Debates of March 19th, 1999

Bank Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will interrupt in order to give the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska the last word.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all parties in the House could learn from the experience of the Progressive Conservative Party's openness, in its leadership race.

Mr. Orchard's contribution was to look at all the repercussions and to always be mindful of all the treaties signed. His candidacy kept us open to the world so that the world would be open to Canada. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that Canada is more than a name. It is inhabited by people and we must not lose sight of this.

I think that Mr. Orchard introduced many very human elements to the leadership race and, make no mistake, this sensitivity to the people who make up this country is a legacy that remains.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have received notice from the hon. member for Wanuskewin that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, March 22, 1999. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and Government Orders will begin at 11 a.m.

It being l.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Young Offenders Act

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague and friend from Surrey North for putting this private member's bill before the House.

I think back to the days when I sat on the justice committee and the hon. member for Surrey North and his wife appeared before that committee when it was dealing with Bill C-37, a bill to amend to the Young Offenders Act. I remember comments that were made after the hon. member and a number of other individuals brought to the attention of members of the justice committee the end results of the behaviour of young offenders. It caused me a bit of concern when a Liberal member of that committee said to me after the hearing that these people brought nothing to the debate other than sentiment.

I think it is very important that all Canadians, including Liberal members, understand that the feelings of Canadians are very important when we talk about legislation. Canadians must feel that they can support the legislation that is put before them by the government.

The private member's bill which the hon. member for Surrey North has introduced is really quite simple, straightforward and easy to understand. He is merely asking that section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act be made a hybrid offence. That means that there can be a fine imposed or incarceration as part of the sanctions.

Section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act deals with the responsibility that someone assumes in order for a young offender not to be locked up; in other words, posting bail or whatever we want to call it. It is interesting that the Minister of Justice has obviously seen the merits of this argument. I understand it is part of the new youth criminal justice bill. Therefore, I have to assume, because the government has put it into its own legislation, that it will be supporting this amendment to the Young Offenders Act.

The reason it needs to be supported now and not put on the table until the youth criminal justice bill is passed is very simply this. It is extremely important, knowing the timeframe that some of this legislation takes to get through the House, to have this amendment in place sooner rather than later.

I would suggest to government members who may be looking for an excuse not to support this bill because it is in the government's legislation to deal with the issue. It is obviously supported and it is obviously an important amendment to be made. I am hoping that when the time comes to vote on this bill governments members will be there to support the hon. member for Surrey North.

As I mentioned, the amendment deals with the issue of accountability. People sign undertakings or bonds. There is an acknowledgement or a responsibility for them to live up to what it is they have signed.

It is not just criminal matters where this happens. We run into this situation in immigration. People agree to sign a document indicating that they will sponsor an individual and that they will assume financial responsibility for a person coming from another country, and then they walk away from that responsibility.

This issue is more of a justice issue in that it is a person signing a document which says they will be responsible for the actions of a young offender and that they will make sure the young offender meets the conditions that have been imposed as a condition of their release.

What this private member's bill is doing is showing that if a person has wilfully failed to comply with the conditions they agreed to, then something should happen. There should be some responsibility laid upon them for having failed.

If a parent or guardian is unable to enforce the conditions that are spelled out in section 7, then basically the young offender should not be allowed to remain at large. That is the contract which they have signed.

When a parent or guardian knows that they are not able to control or make sure that the young person is where they are supposed to be, or staying away from friends whom they are not supposed to be mixing with, then the onus should be on the parent or guardian to notify the authorities, who would then take the young person into custody or control them in some other manner.

There is an obligation for parents or guardians to do that. The obligation which they undertook was that if they could not handle the individual they would turn the young person over to the control and authority of the courts.

It really is a question of differentiating. I would suggest that this bill is not trying to nail all parents because they are unable to know where their kids are 24 hours a day. It is aimed at the people who have entered an agreement, a legal understanding, in order that the young person not be incarcerated or held until the court case is heard. It is really earmarked or geared to that specific situation. I do not think that anyone should misunderstand that it is a broader brush, that it tries to deal with all parents in all circumstances.

Canadian taxpayers, the parents and guardians of young people, should realize that we are encouraging and supporting what the youth criminal justice bill or the Young Offenders Act offers, that young people can be released into the custody of parents or guardians.

In most cases that is perfectly all right. It works out fine. However, in those cases where somebody takes on that responsibility and then does nothing to make sure their undertakings are being fulfilled, there is something that can be done about it.

