The House resumed from May 5th consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, 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.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, the bill, of which we are resuming debate at second reading today, was initially introduced on March 11 by the Minister of Justice. Today, we will continue debating the motion moved by the member for Laval-Centre.

First of all it must be remembered that all Quebeckers, without exception, spoke out against and opposed the approach proposed in Bill C-68. This bill is a useless, dangerous, vicious and right-wing, if not extreme right, piece of legislation.

In Quebec, the rate of youth crime is the lowest in Canada. Why? Because Quebec authorities look after teenagers and young people and provide them with a framework.

Bill C-68 would lower the age limit from 16 to 14. This would mean that 14 or 15 year olds could be tried as adults. I wonder if the Minister of Justice has teenage children of her own, if she has raised children.

I had the chance and the pleasure of raising three children who are now young adults, and I have vivid memories of my son, when he was 14, 15 or 16 years of age, playing with his Tonka cars in his twelve by twelve sandbox. He did not look like a criminal, but I often looked at him and observed him. All the kids from the neighbourhood liked to come and play in the sandbox.

My son was no saint at that time. He probably stole carrots from our neighbour's garden, apples from our other neighbour's apple tree, he probably went fishing and exceeded his quota, but he did not become a criminal.

Had he had the bad luck of hanging around with friends who could have had a negative influence on him, he could have become a bad boy. A one night or one week adventure could have landed him in jail. Even at 14 or 15 years of age, he could have been incarcerated in a facility for adults. The danger is that, when a young person is treated as an adult, that young person is still at the learning stage and jail is the worst school there is.

Moreover, under this bill, 14 or 15-year old children who receive an adult sentence could have their name and even their picture published in the newspapers.

The justice minister is a member of the Liberal government, the same party that, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, slipped a bit towards the left, as hon. members certainly remember, when the House voted to abolish the death penalty. Does the minister today think the exact opposite of what her party stood for at the time? I do not think so.

The justice minister represents the riding of Edmonton West, in Alberta. I wonder if she is not about to give in to the right, to the extremists who say something like “He who kills shall be hanged”.

Before I was elected to this House, I had the pleasure to teach for 27 years. During those 27 years, I met thousands of high school students and often the teachers would see how some of them behaved and comment among themselves “If this young guy does not change soon, he will run into some serious trouble”. I remember we were all in agreement about one student in particular, who seemed to be highly refractory. A few years later, he pulled himself together, and today he is a much sought-after renowned lawyer who earns a respectable living. The entire teaching staff was wrong about him.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself have been young, and you know that young people sometimes go out, in groups of three or four, in a car, and end up in a bar. With such a party atmosphere, one young person in the group could be a little more devious than others and lead good boys and girls to commit an unfortunate act. Thus, one evening's mistake could ruin a lifetime.

I was talking in fact to my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm of the example of David Milgaard, in Saskatchewan, who was imprisoned some 20 years because of an error of justice. It would seem the Government of Saskatchewan is getting ready to compensate him.

When an adolescent is incarcerated for over 20 years, these being the best years of his life, a few million dollars cannot rectify such an error. They are preparing to give him $2 million plus $20,000 a month for life. Naturally, such situations give us pause for reflection.

Ottawa did not consult the provinces, despite the commitments the government made at a meeting in Regina with the various justice ministers in Canada.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm also seems to recall this commitment by the Minister of Justice, who comes from Alberta. She seems to want to espouse the ideals of the Reform members increasingly. This is most unfortunate.

I would like in closing to quote the opinions of a number of Quebeckers on Bill C-68.

André Normandeau, a criminologist at the University of Montreal, said, and I quote:

People out west are still reacting the same way they did 20 or 30 years ago, when crime was constantly on the increase. They have retained a highly punitive mindset. Changing the law is too simple and, more importantly, ineffective. Coercion has no effect at all on violent crime, which accounts for 10% of the whole.

So said André Normandeau in the March 13 issue of Le Soleil .

I will now refer to what Cécile Toutant, another criminologist and member of the Quebec Bar Association's subcommittee on young offenders, had to say.

When interviewed on the television program JE , the criminologist expressed her concerns about the reform, because of its potential for automatic referrals to the adult court. The criminologist maintained that, despite the flexibility of the process, there will be the possibility of measures being applied. She wondered why what is unjustified and inappropriate should be made possible.

In Quebec there is unanimous support for rejecting bill C-68 which, I would remind hon. members, lowers the age of adulthood from 16 to 14 years. Placing children of 14 or 15 in penitentiaries, where they will be raped and come under the influence of adult criminals, means the lives of these adolescents will be ruined for ever.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up to speak to Bill C-68. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois may get his wish. At the rate the bill is going through the House, and with rumours that we may prorogue some time this fall, it may never see its final resting place in this session.

Last spring the House passed Motion No. 261 which called for the establishment of a national head start program. This motion, the vision and work of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, may well form part of the solution we seek in the administration of youth justice. I might even mention another colleague right next to me, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who seconded the motion of the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The genesis of this enlightened approach to raising, nurturing and disciplining a child is based on the concept of prevention of anti-social behaviour, rather than the management of a situation or problem that has been years in the making.

The work and research of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca reveals the importance of the first eight years of life. If an individual is exposed to pernicious behaviour such as drug abuse, sexual abuse, violence, dysfunctional parenting or absence of parenting at all, it has a negative impact on the child's brain. The neurological development of the child's brain is impeded. This has a consequence as the child grows to adolescence and on to become adult.

There is no question large segments of the current prison population are products of negative family exposure years before. This does not diminish their deeds, but I wonder if given a better chance we could have eliminated some of the possibility that these people would turn to criminal behaviour. Bill C-68 is all about making sure that people do not turn to criminal behaviour and that young children do not turn into criminals.

Would it not be better to spend a few dollars on those now in their formative years of one to eight than to spend it on lawyers, courts, psychologists, prisons, halfway houses and parole officers later? As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Bill C-68 provides us with an opportunity to initiate the practice of prevention rather than crisis management. Have we not been practising crisis management of young offenders since the early 1980s? Are we not on a treadmill to nowhere? Are we trying to transmogrify something that cannot be done?

I would like to speak about a national headstart program as one means to start on a different path. While I realize this initiative may not be a panacea, it may be at least one of the components in reducing youth crime and developing a more emotionally and socially adjusted adolescent into our society.

In the course of my years in politics one of the problems and curiosities as I see it in the development of public policy is neglect of linkages between programs emanating from department to department within governments. By this I mean government is negligent in identifying existing programs and policies which may aid or benefit in instituting a new program or help move a new concept along.

