Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion M-508 moved by my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion reads as follows:
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.
First, the debate on this motion is rather timely because it gives us an opportunity to refer to a item in the budget brought down with such fanfare by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday.
In fact, this budget, which has already distinguished itself with its many new examples of federal interference in provincial health jurisdiction, earmarks $343 million over three years for crime prevention, as part of the reform the Minister of Justice is preparing to introduce, a reform which serves no purpose, in the opinion of justice stakeholders in Quebec.
Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that there is no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal Minister of Justice regarding the use of these funds.
The planned reform is repressive in nature and smacks of something the Reform Party would dream up. It will cost the provinces more, with the bill for Quebec alone forecast at $23 million.
It is important to note that, since 1984, the federal government has owed Quebec in the neighbourhood of $77 million for enforcing the Young Offenders Act. I will come back to these points a bit later.
As regards the Young Offenders Act, I must first point out, as our friends opposite acknowledged, that Quebec is an example for the rest of Canada. The present legislation effectively meets its objectives in Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest rate of juvenile crime in Canada.
I am pleased to report here the remarks made in 1995 by the Minister of Justice in the previous parliament. In his opinion, Quebec is an exception to the terms of application of the Young Offenders Act in that it focuses on the rehabilitation of young people outside the judicial system, an example the rest of Canada might follow.
At the time, the federal minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness in this regard. Despite this recognition, legislative amendments aimed at increasing judicial interventions with young people are, unfortunately, still in fashion.
While youth crime is decreasing more sharply in Quebec, I must also add that, although it continues to be a source of considerable concern, crime among young people is also on the decrease in the rest of Canada. In 1997, the rate of youth crime decreased by 7%, confirming the trend we have seen since 1991.
So, rather than rush into a reform that will mean a more repressive approach to crime among the youth, the minister should review the entire question of financial compensation to the provinces for the application of the existing law.
When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984, 15 years ago already, the federal government was assuming 50% of the costs associated with implementing judicial and alternative measures. The federal government gradually withdrew, something which is becoming a habit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding was down to 36%.
In addition to the federal government's withdrawal, its funding formula does not take into account the proportion of young Canadians who live in Quebec. While nearly 25% of Canada's young people between the ages of 12 and 17 live in Quebec, only 18.28% of the federal contribution in this respect goes to Quebec.
This has resulted in a $77.4 million shortfall for Quebec since 1989. The former justice minister and current health minister had promised to restore the balance.
Neither the former minister nor the current one ever delivered on this promise. The last federal budget can certainly raise doubts about this government's commitment to paying off its debts.
Quebec is still waiting for a concrete proposal from the minister for making up this shortfall, and chances are that we are going to wait a very long time.
As we know, Quebec is the province where the rehabilitation of young offenders is the most successful by far, and I might remind you that this success is achieved through less expensive and less cumbersome measures. What works in Quebec should work elsewhere.
Today's Motion M-508 provides us with an opportunity to criticize the new approach of the federal government, which clearly seems to have forgotten that the youth justice system must reflect the fact that youth are still in the process of developing and maturing.
Efforts must focus on what led up to the offence. The federal government's approach emphasizes the offence per se when, in our opinion, account must be taken of the youth's overall situation in terms of family, school and peers. In my opinion, Quebec's approach will pay off.
Not surprisingly, Quebec is unable to support the federal government's present approach. First of all, it does not put youth crime and adjustment problems in proper perspective. Another reason we are unable to support it is because it writes off the worst troublemakers, instead of trying to reintegrate them into society. We also reject it because it says that young people 14 and older—I heard my colleague mentioning her 13-year old son, who is only one year away from being 14—should receive adult sentences when they are involved in offences that, while they may be very serious, are not necessarily indicative of a high level of criminalization.
Another point is the unnecessary complexity of the legal procedure, which leaves the door wide open to preliminary sentencing by trial and jury. For all these reasons, it is an approach unlikely to help our youth prepare for a productive life that will benefit our society, and Quebec is unable to support it.
In closing, I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for having moved this motion.