The reason the hon. member is asking for it to be treated as a hybrid offence is to give the courts the ability to put some meat behind their decisions, to put some emphasis on the responsibility that they are handing over to the parent or guardian.

As it is now, because it is a summary conviction and there is not any real penalty or sanction, it is too easy to walk away from that responsibility.

I commend my colleague for bringing this weakness in the legislation to the attention of the House. It is obviously a weakness that the government has accepted needs to be addressed, as it has done exactly that with the youth criminal justice bill.

Again I want to ensure that my colleagues understand that if it is good enough to put in a new act, then it is good enough to support now so that it can at least be in existing legislation rather than waiting for future legislation. We have no idea how long it will take for the new legislation to pass through the House and then the Senate after we have dealt with it.

For those of us who are close to the member for Surrey North it is obvious why this is important. The failure to pass this and put it into legislation can cause situations such as that which happened to the hon. member for Surrey North. His son was murdered by a young offender who was in the custody of his parent. The conditions of his release were not fulfilled. We are all very sympathetic with the reasons this bill was introduced and we certainly support its intention. I urge all government members to support this private member's bill when it is voted upon.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Surrey North for his contribution to youth justice through private member's Bill C-260. We should all be applauding his efforts and acknowledging the work he has done on this issue.

It bears repeating that this amendment to the Young Offenders Act would not create a general liability for parents based on the crimes of their children. The proposed amendment would make the existing offence of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking given to a court, made in connection with a young offender's release from pretrial detention, a hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence.

The proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act contained in Bill C-260 applies where a youth has been found to be ineligible for judicial interim release under the Criminal Code test. The current provisions of the Young Offenders Act allow such a youth to be placed in the care of a responsible adult instead of being detained in custody. The responsible adult must undertake in writing to take care of the young person and to comply with conditions set by the court. Currently, if the responsible adult wilfully fails to comply with the undertaking, he or she could be found guilty of a summary conviction offence.

The hon. member for Surrey North is proposing that the potential criminal liability for wilfully failing to comply is not serious enough. On March 11 the government introduced Bill C-68, the new youth criminal justice legislation, which would repeal and replace the Young Offenders Act. It should be noted that the new legislation makes the offence of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking given to a court to act as a responsible adult a hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence.

An undertaking to act as a responsible adult is a serious responsibility and we have acknowledged that in the changes we have made. It applies only to youth who would otherwise be detained in custody pending their trials. We acknowledge that some may well be dangerous and difficult to control. The wilful failure of a responsible adult to comply with undertakings could have tragic consequences for members of the public, as the hon. member who introduced this legislation can attest to.

Equipping those in the system with the tools to make decisions based on the facts of the case in front of them is a key direction of the new legislation. Flexibility in the options available and empowering those in the system with a full range of tools that can be applied depending on the seriousness and circumstances of individual cases are hallmarks of the youth justice legislation.

While some favour automatic provisions and set tariffs, we believe that the discretion and judgment of those in the judicial system counts and leads to fairer and more constructive outcomes.

The bill stipulates that, in each and every case, teenagers should face sanctions that promote responsibility toward victims and the community, teach them good values and help them measure the consequences of their action.

During the debate on Bill C-260 some members have commented on elements of Bill C-68 and those comments must be addressed. The hon. member for Crowfoot claimed that the government had abandoned 10 and 11 year olds who, by their criminal acts, have signalled to society that they are in need of help and assistance.

This government does not believe that criminalizing the behaviour of 10 year olds is helpful. Child welfare and mental health systems are more appropriate ways of providing safe and effective help to disturbed children. These systems have access to a wider array of services and are more age appropriate, family oriented and therapeutic than those available to the criminal justice system. I believe there is much consensus on that in the public and here in the House.

We are not abandoning these children but are working with key partners to ensure they do not fall through the cracks but get the supervision and treatment they need.

The hon. member for Crowfoot also criticized restrictions placed on the publication of names. The proposed legislation, Bill C-68, strikes an appropriate balance we believe between two legitimate and competing values, the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of publicity on the youth versus the need for greater openness and transparency in the justice system.

Allowing for the publication of the names of youth who commit the most serious crimes while protecting the privacy of those who commit less serious crimes is an appropriate balance.

We look forward to further debate next week on Bill C-68 and the opportunity to refute suggestion made by members to criminalize 10 year olds and scrap important privacy protections for youth.