In short there is a plethora of programs out there in some sort of void waiting to be accessed and used. We have to get better at using the tools we have if we are to make the enlightened choices that we should be making.

Back in 1966 the government's own National Crime Prevention Council identified a national headstart program as a way to prevent crime and one that is cost effective. I mention again my colleagues the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who put that motion before the House in this session. In 1996 the government was doing it itself, talking about a headstart program yet to this date we do not have anything. There is nothing in this bill that talks about going a different way or doing anything different from what we have been doing all along.

One headstart program that was identified as being instrumental in significantly reducing crime was the Perry preschool program in Michigan. This program was one of two others identified, one which is in Moncton and the other in Hawaii. They were proven to in total decrease child abuse by 99%. Any program that can reduce this problem by 99% is one that we should be taking a quicker look at than we are in the House. A few years ago we looked at it from the government side and now this side puts in a motion. We are still not looking at it.

This program kept kids in school longer and dropped youth crime by 50% in other areas. It decreased teen pregnancies by 40% and saved the taxpayer in the final analysis $30,000 per child. What a success story. What a testament if not a template for Canada to use as a national youth strategy. Why are we not doing it?

The government has some money in this program but it only covers about 30% of the cost instead of 50% like it agreed to. It could save us $30,000 per child by bringing in this program. Why does the bureaucracy not push the government to get this program in place? The government bureaucracy says it is a good idea. Members on this side say it is a good idea. We should be looking at it.

We listened to our colleagues from Quebec who are opposed to this bill. They brought up some very good points. The government likes to attack and fight them because they are separatists but the facts are that the province of Quebec has a lower crime rate for children than we do in the rest of Canada. We should be looking at the program Quebec has. We should be paying attention to what is being done there.

I hope that when we get this bill into committee we will have lots of time to bring people from the province of Quebec to tell us what they disagree with in the present legislation and where they think we should be going. We should be looking to where the successes are, just as we should be looking to the headstart program because of the great success in that program.

One of the critical elements in the success of these three programs is the involvement of the parents. Parents are and have to be the axis around which the program revolves. No amount of money will replace the intrinsic importance of good parenting. Without a loving safe environment with rules of behaviour defined and boundaries established can a child be expected to grow to a stable socially responsible participant in society.

Bill C-68 has three elements concerning the role of parents. Should a child fall between the cracks and need help, under Bill C-68 parents will be called upon to become involved with representatives of the community to design and implement extrajudicial measures. There will have to be compulsory attendance of the parent at court when considered by the judge to be in the best interest of the young person. There will be increased punishment for the parent who signs a court undertaking to supervise the young person upon release and who wilfully waits or fails to fulfill that responsibility. That is extremely important. I will repeat that. There will be increased punishment for the parent who signs a court undertaking to supervise the young person upon release and who wilfully fails to fulfill that responsibility.

My colleague from Surrey North played a great part in this paragraph that I am reading. We should give him a lot of credit for the work that he has put into this youth legislation. We all know the effort that he puts in in the House working toward children. We all appreciate his commitment very much.

My colleague from Surrey North can take great pride, credit and solace in managing to motivate the government to include his initiatives in Bill C-68. It is because of the member's determination and concern as manifested in his private member's Bill C-260 that we have the parental responsibility prescribed in the new youth criminal justice act. It is one good part of this bill if nothing else.

That is why it is even more unfair for the government members to perpetuate untruths about Reform policy surrounding how to deal with 10 and 11 year olds in youth justice. At no time has any Reform member suggested incarcerating 10 and 11 year old kids. In fact enlightened work like the kind instituted by the member for Surrey North indicates a compassion for children and an attempt to put the onus on the parents.

Frankly it is the government that would like to sweep the issue of 10 and 11 year olds under the carpet, ignoring this challenge by saying there is no problem. It is simply abandoning these children. Is that not in itself a form of incarceration?

Maybe it is the government that has to take a look at its lack of recognition of 10 and 11 year olds in its new bill. Maybe it is the federal government's responsibility to become equal financial participants in programs with the provinces to rehabilitate these kids who have strayed. Maybe it is the federal government's responsibility to deal now with the issue of 10 and 11 year olds before they become incorrigibles later on.

It will however take more than $206 million over three years. The provinces have pleaded with the federal government on the need to deal with this age group. Why is it so difficult for the federal government? Is it because of the money? That is what is scary. This age group needs help and needs it badly. It is really a money issue. The government tries to cover it up under the flim-flam and the puffery but we need help in those areas. The provinces need help in those areas. We will debate these issues very deeply in committee and I look forward to that.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-68.

Youth crime demands the attention of all levels of government and it demands the attention of parents and families. In Calgary I recently attended a town hall meeting for an organization called the Friends of Clayton McGloan. My colleague from Surrey North also attended another of the town hall meetings in Calgary. This organization was named for a young man whose life was tragically taken from him by two young offenders.

Clayton was stabbed numerous times and left for dead by two young thugs. These individuals are now fighting to have their cases remain in youth court while the crown is stating its case for the adult court. To my knowledge these two thugs have been in the system before. These are young murderers and they deserve to be held responsible for their crimes. However in this case maybe the law will be on their side. Maybe they will be tried in youth court and receive a much lower sentence than they would have received had they been tried in an adult court.

The family of Clayton McGloan is fighting through a petition asking for fair justice. The pain and the suffering they have gone through can only be felt when we attend town hall meetings and we listen to the family's pain.

Canadians have seen these kinds of cases all too often in the last 15 years. They have seen young murderers and rapists receive sentences that do not fit the severity of the crimes. Why? Because they are children. Because we say they do not know any better. I believe that many of the kids do know better.

The official opposition on behalf of Canadians has been calling for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Thankfully something is finally on the table for us to debate in this House. We know that the justice minister introduced a new youth criminal justice act as a replacement for the Young Offenders Act. It is my hope that the Young Offenders Act will be assigned to the garbage. It has been a failure and Canadians have had to suffer the consequences for far too long.

The justice minister upon taking her job promised that introducing the new young offenders legislation would be her top priority. That was two years ago. I had hoped that after such a long delay the justice minister would have put forward legislation to deal with the complicated issue of youth crime in an effective way, yet the youth criminal justice act fails again to deliver what Canadians expect.

The official opposition recognizes that there are two elements to youth crime. One is the rehabilitation aspect and the other is an accountability aspect. My colleague spoke very eloquently about what he felt the government should be addressing in the way of rehabilitation programs.

