Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 508 as presented by the member from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We appear to be united on this issue. Maybe there is some hope for my hon. colleague yet.
The motion says that, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
This motion is essentially calling for the federal government to fulfil its original commitment to maintain its 50% share of the costs of enforcing the Young Offenders Act.
It is my understanding that as little as a decade ago the federal government managed to keep up to the commitment of providing half the cost of this legislation. This was a promise made when the Young Offenders Act was brought into force in 1985. It is also my understanding that the federal government has been slowly chipping away at this commitment to the extent that it now provides something close to 30% of the bill.
I realize that in the recent budget the government appears to have committed itself to providing some $200 million in what it calls new funds toward youth justice. Let us remember, however, that in spite of months and months of promises we have not yet seen this government's new youth legislation and justice initiatives.
There is little doubt that there will be additional costs involved. There is little doubt the provinces will be required to commit additional funds toward the new legislation should it ever come into being. I anticipate that the newly committed funds will in no way approach the federal government's original commitment.
The failure of this government to maintain the 50:50 split no doubt came into discussion when the Minister of Justice was negotiating with provincial justice ministers over co-operation toward new youth justice initiatives. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice was threatened with complete provincial withdrawal from the funding of youth justice because of the continuing shortfall of funding on behalf of her government. She would certainly not want to have a recurrence of the Bill C-68 situation land in her lap where some of the provinces have withdrawn from firearms control financing and have left it up to the federal government to operate. Our provinces can only be pushed and downloaded on so far.
Speaking of being pushed too far, I will take a moment to mention this government's actions with conditional sentencing and its impact on the provinces. The federal government's bill became too high in the area of corrections. So what did it do? It brought in conditional sentencing to permit criminal offenders to serve their time at home. Now violent and even repeat offenders are able to escape from serving any time in our institutions. This freed up beds and kept the costs from escalating for our corrections systems, but it did not necessarily reduce the costs to the provinces that have to continue to monitor, police and enforce the conditions placed on offenders serving their time at home. Costs were downloaded to the provinces. I would think the provinces would want to make sure the federal government does not burn them in the same way with its new youth justice strategy.
I have been actively involved in youth justice issues for a number of years now. I have participated in various youth diversion programs. I have been actively involved with our crowns, our courts and our communities in my home province of British Columbia. There are significant demands for additional funding to properly operate a successful youth justice program. Indeed, virtually all aspects of the youth justice program are presently short of appropriate funding to properly do the job.
Youth diversion programs are by and large operating primarily on the good intentions of community volunteers. While these folks are extremely dedicated to the young people in their communities and do wonderful work, often a few dollars will do much to soothe many of their frustrations. It is difficult to have a young person repaint a neighbour's fence that has been covered by graffiti when there is not even enough money to buy the paint. It is difficult to arrange counselling sessions or group discussions when there is no money with which to rent a room. We cannot expect volunteers to continue to support programs from their own pockets indefinitely.
We are all aware of the shortfalls in funding for programs for young people placed under secure custody. They are often released back into the community with no education or treatment to modify their unacceptable and criminal actions. If society continues to show little interest in helping these young offenders they will have little interest in helping themselves. It all comes back to proper funding.
The statistics make it quite clear that young offenders often become adult offenders. If we spend effectively on our young offenders now, we will benefit in the long run because we should not have to investigate, charge, convict and sentence time and time again. If we properly treat the non-violent first time offender we will for the most part avoid escalation into more serious criminal activity.
The justice minister was recently quoted as complimenting Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta for their efforts in the use of community sentencing options instead of custody to sanction our troubled youth. All provinces should be encouraged to follow and expand on the present successful programs. To do so, however, additional funding will be necessary to set up and operate progressive options. How will the provinces be encouraged to do so unless the federal government makes significant moves toward fulfilling its end of the bargain?
As it has been said time and time again, it does little good for this government to talk the talk, it must walk the walk. It must re-establish its 50% commitment to youth justice and it must ensure it never again lets itself fail in its responsibility to our future generations.
I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for putting this motion before the House.