You wanted to incarcerate 11-year olds.
Clearly funds have to be used wisely in support of overall youth justice policy that will be reflected in the bill that the Minister of Justice is about to introduce. It would be unwise for the federal government to accept, for example, to reimburse the provinces for 50% of the current cost of custody when its stated policy is to ensure that incarceration is generally reserved for the most serious offenders. With 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services, the federal government would be left with no protection against further increases in the use and the cost of custody.
Moreover, this type of agreement would seriously restrict federal ability to actively promote the development of alternative programming or to support the ongoing operations of such programming where it already exists.
Certainly the federal government responsibility for the youth justice legislation implies a responsibility to see that its various components are properly implemented.
That is why on Tuesday of this week we were extremely pleased to find that almost $400 million has been allocated for fighting crime at home and abroad, with $206 million of that money being allocated to the new youth justice strategy of this government.
This funding will allow the government to move forward quickly, implementing a new approach of giving more money to the provinces.
We believe the federal funding should be used to achieve two broad purposes. First, it should be designed to support the implementation of the new federal legislation across the country. Second, it should be used to ensure that special attention is given to required services and programs that do not yet exist or are currently under funded.
We also have to ensure that federal funding is equitably allocated to the individual provinces and territories. Obviously and open ended 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services and programs would offer no particular support in the achievements of the above purposes. It could actually have a detrimental effect in encouraging an inconsistent partial implementation of the legislation across the country.
While the provinces are responsible for administering justice and can legitimately choose various means to enforce the law in a way that suits their individual priorities and specificity, the federal government must ensure that the law is applied in compliance with its principles.
As members will see when the new legislation is introduced, it will provide maximum flexibility to the provinces, so that they can administer the youth justice system in a way that is best for them individually.
I should point out that the provinces themselves made that request, during our consultations. We listened to them and we will follow up on their request.
Also, it is perfectly legitimate for the federal government to plan its funding so as to give priority to those general services and programs that are critical to achieving the main objectives of the law.
While it can be expected that some provinces may question specific aspects of the proposed legislation, it would be a mistake to underestimate the existing degree of support for the new approach it reflects. Similarly, where there might be some differences of views with certain provinces in terms of defining specific priorities for funding, it would be erroneous to think that this is a case where the federal government is imposing its views on the provinces.
Provincial views have contributed significantly to the shaping of the new legislation and will continue to be the key in the implementation of it. Past discussions and continuing discussions have also demonstrated there is considerable consensus on the need to promote more alternative ways of dealing with young offenders.
We should be able to build on the basis of a consensus that federal funding should first and foremost support the development and maintenance of programs that provide significant alternatives to the reliance on courts and incarceration. As for the provinces and territories, they will continue to be responsible for determining how these programs should be developed and implemented.
Financial arrangements will be part of what we hope will be over the next several years a flexible implementation phase of the youth justice renewal strategy, undertaken in close partnership with the provinces and territories as a reflection of our shared responsibilities and commitments to youth justice.