-year olds? Why revise the criminal justice system for adolescents when we have legislation in hand that has proven itself over the past 10 years and has reduced the crime rate considerably?

I would like to quote from the report of a Quebec task force, the Jasmin Report:

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. Doing so, however, loses sight of the fact that adolescents are still developing, and lays all of the blame for their delinquency on them, as if society and the environment they live in had nothing to do with it.

In the bill, there are two aspects that catch my attention particularly, and to which I object. First, there is the more repressive sentences, where the group liable to the same sentences as an adult would be is extended to 14- and 15-year olds. Second, there is the establishment of a sentence of committal to custody for young people at highest risk and repeat offenders in the case of violent crime.

Our society will gain nothing from having young people harden in prison, at crime school. Sooner or later, they will have to return to the community. Our collective security is directly related to the success of the rehabilitation of young offenders, and abusive incarceration could undermine their chances of success.

In conclusion, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois strongly opposes Bill C-3 and that it can happily live with the Young Offenders Act as it stands, since we apply it in Quebec. In order that her bill may truly be flexible, I would like the Minister of Justice to permit Quebec to be excluded from the application of the new legislation and to continue to apply the present legislation.

For Bill C-3 to be truly flexible, it should simply contain the following provision: “This legislation shall apply to all provinces, except Quebec. In the latter case, the provisions of the Young Offenders Act shall continue to apply”.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House regarding Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

I find myself at somewhat of a loss this afternoon due to two events that have just recently occurred in Toronto. The first case is the senseless beating death of 15 year old Dmitri Baranovski. His assailants are still at large. His parents are facing their worst nightmare. They had to bury their own child.

At the memorial to celebrate his life, Rabbi Zaltzman encouraged everyone there to chase away the darkness of the violence of Dmitri's death. He urged government to strengthen laws against violence.

In the second case, police in Toronto found a 14 year old girl bruised and bleeding with cigarette burns down her back after enduring two hours of torture from four older teenage girls. As the press reported this morning, she said “All this needs to stop. If it was my world—I know that sounds childish—but seriously, if it was my world, nothing like this would go on”.

I do not think that sounds childish at all. I would like the House to be able to tell her that we will make it stop, that nothing like what happened to her will happen to another.

The impact of cases like these means that we, as elected members, must examine the difficult issues surrounding our youth and use our elected office as instruments to chase away the darkness of violence.

Canadians expect communities, where they live, work and raise their families, to be safe, secure and healthy. They reflect who we are. They also make us who we are. We want all Canadians, especially our youth, to participate fully in our society.

We are committed to working with partners to reform the youth justice system and so the bill focuses on prevention, meaningful consequences, rehabilitation and reintegration.

My constituents in Oak Ridges have been quite clear. They are very concerned about youth who violently break the law or repeatedly break the law. At the same time, they want a system that promotes accountability, respect, responsibility and fairness.

We all know that there is a consequence for every action that we take, and my constituents want that to be made very clear to young people before they think abut breaking a law. That means that we have to talk about prevention, about addressing the root causes of crime and encouraging community efforts to reduce crime. Let us reduce crime by eliminating it before it even begins.

As a former educator, I found that if I had to deal with a disciplinary situation with one of my students, the best approach was one of respect and dignity. Yes, that is a far distance from violent crime, but the principle of respect remains the same.

Our young people must know and understand that there are consequences to a crime they might commit and that they will be held accountable. A key principle of the bill is on sentencing. The sentence that a youth receives should be proportional to the seriousness of the offence.

For example, provisions in the new legislation will allow an adult sentence for a youth 14 years old or more who is convicted of an offence punishable by more than two years in jail.

It will also establish a more efficient process that gives the courts the power to impose adult sentences on conviction when certain criteria are met. This would result in a system that respects the due process rights of the accused, places less of a burden on victims and families and would give any court hearing a case involving a youth the tools it needs to deal appropriately with the case.

It will expand the offences for which a youth who is convicted of an offence is expected to be given an adult sentence to include a pattern of convictions for serious, violent offences.

It will extend the group of offenders who are presumed to receive an adult sentence to include 14 and 15 year olds. It will permit victim impact statements to be introduced in youth court.

I believe these provisions speak to what Rabbi Zaltzman said about strengthening laws against violence.

When youth commit crimes, it is important that there are programs and treatment available to prevent them from reoffending. Bill C-3 also includes these elements of rehabilitation and reintegration.

It is important to remember that, yes, young people must be held accountable for their crimes, but they are also more likely than adult offenders to be rehabilitated and become law-abiding citizens.