The bill before us today, however, proposes a change in the penalty structure for those who wilfully fail to respect undertakings made to the court. I agree there is considerable merit in this being a hybrid offence so that the decision to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment could be made based on the seriousness of the crime.

If we are to impress on youth that the justice system should be respected, should foster values such as accountability and responsibility and that criminal behaviour will lead to meaningful consequences, then we must apply those values to responsible adults in the youth justice system.

I thank the hon. member for Surrey North for bringing this important proposal forward and I assure him that it is included in Bill C-68.

Like a good number of Canadians, the hon. member for Surrey North has put forward proposals to reinforce the Canadian youth justice system.

Now that new comprehensive and balanced youth criminal justice legislation has been introduced by the government and that a new youth justice system will soon be implemented, we are looking forward to work hand in hand with all Canadians who, like us, want to solve the complex issue of youth crime.

We want to prevent youth crime by establishing sanctions for the broad range of criminal acts committed by young people and by helping to rehabilitate young Canadians and turn them into law-abiding adults.

Once again I want to insist on the fact that, as the member before me said, this provision existed in the Young Offenders Act. We are increasing the sentence provision in the new criminal justice act, Bill C-68. I again thank the member who brought this forward and I commend his efforts to see it become part of our new youth criminal justice system.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I join in today's debate with a great deal of caution and earnestness.

I want to assure my colleague, the mover of the bill, that we will keep in mind at all times the unfortunate events he lived through, and which led him to enter political life.

However, after consulting with members from my party, I do not think we will be able to support the provisions of the bill, as mentioned already by the member for Berthier—Montcalm during the first hour of debate.

Yet, the bill is an important one because it highlights a fundamental issue, that of parental responsibility in the process, admittedly often a trying one, that leads to criminal behaviour and juvenile delinquency, and as members know, to deep trauma in the communities concerned.

I have been interested for years in the whole issue of crime, especially as a member of Parliament. In my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, some segments of our community are experiencing a serious crime problem.

I quickly learned that, when discussing these issues and holding a debate on juvenile delinquency and crime, one has to deal in nuance because of the different levels involved.

Crime can be a symptom: often emerging in the teenage years, it is commonly linked to gangs or personal distress. Often there is a connection between crime, the family environment, the social surrounding, and finally failures in an individual's life.

It is not the same kind of crime we are dealing with when we are talking about bikers gangs, money laundering or immigrant smugglers for example.

This being said, the question raised by our colleague is: What part of the responsibility should be assumed by a parent? The persons in charge could be the parents or anyone who has custody of the child, who is still a minor. If the guardians are negligent, that is if they have failed to exercise proper supervision, as mentioned in the bill in question, if these people have not been as vigilant as required under their contractual obligation, it is asked that they be liable to a longer prison term.

We come to our jobs as lawmakers with the sum total of our past experiences. I have the utmost understanding, respect and sympathy for the motivations behind the bill introduced by the hon. member for Surrey North, and find them highly respectable.

Nevertheless, the question arises: what impact will holding parents who have failed to meet their obligation of supervision and guidance more responsible have on outcome? I believe that the underlying question we have as a party is not a denial of the existence of juvenile delinquency. It is not a refusal to recognize that there are certain conditions conducive to the development of youth crime. It seems to me that there are two premises in the contributions made by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, himself a lawyer moreover, and those made by our colleagues within caucus discussions.

My understanding of the matter is that, first of all, it is extremely difficulty to look at crime without examining a whole set of factors. Is there not a wider responsibility, a more general one, and is it not rather risky to focus essentially on the family unit? This is the first aspect we question.

Second, does the bill not reflect—despite reasons which, I repeat, for very personal considerations, are utterly responsible and respectable—a desire to say basically, at 14, 15 or 16 years of age that you are an adult to some extent and should be considered equal to someone of 30, 40 or 50 years of age, whereas we know that the circumstances surrounding behaviour at age 14, 15 or 16, however dramatic they may be, must not prevent us from making distinctions?

Why not? First, because at age 14, 15, 16 or 17 we are at our most vulnerable, our values are not entirely established and we are still learning.

Second, our opposition focuses on the fact that, as a society, when things happen in the family that verge on the criminal, should we not make resources available to this family? More basically—and I want our position to be very clearly understood—it must not prevent us from establishing whatever it takes to provide a dissuasive effect and ensure the level of juvenile delinquency in our society decreases. I think that is what all the parties in this House want.