We have a youth justice committee in my riding. This committee has been doing a tremendous job in trying to address youth crime through community sentencing and rehabilitation programs. It has been quite successful. This is the kind of program we need to encourage.

We must also teach the consequences of actions. We must make youths aware of the severity of their actions when they cross the boundary and hurt people. That should be a fundamental aspect. Revenue Canada makes good examples of taxpayers who have not paid the money they owe. Revenue Canada comes crashing down by charging penalties and interest from the first day that they do not pay. Why? Because the government needs to set an example for others. Lo and behold, here we have people committing crimes and it is said there has to some leeway.

I heard a colleague from the Bloc address this. I did take exception to some of his comments when he addressed the issue of western Canada somehow being a right-wing very uncompassionate society. I beg to differ with that. I appreciate the fact that there is a lower crime rate in Quebec. As my colleague said, it is something we can learn from, but to say that we are uncompassionate is not appropriate. But the Bloc is the separatist party so that is fine.

When going through this new legislation the feelings of the members of the official opposition was that this is simply the old Young Offenders Act presented in a different colour and format. Some provisions in this bill appear to be tougher. However, there is always an opportunity down the road for provinces or courts to provide exceptions and maintain the status quo.

I believe the minister has had to appease all the different philosophies within her own government. Some want tougher legislation and others think the situation is just fine. Nobody wants to listen to what Canadians are saying.

In this House petition after petition has been presented asking for a fair justice system. The government's thinking is that perhaps this is some kind of paper in the basement that does not need to be addressed. Hence the bill that has come forward has all the loopholes one can imagine.

Throughout the process the minister claimed she needed time to consult with the provinces. We recognize the provinces have an important role to play. We have to understand just what the various regions of the country were wanting in the overall youth laws.

A great deal of this information has already been gathered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee spent many months conducting hearings from coast to coast. The committee listened to the provinces. It spent almost $500,000 to provide a comprehensive report with a number of recommendations toward significant changes to the youth laws. That is how our parliamentary democracy works. The committee conducts hearings and receives presentations.

The provinces are not satisfied with the legislation. The minister of justice for Alberta, John Havelock, wrote to the federal minister complaining that there had not been adequate consultation.

He was concerned that the federal government had failed to address some of the major concerns of many provinces. Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I. all wanted a number of significant changes. Perhaps the most important was the reduction of the age of criminal accountability from 12 to 10. One speaker from my own town, Calgary's police chief Christine Silverberg, criticized the government changes as not going far enough with violent children under the age of 12.

We should not be surprised that this recommendation was not included. Not only did the government ignore its partners in the youth justice process. It ignored the justice committee and its report which included a similar recommendation, a committee that is made up of a majority of government members.

The government continues to attack the official opposition. I will conclude by saying that the official opposition, throughout this debate, will indicate its concerns and the shortfalls of the government.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-68, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.

It is a very important piece of legislation that deals directly with one of the most delicate aspects of our collective behaviour. When dealing with youth crime, it is important that society behave correctly so that the situation does not become worse for the individual who is directly involved and that measures be taken to ensure adequate rehabilitation.

In this regard, Quebec has a very legitimate historical position which seems to be the envy of many other countries and which has had notable and undeniable success.

I would like to share with you an excerpt from the report brought forth in 1995 by the task force established by the Government of Quebec to look into the Young Offenders Act. It is called the Jasmin report, no doubt after the chairman of the task force. This excerpt truly reflects the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which is valiantly put forward by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. I take this opportunity to recognize the excellent work he has done on this issue, as he usually does on any issue he tackles.

I quote from the Jasmin report:

It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of intervention. It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency.

Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve them.

One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches. This, however, overlooks the fact that adolescents are still in the process of learning, and it means they are being saddled with full responsibility for delinquency, as if the society and environment they live in had nothing to do with it.

I think these lines are a good reflection of Quebec's very progressive position, one which has proved itself and, as I mentioned earlier, is the envy of many.

This is the position of the Quebec coalition, which is opposed to the federal government's plan to change the rules of the game, putting Quebec in its place to a certain extent, and refusing to follow Quebec's lead. On the contrary, the federal government is siding with the Reform Party, which takes a right wing approach, an approach pushed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan when they were in office, an American approach the effects of which are becoming increasingly apparent in our daily lives.

The coalition is composed of well known individuals. They are very representative of our society, and speak knowledgeably about this issue. I will name the 16 groups who are in favour of the same position, the position supported by the Bloc Quebecois, and who all criticize the position of the Government of Canada and support that of the Bloc Quebecois.

First, there is the Commission des services juridiques du Québec, which represents the defence. This includes prosecutors and defence staff involved in legal proceedings. As if by chance, it therefore includes both those who prosecute and those who defend, which is the best proof of all of how representative this coalition is of those who work daily in this very difficult area.

This is the list of 16 groups: the Commission des services juridiques du Québec, which is on defence side; the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse; Jean Trépanier, of the School of Criminology of the University of Montreal, who is an eminent criminologist; the Aide communautaire juridique de Montréal, which also works for the defence; the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Institut Pinel which is represented by Cécile Toutant, also prominent in that area; the Association des chefs de police et pompiers du Québec; the Conférence des régies régionales du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec; the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec; the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse; the Bureau des substituts du procureur général, which works on the prosecutor side; the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec; Marc Leblanc, of the Psycho-education School of the University of Montreal, who also is a well-known authority in that area; the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec; the Canadian Criminal Justice Association; and finally the League for the well-being of young children of Canada.

These are Canadian organisations which have made Quebec's position their own and whose Quebec section completely endorses the position of the coalition and the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

I believe this shows there is serious unrest on two levels; first on the socio-economic level and second on the Canadian political level.

On the socio-economic level, when we talk about young offenders and youth crime, fortunately this type of criminality is decreasing. Indeed, it has decreased by 23% between 1991 to 1997. As a matter of fact, youth crime is linked to serious unrest in our communities leading young men or women, to commit such serious acts. We should not only treat the effects of crime but also deal with its causes.

As can be seen in the quote from the report, this makes young people alone bear the responsibility for delinquent behaviour, as though society and the community had nothing to do with it. I am deeply troubled by this kind of thinking.

When we talk about young offenders, we are talking about the failings of our economic system. We are talking about the failings of neo-liberalism, which is promoted by right wing parties like the Reform Party, to which the Liberal government is much too eager to cater.