The bill would require all periods of custody to be followed by an intensive period of supervision in the community that is equal to half the period of custody. This would allow authorities to closely monitor the young person and ensure that he or she receives the help necessary to return safely and successfully to their community.

It would also require conditions to be imposed on periods of supervision. This could be targeted to the youth's particular circumstances, such as attending school, finding employment or obeying a curfew. It could also include abstaining from alcohol or drugs, attending treatment or counselling and not associating with gang members.

These are the types of measures that my constituents have told me that they want.

We will work with our partners: the provinces, municipal governments, law enforcement agencies, the courts, social service officials, educators, parents and so many others.

This is a reasonable and considered approach. It includes alternatives to the justice system for non-violent offences and has built-in flexibility that the provinces have said that they want.

I urge members of the House to use their elected offices wisely and to support the motion of the Minister of Justice, the member for Edmonton West, that the bill be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. By doing so, they will be acting as instruments of light against the sorts of youth violence that I mentioned earlier, and they will be making it clear to 14 year old teenagers that we want to make sure nothing like this will go on again. If we do that I believe we will have advanced the cause.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my second opportunity to engage in this debate. Before the House prorogued last spring, I had the opportunity to speak on the bill.

I thank the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, our justice critic, for helping me through the complexities of the bill. Being our justice critic, he has really examined this from one end to the other. He has spent a lot of time on the bill and obviously in committee as well.

After having stepped through the bill, after having read various articles from across the country and after having heard some expert testimony, my feeling is that there is a great disappointment in the bill. It is nothing more than a tinkering with the old bill, the Young Offenders Act. The government has basically taken the old bill and added to it. I will get into some of the areas where I think there has been improvement, but there is nothing more than tinkering.

In one of the earlier speeches I gave on the bill, I referred to York Regional Police Chief Julian Fantino. I know my colleague from Ontario would know the man. He is highly respected in his field.

I quote him where he said:

Many police officers and citizens right across Ontario, are frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems primarily concerned with the rights of offenders...It's disappointing that the federal government won't take the opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime.

That does not mean that we have to be tougher in terms of punishment, but I think we have to be tougher in terms of how we deal with it in the programs we offer to help some of these young offenders.

The youth criminal justice bill has provided high expectations for us but with very poor results. One of the difficulties with it is identifying and differentiating between violent and non-violent offenders. It should be putting emphasis on prevention and treatment, which it does not. It also does not provide the resources to our provinces.

What we basically have is the federal government setting the rules for the provinces. We have seen this in so many other pieces of legislation. It sets the rules but does not provide the funding.

Witness the Canada Health Act, Mr. Speaker. In your home province of Alberta today there is a raging debate on what the premier of Alberta wants to do in terms of health care and the delivery of health care services. It is being criticized in Ottawa by the health minister, a member of the very government that has gutted health care in the country.

The result is that provinces now have to go to extraordinary measures to make up for the lack of funding in health care. What we have now is the health care minister criticizing the premier of Alberta for what we might call radical surgery. I am not sure if it is that radical, but he is certainly entertaining doing something we have not seen done before. The point I am making, which reflects directly on the bill, is that the government sets the rules but does not want to provide the funding. At the end of the day, what kind of change will it initiate? I think it will be minimal at best.

One of the things we have heard in the House is that we should lower the age of the young offender. That has not been meaningfully addressed in the bill. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that some of these younger people have to be tried in adult court because we are talking about violent, and in some cases, very violent crimes.

The province of Quebec is probably the best model for the rest of Canada to follow in terms of how it addresses young offenders. The province of Quebec has a lower rate of youth crime than any other province in the country. It is willing to put money where its mouth is and that has delivered some very credible results for that province. We cannot expect all the provinces to be able to do that.

As I mentioned, there is a great disparity within the country in the delivery of health care. We regrettably have poorer provinces. Thankfully, we have provinces that are doing very well and those provinces that are doing well can deliver the services much more effectively than the poorer provinces.

As in health care, we have that same disparity across the country and a lack of support from the federal government to make the youth justice system work. The provisions within the bill end up providing the provinces with less than 50% of the administration cost of implementing the youth justice system. In some cases it goes down to about 35% funding by the federal government, so it is placing a real burden on the provinces.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough made some very interesting comments and I think it is worth quoting some of them. On March 11 he expressed his reaction to Bill C-3. First, he questioned the effectiveness of the new act tabled in the House and said it could be more forceful but was not. He accused the federal government of employing smoke and mirrors in the hopes of giving the appearance of strengthened legislation. He questioned whether Bill C-3 responded adequately to Canada-wide pressures to be tougher on young criminals.

