Debates of Nov. 18th, 1999

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is a motion on the floor and a point of order is not receivable at this time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 54

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from October 21 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.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That when debate on second reading of Bill C-3 ends later this day all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred until the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, November 23, 1999.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. whip of the government have the consent of the House to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the will of the House to accept the motion as presented by the chief government whip?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue my speech on Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

As I said before the House broke on this issue, the government likes to do a lot of talking. The Minister of Justice has talked about the youth criminal justice act for a number of years. She has used the phrase “in a timely fashion” and has done some tinkering with the youth criminal justice act, but has not made the substantive changes that are necessary to make it an effective piece of legislation to accomplish the task that it is being designed to accomplish.

Last week I talked about an initiative within my own riding being implemented and carried out by an individual named Lola Chapman, her youth diversion program, which is an excellent program that works very well because it involves members of the community. It sets the structure in place to involve young people, who are first time offenders of non-violent crimes, to have the option to appear before the youth justice committee in order to have a different process than the one that is currently in place.

We know now that if a young person is charged with a crime it can take up to a year or even more than that before the case even gets to court. The young person is in limbo for that period of time. The issue is not resolved and it is not dealt with.

This youth diversion program, which is an excellent program, happens within a matter of weeks and sometimes within a matter of days of the offence occurring. It brings the offender together with the parties against whom they have committed this act, along with community leaders, to come to a resolution of this incident, providing some consequences for the individual.

There is also some follow up with some community service work. A person works with the young person, almost in a big brother or big sister capacity to help that young person along the way and make sure they do not get into further trouble. It is a very excellent program. It is something that the government should consider.

I tried to present the report from this very excellent program happening in my riding of Maple Ridge to the House and table it here so that all members could be aware of this excellent program and take it back to their own communities and talk to individuals.

As a community leader within each riding, the MP has a sphere of influence and is able to talk to community leaders, mayors, council members, chiefs of police and all sorts of people to continue this kind of initiative. It is a shame, but that consent was denied by the government. It was a good, positive, proactive solution to the whole issue of youth justice.

We again see that the government's overall theme seems to be “We'll just say what we need to say in order to get the headlines and to create a perception that we are working on this area”, without putting the meat and bones behind it to actually take the action necessary to fix the problem. We see that with the youth justice act as well. That is the government's approach.

We also see that it has called time allocation once again on this piece of legislation. The government went ahead and did this rather than listening to ideas being suggested by other members or by taking a good report that was from within my community and having it available for all members to read. Instead, its response is to call time allocation. That approach is simply wrong.

The people of the country are waking up to the fact that the government has the wrong approach. While it is attempting to fix the youth justice system, this bill falls far flat in the area of addressing the serious issues and concerns.

One thing we have a major concern with is the issue of younger people under the age of 12 being helped and dealt with if they are running afoul of the law. Under the current act and the proposed act there are no provisions to help young people under the age of 12 who are led astray and become involved in criminal activity.

The government's response is to say that others want to just throw young people in jail. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to help these people at a younger age before they start on the path of getting involved in more serious offences. Under the current law there is no way to do that. This government has not addressed that. Government members stand in their place and make scurrilous comments to those individuals who suggest these proposals.

The member for Crowfoot, who is a long-standing member of the justice committee, has made many good proposals over the years in this place on this issue. Being a former RCMP officer, he knows that dealing with people at a young age would help to divert them from getting involved in more serious offences. Yet the justice minister and the government refuse to listen to those ideas and those suggestions. That is wrong. It puts individuals at the young age of 10 and 11 in a position of being possibly recruited by older kids to get involved in criminal acts because there is nothing that can be done to those younger individuals. Older teens, in some cases, are exploiting younger children to get involved in criminal activities knowing that these younger individuals cannot be touched by the law. That is wrong.

The Minister of Justice knows it but she does nothing about it. Instead, she and the spin doctors of the Liberal government try to create this perception that others who would suggest this idea are wrong when, in fact, police officers and people working with young people are saying that we need a way to help these younger individuals.