The same applies to the problem of the homeless, to the unacceptably high unemployment rate in Canada and Quebec, to precarious employment, to family violence, to food banks, to over consumption of drugs, to mental illnesses, to the unacceptably high suicide rate for a civilized society like ours, to family tragedies with murder and suicide or murder of the wife and children, tragedies that are becoming far too frequent.

All those things are inter-related, and it is not coincidence. We must go to the roots of the problems. We must examine not only the effects, but also the causes of these excesses and failings in our societies. This is when we have to look at the socio-economic causes, something we do not do often enough in this parliament, where we like to deal with issues on a superficial level, on a case by case basis, without ever getting to the bottom of things.

We must talk about the causes and stop talking about the effects and quickly go on to some other topic.

I believe there is something very political in this bill within the larger context of the constitutional debate. What we have here is two historically different approaches: Canada's and Quebec's. In Quebec the approach focuses less on guilt and puts less of a burden on the individual, whereas in Canada it is more punitive.

The fact that the government is ignoring the success of Quebec's approach is indicative of the new Canada envisioned in the spirit and the letter of the social union, whereby Quebec is not recognized as a distinct society, does not have a say, and is a province like all the others. It is important for those who are listening to understand this.

In this area, Quebec is a province like all the others. Its track record and success story are being trivialized. This is the future of Quebec within a Canada where everything is trivialized. From now on, Quebec will be a province like all the others, and its government will become a regional government. This gives us a lot of food for thought.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss Bill C-68 once again. The motion before the House proposed by the Bloc Quebecois looks at the possibility of in essence striking the entire bill and sending it back for further discussion.

Although we in the Conservative Party have great difficulty with some of the initiatives, and perhaps more so with the perception of what the bill will actually accomplish, I think it would be a giant step backward to completely throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to youth justice. That will not accomplish what we in this place hope to accomplish, which is to fix a existing fundamental problem when it comes to youth crime.

One major problem with the Young Offenders Act since its introduction over 15 years ago has been the impression the act has given young people that they will not be held accountable for criminal behaviour. Right or wrong, that is the impression out there and that is what is drastically undermining public confidence in our youth justice system and our justice system in general.

An attempt has been made by the government to address some of the problems. I will be very straightforward in pointing out some of the steps that are improvements on what we have seen. Obviously the ability to bring parents into our justice system is something that has to occur. However what will occur in this instance is not the full package.

What will happen now is that the parents of young offenders who have been apprehended and are in the process of going through court and potentially being released back into the community will now be forced to come forward, sign, and essentially make a contract with the province and the attorney general's department that they will ensure the conditions deemed appropriate by a court will be followed. They will be brought to court themselves and charged if those conditions are not adhered to. That is what will be accomplished and that is a laudable attempt to fix some of the problem.

However, what we do not see happening is parents being brought forward to answer for where they were in the first instance when a child was involved in a criminal act. Why is it that a young person was out breaking into a neighbour's house or stealing their car at 2 o'clock in the morning? That accountability we have not yet achieved and sadly we will not through this piece of legislation.

There has been much ado, much discussion, much debate and acrimony about the age of accountability. Again I think the key word in all of this is accountability. The Liberals have countered attempts by the opposition to debate this issue by saying “Look at this overreaction on the part of neo-Conservatives who want to somehow throw 10 and 11 year olds in jail for criminal acts”. That is not the case at all. That is certainly not the position that has been taken by the Conservative Party.

What we want to see happen, obviously, is that if by some misdirection or some misdeed a 10 or 11 year old finds himself or herself involved particularly in a violent criminal act, there will be some mechanism by which to bring that young person to account, not necessarily through the full hammer of criminal sanctions in a courtroom, but at least there should be the ability to trigger a response.

As it currently stands, that does not exist in our Criminal Code. It exists in other countries. It once existed in our Criminal Code under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.

As I said at the outset, the issue is accountability. The issue is the state, the province, the police and our social services having a mechanism by which to bring to account and to bring forward some recourse for a young person at that tender age.

Certainly the whole principle behind the Young Offenders Act and the principle behind the new youth criminal justice act is to recognize that there is obviously a difference in the level of accountability that will be levelled upon a person under the age of 18. We are saying that it should be taken one step further. Drop it down a bit further so that we can at least start the process of rehabilitation, bringing that person into a system, be it the criminal justice system or be it a diversion into the social welfare net. There has to be something to start the process.

We know that when violent crime is involved the response has to be quick. The criminal justice system, I suggest, is best suited and best equipped to make that intervention and then to follow through. After the fact, when an arrest has been made, when the justice system has been given the tools to act, then we can decide what the long term recourse will be.

To accomplish all of this the provinces will have to receive greater funding. This has been the crux of the issue with respect to the provinces and their responses, both positive and negative, when one starts to look at the overall strategy as to what is to be accomplished in our youth justice system.

The Progressive Conservative government has to take some fault in this as well because when the justice system was first set up to encompass the Young Offenders Act we never saw the 50% share of the funding that has to be shouldered by the federal government. That has never occurred. The Progressive Conservatives froze that funding. The Liberals then went further to cut it to the point where, in some provinces, it is below 30%.

The irony in all of this and the reason for giving some background is to recognize the fact that much of what is sought by this youth justice system, that is, earlier intervention, preventive measures, a proactive approach taken to justice, which are all wonderful buzzwords and laudable goals, cannot be accomplished unless we have the opportunity to put into the hands of the provinces the proper funding to administer it. We know that the drastic cuts that have been handed out by this federal government have had an absolutely deteriorating effect on social services throughout the provinces.

The brunt of this legislation and the administration thereof will fall on the provinces once again. The 50% funding that should be coming from this government to accomplish all of the goals, as laudable as they are, simply will not happen without that resource allocation.

Once again we have seen the government speaking grandly, giving a grandiose plan as to what it would like to accomplish. There has been a great deal of absolutely wonderful press conferences and announcements that have been made time and time again at the press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons. That was all done in the run-up, in the raised expectations of the new youth criminal justice act. However, those goals, those accomplishments that the government has put forward, will not be achieved unless the provinces are given the money.

There has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber as well about the approach that has been taken by the Quebec provincial government and there are statistics to back it up. La belle province de Québec c'est la première province pour la justice when it comes to the treatment of youth. The difficulty with this legislation is that once more we see a very cynical position put forward by the government. Not only could it have borrowed from what Quebec has done, it has said “If you do not do it our way you can opt out and not receive the money”. Not only is the money not sufficient, the provinces can decide not to do it the federal government's way and they will not get the money.