At the same time he said he was disappointed that the federal government did nothing to lower the age of accountability to 10 years from 12. I mentioned that was proposed by our party during the 1997 election. In February 1998 the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-313, amending the Young Offenders Act in this respect.

According to the member, the PC Party had been calling on the federal government to lower the age of accountability to 10 years of age. When a growing number of crimes are being committed by children as young as 10 years of age, there must be a mechanism to bring young persons into the system at the earliest point.

There is no question that this bill will put more pressure on police officers. It will mean more dialogue among police officers, children's aid societies and their parents. It will take officers off the street.

We know consultation has to take place which in itself is good, but at the end of the day it means that more officers will be involved in the dialogue between children's aid societies and parents, which means that fewer officers will be on the street to enforce the act we talking about today. That goes back to the question of funding by the federal government. Again it writes the rules but does not want to provide any funding.

In conclusion, the government must start to listen to debate in the House and not simply throw something up with the traditional smoke screens and mirrors as it is accustomed to doing.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3 respecting Canada's youth criminal justice act. I am pleased the bill has finally arrived before the House of Commons. I just hope the Liberal government and in particular the justice minister are open to listening to what members of the House and the justice committee have to say about the bill.

I acknowledge that there are some positive aspects to the bill. I agree with the comment that we should approach youth justice with a balanced approach. Each situation will have similar but different aspects that must be dealt with case by case. Not every crime should have the same punishment, but every crime should be punished and society should feel that the offender has been dealt with in a way that brings justice and the chance to change.

Today's youth must be held accountable for their actions. Surely they should understand why they must feel remorse and have a desire to right their wrong wherever possible. I support the premise of diversion or what the minister has called extrajudicial measures. My colleagues from Crowfoot and Surrey North have done a great deal of work in this area. They have seen diversion work firsthand and believe in it. I have also had constituents write to me with their support of this means of justice. I believe there is merit in this type of justice program and would support its implementation.

The act of being confronted by those who have been wronged should bring young offenders face to face with the consequences of their actions. Criminals of all ages, especially youth, need to know that when they steal, vandalize or commit some other vicious act, they are affecting someone else's life. Someone had to save to buy the television, the car or the house.

To wantonly commit a criminal act without realizing the impact on victims and their families is not right. Youth who commit criminal acts must understand what they have done to someone else's life, how they have violated the person's rights, and the measure of stress and distress they have wrought for their victim and their victim's family.

Unfortunately I have many more concerns for the bill than I do accolades. While we all acknowledge that the old Young Offenders Act had its flaws, I do not really see how the replacement bill truly corrects the many flaws many Canadians have pointed out across the country.

We hear and read about extreme violence in many cases involving youth crime today. We certainly do not have to look at our friends south of the border, either. We have our share of high school violence and riots, youth shootings and beatings, drive-by shootings, car jackings, hate crimes, as well as intimidation, shoplifting, and break and enters. The list continues ad nauseam.

It is only a short drive from my home to Victoria where Renna Virk was savagely beaten and left to drown. This past week we were all shocked to hear of the swarming of a Toronto youth, a 15 year old lad, allegedly over a cigarette, and now he is dead. What a sad commentary on the state of our nation and some of its youth that there is even a climate anywhere in the country for that to occur.

For the past number of years Canadians have become more and more appalled at our justice system and particularly at young offenders, or what the bill calls youth justice. Even young people themselves look at the Young Offenders Act with disdain.

Let us take the problem with age discrimination, for instance. Young people know they can basically get away with anything, including murder, until they turn 18. This is absolutely wrong. This makes our youth justice system a sham.

Those aged 16 and 17 need to be treated as adults. These young people ask for the opportunity to drive, to get a good paying job and participate in the adult world. With these rights and privileges must come the acceptance of not some but all adult responsibilities that go with them.

I am also concerned that 10 and 11 year olds will still not be held responsible for their criminal actions in the bill. We do not want to have 10 year old children in jail, but we do want to ensure that children of this age receive the help they need. For the Minister of Justice to infer otherwise is ridiculous and certainly not worthy of further comment by this member.

Leaving children of this age strictly to the child welfare system is not a reasonable approach for either the child or the welfare system. Violent youths require more than a child welfare system can offer them. Putting these youth into the current welfare system takes badly stretched resources and thins them ever further.