I hope to have a chance, later on, to make the connections between youth crime, poverty and other factors which reinforce this reality, but must we not also ask ourselves what this will do to the rehabilitation process?

I would say the big difference between the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois on this issue is our concern with rehabilitation.

As soon as signs of juvenile delinquency start appearing within a family—and I also mean within a community—should we not ask ourselves what it will do to the rehabilitation process if the parent or guardian or the person responsible, the person who signed the undertaking mentioned in section 7.2 of the act as proposed in the bill is thrown in jail for two years? In this type of situation, do we not have a duty to bring the parent and the child closer together? Do we not have a duty to make available to this family, that is going through a difficult time, mechanisms that are based on mediation and dialogue where we have to try to understand what went wrong?

If a 14, 15, or 16-year old kills one of his peers, commits vandalism or commits any other offence under the Criminal Code, that means that, at some point, the youth rebelled against society. Of course there are different degrees of rebellion. I can understand that.

The one criticism we can address to the Reform Party is that it looks only at solutions centred on sentencing. There may be something there worth looking into, but I notice they have given no thought or consideration to understanding the causes of such behaviour and the rehabilitation process.

This is why we are not very enthusiastic about the bill. This being said, we are ready to consider it, as the member for Berthier—Montcalm said on several occasions,. But how can we make the rehabilitation process even more effective?

If the Reform Party could give us the assurance now that sending parents to jail would ensure that the young offender will be a better citizen in 5, 10 or 15 years from now, we would have no difficulty supporting the bill, but we believe there is something missing here.

We are not convinced that sending parents to jail for a longer time, with a stiffer sentence, which would prevent the child from maintaining contact with them, at least within the family unit, will enhance the rehabilitation process.

With regard to young offenders, there is already a model in Quebec. We have the expertise, we have the legislation. On the basis of verifiable data, which deserve to be discussed, we believe that the results were worth it.

I will conclude by saying that we understand and respect our colleague's motivation, but we are not convinced that this is the right way to go in order to reach the goals identified in his bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the private member's bill that was introduced by the member for Surrey North.

I thank the member for bringing this issue forward. It is not always easy to bring forward a private member's bill for debate. A lot of work is involved. Next week we will begin debate on the new youth criminal justice act which is very important. I would like to congratulate the member for having done the work on this issue and for being part of a democratic process which ensures that these issues are aired.

The member's personal circumstances surrounding this issue are tragic. This is all the more reason that we need to debate these issues, to ensure that our youth justice system works properly and protection is provided not just for young people but for society as a whole.

The purpose of this bill is to make an offence as set out in section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act a hybrid offence. As we have heard today in debate the bill does not change the section other than to make the penalty more serious. In serious cases under section 7.2, parents or guardians could face a jail sentence of up to two years if they fail to supervise their children who have been released from custody. This would be an increase from the current maximum penalty of six months in jail and/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 enforce certain conditions until the charges are heard. This bill would increase the penalty if the conditions are not met.

There will be a much fuller and comprehensive debate in this House as a result of the newly introduced youth criminal justice act, Bill C-68. While we welcome this private member's bill as a good opportunity to debate something that needs to be aired, it is important that it also be in the context of youth justice as a whole. From that point of view it is important that the new youth criminal justice act be debated on the next day of business of the House.

We in the New Democratic Party very strongly support measures to protect the public from serious violent repeat offenders. We believe that youth who fall into this category and have been determined to be a risk to public safety should be held in custody.

One purpose of our youth justice system is to recognize when violent crimes have taken place, if custody is determined to be in the interests of the public, then those young offenders should be held in custody. We will get into this more when we debate the new act that has been introduced. We have some concerns about the impact that provisions such as the one before us today may have on families and their ability to meet conditions. What kind of difficulty will imposing a stiffer penalty have for a single parent, low income families or even families where both parents are working full time?

It is important to put on the record that although there are very good intentions around this bill, we have to have a balanced approach. We have to look at whether or not this kind of penalty will place a significant and unfair burden on some families and parents who lack the resources to strictly enforce the supervision orders. A bill such as this one may be something that becomes discriminatory.

In the last few weeks a lot of the debate in the House of Commons has been about what is happening to Canadian families and how they are under enormous stress. We have had debates from the Reform Party about the tax system. There has been a lot of useful exchanges in the House.