We see an approach that time and time again has left Canadians feeling very cynical, feeling almost despondent about the way we accomplish these goals. They are common goals. We in the House should certainly be able to put partisanship aside when it comes to accomplishments in our youth justice system. However, every time we get into these issues emotion and partisanship prevails and we get bogged down in debates, casting aspersions on who did what last. The Tories did this. The Liberals did that. It is the Reform Party. It is the Bloc. It is the NDP. That is not going to accomplish these goals.

There are issues in health, taxation and justice that we should be trying to work toward in a very positive fashion instead of continually dredging up the past. We could go back to John A. Macdonald, if we want to do that. We see it and we live it every day in this place.

If the government is serious about accomplishing these things and if it is serious about aiding the provinces in the administration of this new youth justice act, it should not simply spout figures like the $206 million that is going to be handed to the provinces in the next three years, it should live up to the commitment that was originally intended and that was that the federal government would pick up 50% of the tab when it came to the administration of justice and the administration of this new youth criminal justice act.

I, like other members of the House, look forward to participating at the committee level, proposing changes, working with my colleagues, both in opposition and on the government side, to achieve these laudable goals.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up where my friend from the Progressive Conservative Party left off. He made some very valid points and I will focus on a few of them.

What we have to focus on is that every single young offender, every single youth who comes before our courts, the ones who commit the most serious offences, who are incarcerated, are going to be released into society. I agree with him absolutely that we need funding for this.

The Young Offenders Act will be re-packaged. There will be a new bow put on the package, with a few new dressings on the outside and it will now be called the youth criminal justice act, but we will basically have the same thing.

I held a one-day seminar at a high school in my riding and I invited the head youth provincial court judge, Judge Chaperon, to participate in the seminar. She brought up a very disturbing fact that happens within our youth justice system, which boils down to what my friend was focusing on, and that is the lack of resources. Her biggest frustration is not being able to give the youth in our justice system the help they need. The resources from the federal government are not there, although, again, it mentions the $206 million.

She told me that over 50% of the people who are in the youth detention centre in Victoria have one form of psychological problem or another. However, they do not have the resources to give them the counselling and the programs they need to turn them around and to make sure they do not come back.

The government has the responsibility to make sure that it puts the resources out there so that the provinces will have the tools they need to provide the rehabilitation that is so necessary. Warehousing these youth, locking them up and not doing anything with them while they are in the warehouse, not ensuring that they are getting anger management, drug counselling and psychological counselling from experts before they are released into society, is a waste of time. We have to focus on that. That is one area in which the government has really been slack.

Another area, and my hon. friend also brought this up, is the involvement of parents in the youth justice system. I do not think the government has really done anything there.

Under section 7.2 of the old Young Offenders Act if a youth was incarcerated and the judge was going to release them the judge had a tool whereby the parent could be forced to sign an undertaking that they would report any breaches of the conditions. It could be a curfew, going to school or attending a certain program. It could be anything. If that young offender breached one of those conditions, it was absolutely imperative that the adult or whoever signed the undertaking report it to the authorities. It is not forcing parents to make sure they have control over their children, but when they lose control they must report it to the authorities.

There is a positive step. The old penalty was up to six months and the new penalty is up to two years. I agree with my hon. colleague from Surrey North. As he put it, maybe that will be the incentive required to make parents fulfill their obligation, because in many respects they are not. In the personal situation of my good friend from Surrey North that did not happen.

I think we need to go one step further. We need to make sure that we press charges, especially in the most violent cases where there is absolutely no excuse for them not to report it or where we can absolutely show that it was a blatant abuse of the system and they did not report it when they knew about. I would submit that is not happening now. That is something we should be doing.

My hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast spoke about the importance of prevention. I really want to emphasize that. That is where we need to be going in our youth justice system. We have to look at prevention at the front end. We do not want our youth put into warehouses and locked up. We want to make sure they are productive members of society. There are programs, such as the head start program put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in Motion No. 261, which would go a long way to achieving some of these goals.

At the end of the day we are now getting this new youth justice bill and I do not think it is going to change a whole lot, as my colleagues have stated. I do not think the government is putting the resources into it that are required. I do not think it is compelling the parents enough to participate in the process.

There should be a section in the bill which makes it mandatory for parents or guardians of all young offenders, at all levels, to be present in the courtroom. That is not happening now and it will not happen under the new youth justice bill. For any young offender who is before the courts, it should be absolutely mandatory that a parent be there to participate in the process. We know that young offenders are going to be released into society. If they are going to succeed, then they are going to need that parental support and we should be making it mandatory.

Again, I want to focus on the resources. I have practised criminal law within the youth justice system and my own experiences show that if we are going to make the changes necessary, then we have to make sure that we provide the resources necessary so that when our youth go askew, when they fall under the cracks, there is accountability and that our number one goal is not to warehouse them but to put them back into society in a productive manner. To do that the people in our justice system will need resources and tools. Under this bill they will not have them. The $206 million does not even come close to cutting it.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

An hon. member

That is over three years.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I have just been reminded that that will be over three years.

Again, I will bring this back to Judge Chaperon from Victoria, who is a youth court judge. That is her biggest frustration. The resources are not there so that when these kids go askew she can make sure they get the help they so desperately need.

In many cases they had disastrous family backgrounds which are absolutely beyond imagination. It is up to us as a society to make sure we can give them at least a fighting chance, get them into counselling programs or life skills programs or whatever they need. If they need psychological help we could provide it, but that is not there.

My colleague from the Progressive Conservatives also talked about Quebec and the opt out provision. I personally do not think that we should be giving a province an opt out provision. We need a national youth justice program. The reason it is fighting for it is that what is on the table is not adequate. It is not the answer.

At the end of the day there is no question we have seen the same Young Offenders Act. There will not be a lot of difference. There has been some tinkering, but there will not be much change in how we administer our youth justice system. We have lost the confidence of the Canadian people. We have lost the confidence of the public. We have to restore that.

There has to be accountability and a twofold approach. When we get them before the courts in the beginning we need a tough love approach. Let us deal with them. Our number one goal is to make sure that they never come back into the justice system again. I am not talking about incarceration. I am talking about tough programs and curfews that are mandatory so that they will not want to come back. It will not be an easy ride. It will also deal with the rehabilitative side.

Obviously there will be a second approach for the few that go askew and will commit these incredible and horribly violent offences. There will be accountability and we will deal with them in a severe way so it will not carry on.