There is a need to ensure that these children are rehabilitated prior to developing any further or more serious criminal habits. By offering younger children a rehabilitative process that teaches respect and discipline and reinforces positive learning skills, the end result will be a person who contributes to society rather than takes from it. The cost to rehabilitate today is much lower than the cost of incarceration tomorrow.

The next concern I have is for the other end of the juvenile age group. Those youth 14 and 15 who commit a serious offence should be moved into an adult court. They need to realize the enormity of their actions. They need to take responsibility. They need to understand that there are consequences. This is a part of the learning and maturing process. As they grow and take on greater tasks, they must also accept the greater responsibilities that go with them.

Unfortunately our society has degenerated in many aspects. One cornerstone is the family. One aspect of the bill I am somewhat pleased to see is the movement toward the recognition of the rights of victims. I believe that the bill and our justice system as a whole could move a lot further in this recognition.

To this end I encourage members of the House to review the victims rights bill drafted by the member for Langley—Abbotsford. He has worked on the issue passionately for years, and this is one rights bill that deserves our attention.

Obviously we cannot talk about youth without recognizing the impact on the family. Our society has been sliding away from strong family values for some time. I believe some of our youth crime problems are directly related to the breakdown of the family unit.

I am therefore encouraged that the bill sets out the compulsory attendance of parents at court if the judge considers their presence to be in the best interest of the youth. People are busy and oftentimes a wake up call is needed in order to reorganize and reset their personal priorities.

I am further encouraged that there are possible consequences for the parents who fail in their obligation to court directives with regard to the supervision of their children. Wilful disregard by parents of court orders puts others at further risk from their children's actions and sets a poor example for their children to follow.

The Liberal government must accept its share of the responsibility for the breakdown of the family unit. High taxation has driven many families to the brink of financial destruction. When mom and dad are struggling to survive it does not take much for the cracks to appear: financial cracks, emotional cracks, cracks in all levels of our temperament and patience. Before long these cracks widen and people, our children, begin to fall through them.

The bill will obviously not resolve all the problems. Nor is it intended to. The bill should be one more piece of the building block to strengthen and support families in society, but I do not believe it will do much to accomplish this goal.

There has been some minor tinkering with the Young Offenders Act in order to arrive at the youth criminal justice act. The Young Offenders Act needs a major overhaul. The justice minister has long promised a comprehensive bill to address the needs expressed by all Canadians from coast to coast. I believe Canadians are disappointed with the timid actions to date, and in this bill those actions continue. The interest of Canadians has not been fully addressed.

Unfortunately at this point I will not be able to give my support to the bill, but I hope in committee the government listens to the suggestions and recommendations of people and in the end we might be able to support it as a whole.

Diabetes

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in order to raise awareness of diabetes November has been designated international diabetes month.

Diabetes is a chronic disease that impairs the body's ability to use food properly and can lead to an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness and kidney disease.

The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation is dedicated to finding a cure for diabetes and improving the lives of people with the disease. This year alone the foundation will award more than $100 million worldwide and $5 million in Canada to research.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating the many volunteers and staff at the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.

World Trade Organization

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure to participate in round table discussions with a number of Canadian businesses, ranging from agricultural consulting to telecommunications, dedicated to making a difference in the developing world.

As Canada prepares for the new round of WTO negotiations we must remember that Canada has prospered greatly from a rules based trading system. However, we cannot fail to include developing countries in the economic and social benefits offered by international trade.

The Canadian private sector, in co-operation with private sector companies in the developing world, can play a vital role in the new millennium in alleviating poverty by inspiring hope, hope where people can dream of a future for themselves and their children because of jobs and new opportunities. These are the benefits of international trade.

We look to Seattle and the WTO as a mechanism to increase prosperity for all people of the world, not just a few.

Latvia

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the first member of parliament of Latvian heritage it is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the people of Latvia and all Latvian Canadians on the 81st anniversary of Latvia's declaration of independence.

Latvia has surmounted many challenges since November 18, 1918, but the Latvian people have retained their national identity and distinct culture despite years of foreign occupation. Their example shows how a small country can retain its sovereignty through an undaunting desire for freedom combined with the strength to endure even when occupied by another power. Independance was regained on August 21, 1991.

Last November I led the first Baltic express trade mission to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The trade mission was very successful, but more important, it demonstrated our commitment to boosting trade and investment between Canada and the Baltic region.

As Latvia celebrates the proclamation of independence 81 years ago, it has good reason to look forward with hope that the next century will bring a better life to its people.