In today's day and age there is enormous stress on families. Parents sometimes have one, two or three jobs. Wages are being driven down. People are working longer and longer hours for less money. All of those things create stress on families, particularly on single parent families and low income families. These are very difficult times.

I do want to be clear about our concerns on the impact this bill, if it were approved, would have on some families in terms of their ability to provide the resources and supervision required under this bill and generally under section 7.2 of the act. We have to make sure that the families that can least afford the resources are not families that would be singled out and unduly punished.

If we want to deal with the issue of youth crime or youth justice, the NDP believes very strongly that we have to look at the underlying causes of youth crime. We must have adequate long term programs, not just a little bit here, a band-aid there, a new announcement today, or a few more dollars here and there. Governments at all levels have to make a serious commitment to address things like chronic youth unemployment and the lack of educational opportunities.

In my own community, I am sure every parent is aware that education has a real impact on young people. Young people who are seriously involved and doing very well in school and whose needs are being met through the educational system are very unlikely to get into trouble.

Education is a lifelong process. Young people must be supplied with the educational, employment and training opportunities they need. I and many other members in my caucus believe they are fundamental and critical things we can address as a society to ensure that we are actually preventing crime.

When kids are productive and involved in their communities and in their schools, they are not getting into trouble. They are not falling off the edge. They do not feel isolated, that nobody cares about them, that they have no future and that they have no hope.

Unfortunately, the converse is true. When we see the lack of educational opportunities, the lack of training and jobs and the lack of community support then we see kids who are very high risk. They become vulnerable to the sex trade, to illegal drug use and to youth gangs. All of those things become pressures on young people.

From our point of view, those are the issues that need to be addressed if we are serious about addressing the causes of youth crime.

Next week for the first time, the B.C. government is declaring a week to stop the sexual exploitation of children. Youth awareness week is being very much supported by the RCMP as one way to draw attention to some of the issues facing our young people and how they get drawn into a criminal and marginalized lifestyle. This is something we need to deal with and ensure that there is an adequate response.

We appreciate this bill being brought forward. As we begin to debate the youth criminal justice bill next, we want to deal with these issues in a more comprehensive way. While we do support the intent of what is being brought forward here, we do have some concerns about the impact this provision would have on some families.

We look forward to the debate that is coming forward in the next few days around the youth criminal justice system.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on normal occasions we are very pleased to speak about issues that affect our constituents but to speak about dealing with young offenders, especially young offenders with some very serious offences, is not something we prefer to do. However we do not live in a perfect world and as such, we have to deal with the issues we are faced with as parliamentarians.

I agree with the member for Vancouver East who says that we should do all these proactive things to solve the problems before they happen. But it seems in our society the old days are gone.

In Newfoundland in the old days people would say if you had three square meals a day and a roof over your head, the world was a pretty good place to live. That world of food, clothing and shelter being the only requirements for a person in society is not something which now exists.

Our society has become unbelievably complex. We need a lot of help from parliamentarians and from governments to make sure that our society is safe, that we have the basics in life which now include the requirement for a very significant social net. When one is young, when one is aged, and certainly when one is sick or disabled a lot of things are required to be put in place by governments to make sure that one has more than just food, clothing and shelter.

Education, as the member mentioned, is one of the things which is needed in a more significant and increasingly aggressive and progressive way to get at the problems before they become issues which we have to deal with.

Besides having food, clothing and shelter, citizens require safety and that governments address the fundamental things, for example, the issues of crime and youth and adult offenders which make us feel so insecure in our communities.

It is almost like insurance in reverse. We buy fire insurance to protect our homes. Most of us will never see a fire. Most of us, if we are lucky, will never see a violent offence.

There is criminal activity. We have seen some especially in St. John's West. There have been terrible incidents all across Canada. Violent young people whom we are speaking about today commit the most terrible crimes. It frightens us all. It makes us want to buy safety insurance because we have been touched by this violence.

In Newfoundland recently we have had half a dozen terrible examples of violence by young offenders against our senior citizens, some of the most defenceless people in our communities. Many times these young offenders are repeat offenders. They have been in trouble with the law in many places. When it happens to an aged person it frightens us all and makes us wonder where we are going to go.

Like all the members who have spoken on Bill C-260, I want to congratulate the member for Surrey North for bringing it to the attention of the House and to the Canadian public. Obviously we all deeply regret why the member has had to do this. I say again, when one is touched by violence there has to be a reaction to it.