At the end of the day we have to restore the confidence of the Canadian people in our youth justice system. Unfortunately the bill basically repackages the Young Offenders Act with a new outside but the same interior.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I am going to make a comment that is not on the bill. I have watching these debates for most of the day and I see that more and more members are speaking without notes. I compliment the hon. member; I was here for his talk. I think that is great.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I too do not have a prepared speech to read and put the House to sleep with.

Allow me to begin with an important quote, which could guide our discussions today. It is from the report submitted by the Jasmin task force, established by the Government of Quebec to look into the application of the Young Offenders Act.

This excerpt is important in the context of the current debate.

The Jasmin report sates:

It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of intervention. It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency.

Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve them.

In today's debate, this should be a beacon guiding the minister as regards the bill before us. But that is not what the Liberal Party is doing. The minister should have travelled across the country to explain that, as far as young offenders are concerned, the best policy is the one advocated by Quebec, but she did not do that.

Instead, the minister decided to reform herself. She decided to adopt the philosophy of western cowboys. Members will recall that the cowboy approach to young offenders was simple: shoot first and ask questions later.

Listening to my colleagues from the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, I could not help but wonder if the hanging would be reintroduced. Why not have public hangings while we are at it? The Reformers and the Conservatives are going a little too far.

I condemn the Liberal government for moving toward such radical solutions. It is not by changing the law to make it tougher and by imposing exemplary sentences that we will solve the problem with regard to young offenders.

I think Quebec's approach was better. Unfortunately, as usual, the minister and her cabinet colleagues simply ignored that approach. She will engage in a big centralizing exercise. We will have to wait and see how it will fit in with the various provincial justice systems. We already know there will be a problem in Quebec.

The minister claims, among a lot of other things, that the existing legislation is not clear. However, statistics do not lie. The crime rate in Quebec is the lowest in Canada. Why has the minister not taken Quebec as model instead of embracing the philosophy of the Reform Party and western Canada and bringing forward such a harsh piece of legislation to deal with young offenders? She even found a way to criticize everything that is related to Quebec's justice system and police forces.

The Government of Quebec does not agree with the minister's bill. The Barreau du Québec does not agree. Most criminologists have expressed great concern about the minister's approach. Youth centres, which deal with young offenders and see to it that they are rehabilitated instead of punished and put into a system they will never get out of, have expressed their opposition to the minister's proposal. And so has Quebec's president of the bar.

I did not take many examples from the law, but one that caught my eye is the one about publishing the names of the young offenders. We consider this totally counterproductive. Juvenile delinquency breeds new recruits for gangs like the Hell's Angels and the Jokers. When a juvenile delinquent is planning a career with the Hell's Angels, and his name appears in the papers, he need only report to the Hell's Angels and say “See what a naughty brat I am. I am ready to take over in a motorcycle gang”.

It seems to me that publishing the name of these young people is counterproductive. This is one of the measures I found in the bill. There are a lot more.

What we have before us today is again two systems and two values. The Quebec system believes in rehabilitation. Under the Quebec system, all the energies of the justice system and the police forces must go toward rehabilitating young offenders who have not reached the age of majority. The solution is not to send them to a harsh prison setting where there is absolutely no chance of rehabilitation.

Quebec considers it important to give young people who have committed an offence, whatever the offence, the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. Unfortunately, I think that the minister opposes this. As usual, she holds the philosophy of centralization under which all of Canada's justice systems, Quebec's or that of other provinces, must align with the federal system. That is totally deplorable.

There are not just the visions of Quebec and Canada that differ. There are also two visions in the area I hold dear, Indian affairs. In most provinces, except in Quebec maybe, the rate of incarceration of young natives is very high.

Some people understood how to deal with the issue in Quebec. A travelling judge used to go to northern Quebec and attend what they call sentencing circles. When a young native had a crime problem, people gathered in a room and asked the community “What can we do, by using a healing circle, to reintegrate this teenager?” Some extraordinary things are being done in Quebec but unfortunately not elsewhere.

This judge was Jean-Charles Coutu. He travelled to the far north on a regular basis to solve problems. Contrary to many judges and indeed to the minister's philosophy, this judge sat down and, after having heard the evidence and before sentencing, he would listen to what the community had to suggest in order to rehabilitate the young offender.

On numerous occasions, the judge agreed with the healing circle and said “I will sentenced this young person according to what you told me and we will see how successful rehabilitation will be”.

The rate of success was very high. Besides avoiding overpopulating jails, they succeeded in rehabilitating those young people.

This is why it is regrettable that the minister is leading us down a different path and taking a hardline approach. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against this bill, for the main reasons I have just given.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Speaker

Once more, dear colleague, I wish to congratulate you. Except for the short quotation, you spoke without any notes.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally get a chance to speak to the government's attempt to revise and update the Young Offenders Act. Contrary to popular belief, this is something for which Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been calling for years, not just cowboys from western Canada.

I find it ironic that my party gets abused for this. We are portrayed as insensitive and tough minded when it comes to criminals, yet the first thing the Liberals do when they trot out their latest effort is to brag about how tough minded it is. I guess we could say that it is pretty insensitive too, but in this case it is insensitive to the wishes of a majority of Canadians and certainly my constituents who are looking for a little more meat on the bones.

The youth criminal justice act like other legislation that has percolated up through months or years of consultation and study contains a germ of good intentions. Section 6 formalizes the role of police to correct the actions of young offenders who have committed minor infractions.

Over the last few years our justice system has been bogged down with the rights of the criminal to the point that police find themselves on the defensive after carrying out their duties. What was acceptable on one occasion is found unacceptable by a later court. This process has made the officer's ability to deal with people frustrating and time consuming.

At a town hall meeting one year ago my constituents told me that for first time and minor offences rehabilitation is the top priority. Local authorities must have the option of running programs that suit local conditions and that bring young offenders face to face with their victims and the impact of their thoughtless actions. It is kind of based on the sentencing circle model we see being used in the aboriginal communities.

I was told that young people must have respect for the justice system. I believe that is something which cannot be started young enough. The problem with Bill C-68 is that it leaves this concept up to a variety of jurisdictions, a lot of them overlapping, and it includes no money to encourage a system of diversionary programs.

We are all in favour of civil rights and no one wants to see anyone victimized by overzealous authorities. Unfortunately what we too often see these days is the concept of human rights being twisted and reinterpreted to what is more acceptable to special interest groups and their particular needs rather than the acceptance of everyone as being equal under the law. This undermines the job of the police which is to keep the general peace and apply the law equally to anyone who breaks it.