I know RCMP officers in my riding who say they know who these younger individuals of 10 and 11 are and that they are just waiting till they turn 12 so that they can hold them responsible for their actions. We know it is a small percentage of individuals, but a small group of people can cause a lot of damage and harm if there is no system in place to deal with them and help them so they do not get involved in these activities.

Without taking the necessary steps to make those changes through amendment to this bill, the government is missing a golden opportunity to solve a serious problem. It can say what it wants, create the spin and send the people out to carry the message that it is doing something about youth justice, but the reality is that there are so many weaknesses within the bill that the actions that will result will still lead to some serious problems. The government has the golden opportunity with this bill now before the House to make the necessary changes needed to help solve the problem. Instead, what did this government do? It brought in time allocation and ignored suggestions by others to fix this bill.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

That is not true.

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

The member for Mississauga West says it is not true. I would like to hear his suggestions about dealing with young people who are 10 and 11 and who get involved in some serious offences when the law excludes them from being dealt with, even through a diversion program which is working well within my community. I do not know if a diversion program exists in his community, but this bill does not look at how to deal with younger people.

The government should allow younger people to be involved in a diversion program. As a first time offender that would certainly help them before they get involved in the cycle. Yet, that suggestion is falling on deaf ears on the other side.

We see the theme. Whether it is youth justice or any other issue, the government seems happy with the status quo. The government does a bit of tinkering to create the perception that it is doing something about an issue, when in fact, when we scratch under the surface and look at the brass tacks of how the legislation applies to people, the government does not change the problem substantively.

While the government will not make these changes, the Reform Party will continue to champion proactive, positive solutions and work in this place to form government. We will make the changes, because the Liberal government will not make the necessary changes to address the serious problems, whether they be in youth justice or in any other area. It is wrong that the government will not take this approach. The Reform Party will continue to positively, proactively put forward solutions, which the government ignores.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague what he thinks is the number one influential factor that would cause a 10 or 11 year old to commit a crime of either a violent or random nature? I know there are many factors, but which one would the member pick as being the greatest influence that would make children of that age commit a random crime? We have read in the newspapers recently about the 11 year old in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I know he is concerned about these issues within his own community. It is a difficult question.

There are a lot of different factors that would lead a young person of 10 or 11 years of age to get involved in committing a violent act. In my opinion, the number one factor would be the lack of love or the lack of support within the family unit. I think that would be the number one factor, but there are many others.

One thing that could be done would be to provide a support network to support the individual's family, proactively, so that it does not get to the point where a child of 10 or 11 years is committing a violent criminal act. We in this House can help by introducing legislation which supports family and community, and proactively looks at how to deal with individuals and how we can support that basic unit of our society, the family, before an individual gets to the point of committing a criminal act.

It is a good question. There are a lot of other factors, but that would be the primary one in my opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speeches, both today and previously when he spoke on this issue.

He went on at great length about the diversion program, which has been an excellent program within his community. He also made reference to youth justice committees. I would like to draw to the member's attention that this bill provides for a youth justice committee, as did the previous act, the Young Offenders Act. All of the beneficial aspects which he has brought out are already here.

Can the member respond to that? Has he not read the bill? Is he not aware of clause 18 of the bill? Is he not aware of the comparable section in the Young Offenders Act?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly I am aware of clause 18 of the bill. What I was referring to was the fact that 10 and 11 year olds are not able to participate in a diversion program.

I am also aware of the fact that the member is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. I am also aware of the fact that the member had his name on a letter that went to the Prime Minister asking him to consider using the notwithstanding clause to get rid of child pornography in my province of British Columbia. I know that he voted against that. He wrote a letter to support it and then he voted against it. He voted with his group to keep that precedent setting case in place. That is what I am aware of. I am aware of many things.

The people of Erie—Lincoln should know and be very aware that their member supported quashing an opposition motion that would have reversed the decision on child pornography. They need to know that. This government is the government that says one thing and does another. Obviously, this member is one who said one thing and did another. That is what I am aware of.