I am disappointed that it took 18 months to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons so we could discuss an issue which plagues many Canadian communities and many Canadian families. I wonder why that has had to happen. Everyone knows the problem of young offenders, violent offenders and repeat offenders. Why could we not deal with it when the issue was first brought forward?

I remember a saying, I think it was by a president, that it would be amazing how much we could accomplish together if we did not care who got the credit. Sometimes in this place we are so involved with policy, with procedure and with positioning that we forget about the good idea. Last night we had an emergency debate. We have done that a couple of other times. If there is something that needs to be done and the Canadian public wants it, demands it and expects it, does it make any difference whether it comes from a backbencher from the Reform Party, a member of the Conservative Party or a member of the government, either backbencher or government minister? The idea is that the Canadian public wants certain things done.

I want to concur with the comments made by our justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who spoke when this legislation was last before the House. He said that some of the progressive advances we are talking about are not going to be seen in the government's bill, Bill C-68. Some of the better ideas are here now in Bill C-260 that we could implement.

Some of the ideas that the provinces wanted to bring in are not in Bill C-68. In many ways we think Bill C-68, the government response which will become the law of this country, is going to be regressive. It reverts to the not so good old days of the juvenile delinquency act. The idea is that repeat young offenders who are involved in offences which are less serious in nature will be tried in court as adults but then sentenced as children. Many people are left wondering why it is that it took the Liberal government 12 months of head scratching to come up with a very old idea.

The government has come up with a bill that fails to adequately protect Canadians from increasingly violent crimes committed by young people. Public opinion on the subject is so strong that it should be obvious to everybody, even the Liberal government.

While it seems it wants to project the image of a government that has toughened up the Young Offenders Act, the reality is that the patchwork legislation will do little to accomplish the objectives the minister claims to support.

Age is part of it, lowering the age to 14 when 12 or 10 is recommended. Parents, who are very proud of their young sons or daughters, are sometimes asked how old they are. For some strange reason they might say four going on forty or six going on sixty. It seems that in our progressive society where change takes place so fast some of our young offenders are ten going on forty or fifty in the way they deal with the world.

In lowering the age to 14 at which young offenders could face adult sentences for the most serious of crimes like murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault, the government has failed to go as far as it should. Instead the ever present Liberal spin doctors are treating the important issue of youth justice as merely another public relations exercise, apparently indifferent to the substantive effects of the legislation the Minister of Justice has introduced.

Let me point out that even the minister's advisers in the Department of Justice recommended that the age of accountability should be lowered to 10 years. The minister chose to ignore this advice and we as Canadians are left to wonder why.

Another problem with the minister's bill is the ambiguity in the language it employs. This ambiguity will mean the implementation will depend on the interpretation of the legislation after the fact, instead of being clear and direct in the first instance. We are left with the same problem that the courts will make our laws for us. Some of the legislation as drafted is hundreds of pages long. We begin to wonder if lawyers who draft legislation do it so other lawyers will have reason to take it to court for appeals on top of appeals until eventually we get a new law many years hence.

I am not alone in identifying the serious deficiencies in the proposed youth criminal justice act. It has been criticized severely by the governments of Ontario and Alberta, both provinces in which youth justice is a particularly salient issue.

It seems clear that the governments of these provinces are much more in touch with the views and concerns of the residents than the federal government. They know that window dressing is not adequate response to a very real problem. They know that it is not enough to want to be seen to be doing something and that the kind of public posturing the federal government adopted with regard to youth justice is worthless without meaningful legislative measures to back it up.

I understand the spirit of the legislation introduced by the member for Surrey North. It is an unfortunate fact of our system that it has taken so long to get it here. It is also unfortunate for members of the House, and indeed for all Canadians who look to their governments for leadership on youth justice issues, that since the introduction of Bill C-260 the Liberals have chosen to bring forward such a weak response in Bill C-68.

I congratulate the member for bringing it to the attention of all members of parliament and the public of Canada. It is an issue that should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in support of the bill of the hon. member for Surrey North. The bill is quite clear in its intent to make section 7(2) of the Young Offenders Act a hybrid offence to present clear and genuine penalties to people who make a signed undertaking and then fail to live up to it.

People who post bail for accused offenders forfeit it if the bail conditions are not met. Why should any responsible adult who signs an undertaking to supervise a young offender not have to pay a significant penalty for failing to meet his or her commitment? The concept is fairly clear.