Young criminals see that concept operating and lose respect for the law while they take advantage of the loopholes. I realize these are qualifications. There is such a thing as diminished capacity that suggests younger people cannot frame the moral implications of what they are doing with the same sophistication as a mature adult, but this does not mean there should be no consequences, only different ones. I would hope the young people of the country still have enough respect for the police to listen and alter their behaviour when a man or a woman in blue comes calling.

In rural areas, allowing police to use discretion and deal openly with the young offender and his parents may save a lot of time and trouble. The problem then becomes whether we can be assured there will be enough officers to go around. With the financial abuse suffered by the RCMP at the hands of the government it is not a hopeful picture. Bill C-68 does not promise any relief for hard pressed police forces in this respect, or community programs for that matter.

It is ironic that the justice minister would choose to number this bill with the same designation as the previous gun control bill. We see over $200 million being wasted there when it could certainly help prevent crime by being invested in our youth.

I congratulate my colleague from Crowfoot for his excellent work in bringing forward the perspective of frontline police officers. His name is not on the bill but his ideas are certainly stamped there. Maybe in his lifetime we will see real change in the country, in the words of the minister, “in a timely fashion”.

I notice in section 8 the crown prosecutors may likewise be authorized to issue cautions rather than proceed with court action. This can be different from province to province according to the whims of each attorney general and can undermine the work of the police. I realize that criminal cases cannot go forward on the exclusive say-so of the police, but we do see instances where overworked crown attorneys trade off low profile cases for higher ones to the frustration of the frontline officers. I also note there is a great deal in the bill about diversion or, as the government terms it, extra judicial measures.

Contrary to government spin, I do not believe that any of the Reformers or the two million Canadians who voted for us are interested in filling our jails with young people. That is not the answer. We had the unfortunate spectacle of the justice minister claiming we want to jail 10 year olds and I am sure even she regrets playing these political games in order to score points.

The entire justice committee heard and put forward in the report the need for action expressed by Canadians. My constituents said that 16 and 17 year old repeat violent offenders should be treated as near adults rather than near children. I will repeat that. We are talking about repeat violent offenders being treated as near adults rather than near children.

Young children are being targeted for participation in criminal activities by older youth offenders and career criminal adults who believe they are untouchable and maybe will remain so under this redecorated bill. Unless 10 year olds are taken under wing by the justice system, especially a stronger system than we see today, they will be headed for future problems that all of society ends up paying for.

The member for Surrey North has logged countless hours with diversion programs that work. Every clear-thinking Canadian would like to see young people corrected before their misbehaviour leads to serious jail time.

The Liberal version of extra judicial measures has enough holes in it to drive a stolen car through. The definition of offenders who will be eligible for diversionary programs can include those very car thieves, drug traffickers and break and enter criminals as long as they do not “cause or create a substantial risk of causing bodily harm”. That is a loose term.

Like so many other statutes in law, this is open to interpretation. I can imagine courts taking up time defining what has happened before ever getting around to deciding what to do about it.

I wonder if teenagers out on a joy ride in a stolen car represent a substantial risk of causing bodily harm or an insubstantial one. I guess it depends on whether they run over anyone or not. Does whacking another fellow on the head with a lead pipe constitute more of a risk causing bodily harm than whacking him on the knee? I guess it all comes down to interpretation.

In section 9 we see that evidence of an offender having received extra judicial measures or special status on previous occasions is not admissible for proving prior offending behaviour. Like the closed file that we have now, the record of trouble with the law cannot be entered as evidence that the person is a repeat offender. The youth is safe again. This means that young offenders and drug traffickers could be diverted from serving jail time over and over again. They will not be called repeat offenders, never having been designated as repeat offenders, because each case will be or may be treated as a one time event. We can hope that this will not happen in practice but the opening is definitely there to be tested.

The definitions are all open to interpretation and challenge. As I said, our clogged court system will spend more time chasing its own tail and it will vary from province to province.

My constituents at the town hall meeting said that the central concept of the youth justice system must be that actions have consequences and that legal actions will bring swift and appropriate punishment. Instead, Bill C-68 brings more arguments between judges and lawyers. I guess that is a perverse Liberal job creation.

It is in the area of definitions and interpretations that gets us most in trouble. The justice minister has said that there are competing visions for competing cultures in law. She seemed to suggest there is a simplistic vision which wants to jail all transgressors and a more compassionate vision which wants to be flexible and helpful.

As every parent knows, there is room for both of these approaches when bringing up our young people. Parents know that sometimes we have to be firm and say no. When the line is drawn, the consequences for crossing it must be immediate and relevant, scaled up or down to fit the nature of the situation. My constituents were clear on this very distinction.

It is ironic that a government that keeps claiming a role in raising the next generation refuses to make the tough choices that parents must do every day. We do not see clear lines drawn in the bill so much as circles. We read about what may be done or what should be happening in a variety of cases and in different jurisdictions. This could be interpreted as flexibility, but in light of the present state of underfunded, overworked and handcuffed police forces in the country, I think we can see it as an abdication of a government bent on being politically correct and offending as few groups as possible while turning the whole mess over to the courts. That is simplistic; just pass the buck but not the money.

The old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, certainly defines the direction we must entertain regarding our youth justice.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this bill and to remind the House that we are debating the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Laval Centre.

That amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-68, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Why has the Bloc Quebecois introduced this amendment? Because, basically, this bill is unacceptable. It does not seek to improve the treatment given young offenders, ensuring that they may be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society. It has nothing to do with improving a system that might not be working properly at the present time and might need some improvement. What it does have to do with is vote seeking.

In western Canada, the mindset is more punitive. They would like to see far more severe measures. It would seem that the present government has decided to bow to the pressures from that part of the country and to bring in changes to a system that is already working very well. At least, it is working very well in Quebec. We have a quite attractive record for our effectiveness at rehabilitating young people and reintegrating them back into society.

Quebeckers are not necessarily more peace minded than others but we in Quebec have developed good tools to give young people a second chance when their behaviour gets them in trouble with the law.

We have put a lot of energy into this, spent money, put structures in place and trained judges and lawyers. We have also trained many stakeholders so that first offenders are more generally dealt with at the community level, made to realize the seriousness of their actions, and put in a context where they are able to change their behaviour and not go back to their old ways.

There are provisions of the existing legislation that run contrary to this approach, and we find that totally unacceptable. First there is the publication of names.

The bill provides for the publication of the names of young persons having committed an indictable offence. This will be counterproductive. Young people who commit crimes as part of a gang are often looking for a way to gain recognition; to release information would only reinforce the negative aspects of their actions.