The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that the proposed legislation might discriminate against parents who for one reason or another lack the means to provide necessary supervision. Section 7(2) of the Young Offenders Act is specifically designed to protect the public. It is not put there for the convenience of the parent. It is to protect the public.

Parents are not obliged to sign these undertakings. There is no rule or coercion which says they must sign these undertakings. If a parent voluntarily undertakes to accept responsibility, I would submit the parent should be held responsible for his or her actions. It is not something that can be done frivolously.

The speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve left me somewhat bemused. I did not know what he was getting at a lot of the time. If I could cut through all of it, it would seem that he rejects the concept of individual responsibility, not just for juveniles but for adults as well. Bill C-260 is all about accepting responsibility for personal undertakings.

The parliamentary secretary and others made reference to the fact that the bill would duplicate one of the provisions of the upcoming youth criminal justice act. It would be covered in section 138 of the act, but I do not accept the premise that because the YCJA may be coming down the road some time in the future we should not be seriously considering this one small amendment to the YOA at this time. One does not stop scrubbing floors at home just because there is a plan to make major renovations. One continues normal everyday maintenance.

Bill C-260 could be enacted now. The new YCJA was only tabled last week. Heaven knows when it will become law. Hopefully it will not become law in exactly the same form in which it is now. It needs a lot of revision and renovation. We could make this one quick fix to help the public, to benefit society in general at this time, simply by enacting a bill that incidentally has been coming down the pike for a year and a half. It has taken that long to reach the point where we are now.

I get a feeling—maybe it is a misplaced feeling—in listening to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is a slight Machiavellian motive here, the ploy that we should not worry about Bill C-260 because the meat of it will be buried or hidden away in the new youth criminal justice act when it comes down.

Maybe the broader bill is being gussied up a bit with the clause to attempt to force MPs to support a pretty noxious piece of legislation for the sake of one very valuable clause. It is like the old story about a chocolate covered smartie buried in a bowl of manure. Anyone wanting to eat the smartie knows what has to be done. I do not appreciate that approach to legislation.

The parliamentary secretary diverged a little from the debate today. I would like to respond to what she said about the child welfare and mental health systems being all that we need to look after 10 and 11 year olds caught up in the criminal justice system. That is what we are relying on right now. That is what we are doing. We are trying to deal with the 10 and 11 year olds strictly through child welfare and the mental health system and it is not working.

The new YCJA would do nothing to change an approach which has been a dismal failure. I have not had a chance to read the bill in any depth yet but on scanning the bill I cannot see very much serious improvement in the YCJA over the old YOA. It is the old car with a new coat of paint. Why are we taking this long and tedious approach to doing nothing? The Muslims have a saying that the elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse. That seems to be what is happening with the new act.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the debate. As a member from British Columbia I commend the hon. member for Surrey North who has worked hard to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act. In many ways this is a timely proposal.

The government's strategy involves replacing the Young Offenders Act with new youth justice legislation which has proposed significant improvements to the youth justice system. The strategy focuses on three key areas: preventing youth crime, ensuring meaningful consequences for offences committed by youth, and improving rehabilitation and reintegration for young offenders.

The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice launched on May 12, 1998 sets out a vision for responding to Canadians' concerns about youth crime. Clearly, Canadians want a youth justice system that protects society.

It is in the context of addressing problems with the current youth justice system through new youth justice legislation that Bill C-260 has been considered. The bill, sponsored by the hon. member for Surrey North, proposes making the offences of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking made in connection with a young person's release from pretrial detention a hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence.

One of the weaknesses of the existing system relates to pretrial detention and judicial interim release. There is a failure to distinguish adequately between those who should be detained in custody prior to their trials and those who need not be. This situation should be addressed through greater clarity on the criteria for pretrial detention and enhanced program support to ensure there are alternatives for those who do not need to be in jail prior to trial. The hon. member for Surrey North's concern relates to those who are released and improperly supervised.

The provision of the Young Offenders Act that is the subject of Bill C-260 takes effect after the bail criteria have been applied and the youth has been found to be ineligible for judicial interim release. In such cases the current provisions of the Young Offenders Act permit youth to be placed in the care of a responsible adult instead of being detained in custody.

I thank the hon. member for Surrey North for bringing Bill C-260 forward and I assure him that it has been given every consideration during the development of the new youth justice legislation.

The new legislation will soon be introduced. It is an important component of our broad, comprehensive strategy to address youth crime.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)