I believe this kind of attitude is more in keeping with the promotion of a punitive approach. This is not a good model. It has not yielded good results so far.

In Quebec we have developed our own approach. Statistics show that we are successful in rehabilitating young offenders. Most of them manage to find their place in society and live a normal life. This should be the purpose of such an act.

This purpose is not to make sure that we impose the harshest possible penalty on someone who committed a reprehensible act, but to make sure that the offender understands what he has done and that conditions are created whereby he will not reoffend but rather lead the life of a regular citizen.

In that sense, the existing legislation is effective. It fulfils its objectives. However, there is a prerequisite, which is the will to succeed. We must therefore invest the necessary energy and resources. If we take a totally different approach and say that it is not worth the effort, that it is pointless to invest in resources to rehabilitate young offenders, that we can always rely on the punitive approach, the model developed in Quebec cannot be successful.

We currently find ourselves in a very difficult situation in Canada. The government wants to change an act that works well. It is fundamentally effective. It allows us to achieve good results, but now they want to change it. We will find ourselves in a situation where, in spite of the minister's claims, the punitive approach, the negative approach will be prevalent all across Canada.

When judges will have to make a ruling in certain circumstances, the precedents will be such that, in the end, over the years, the new act will have an impact that could undermine the approach developed by Quebec.

Another important point is that incarceration is not a solution, and there is evidence of that everywhere in our society. Incarceration of a young person has often turned prison into a school of crime. A young person may have committed an offence once, and there are two choices for him or her. The first choice is to send that person to prison, where he or she can learn a lot of things for the rest of his or her life, for example how to engage in illegal activities or how to become part of the underworld. The second choice, which avoids incarceration, forces that young person to face the reality of our society, teaches him or her how to become self-confident and how to use the legal means that exist, and ultimately makes a responsible citizen out of him or her. I think it is an interesting example from that point of view.

I would invite the minister to take another look at the results achieved in Quebec. The essence of the amendment brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois is to say that it is simply impossible today, with what we have, to make the changes the federal government wants us to make because we would be destroying a system that is working well.

There are enough things that need to be improved in our society without making changes in this area. Maybe people will say, 10, 15 or 20 years from now, that Quebec had the right approach. If we are very strict and if we put a lot of people in prison, we will have results that will look more like the American model, and I do not think that is what we want.

If some things need improving in the present legislation—no legislation is perfect—they can perhaps be improved, but not the way the bill has been drafted. As my colleague says, we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. What is needed are amendments that would let those provinces interested in adopting a model similar to Quebec's do so, with appropriate funding.

The bill should have included provisions allowing those governments who wish to do so to take a constructive approach and invest in approaches like youth courts, youth homes, all sorts of closed custody facilities, whatever is available. We encourage them to explore these avenues. Provinces who try this approach will see that it works. In Quebec, there are fewer long term jail sentences and crime has been down for several years now. This must be allowed to continue and the American model, with its increase in crime, avoided.

I have one final point. In the case of 14 and 15-year olds, the bill also contains a provision allowing a judge to base his decision directly on the Criminal Code, as though it were a case involving an adult, rather than referring the case to an adult court. There is a world of difference because, as things now stand, when a judge wishes to have a young person sentenced on an adult basis, he simply refers him to the other court. At that point, a defence can be prepared accordingly, and judges and stakeholders, who are accustomed to working with a more community based model, the model developed by Quebec, take an approach different from the one taken when a youth is referred to another court.

The bill wanted to have these two models implemented in the same way by the same court, which would not, in my opinion, be a worthwhile solution.

In conclusion, then, we are faced here with a bill that needs reworking as far as its very principles are concerned. I invite the government and the entire Liberal deputation to influence the minister and the cabinet so that it will not seek to win votes at the expense of young offenders aged 13, 14 or 15, who have lots of other things to worry about besides a punitive approach that will follow them all their lives.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Allow me to congratulate the hon. member for speaking without written notes. That was very good.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, there is an old expression, the elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse, except I think in this specific instance perhaps one could say more accurately the mouse laboured and brought forth a gnat.

What has the government actually accomplished after two long years of labour? There is a new name. The YOA is now the YCJA. That sounds like a song. From the government's point of view that is probably a good thing because the YOA was a lightning rod which attracted the anger of the Canadian people against the justice system of this country. Everything that was, is and probably will eternally be wrong, was indeed directed against that one specific act. So it had to be changed. There had to be a little sleight of hand, a little cosmetic surgery and it came up with a brand new bill which is supposed to have us all very excited.

There are some actual changes in the bill if one goes through the reams and reams of paper. There appear to be some changes. The age of responsibility with respect to sentencing for certain violent crimes has ostensibly been lowered to 14 years of age. Superficially this addresses a major public concern. There has been a lot of outcry about that over the last few years, but what has actually been done is merely to create a treasure trove for lawyers.

In order to get the 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds into the adult justice system for sentencing, there has to be a court battle, a trial within a trial because any young person so charged can, through his or her lawyer, apply to the court to have his or her sentencing done in youth court. Naturally nobody will pass up the opportunity, so there will be eternal legal battles as to who will be sentenced as an adult and who will be sentenced as a youth.

This is an act written by lawyers for lawyers. Of course we all know that lawyers do look after their own. The justice minister recently found $83,000 in her stocking to reward a lawyer who also just happens to be a Liberal hack for three months of work. What a great example to set for the kids.

I had a letter from a constituent who said he wished we could pass a law making it illegal for lawyers to sit in parliament. I do not know how far that would go but perhaps it is worthy of some consideration.

Bill C-68 fails to address the major public complaint against the Young Offenders Act. That is the lack of accountability for repeat or serious offenders who happen to be less than 12 years old. The minister babbles interminably and incoherently that inclusion of 10 and 11 year olds within the youth justice system process would be “barbaric”. However she refuses to accept the reality that these children desperately need help, help that they are clearly not getting from the provincial child welfare and mental health systems on which they are dumped by the justice system because there are no alternatives.

Hundreds of kids are reoffending and laughing at the powerlessness of their social workers while feeling deeply hurt by the disinterest of their parents. By the time they reach their teens, they are hardened little criminals. We have to do something for these youngsters.

Most proponents of the idea that there should not be any legislation governing 11 and 12 year olds have the curious idea that young children cannot make reasoned decisions, that they are incapable of being judgmental. Those people certainly have not raised any kids. They have never been confronted with the guile of even the most benign and sensitive 11 year old.

On the good side, this bill will permit publication of names of young offenders more than 14 years old who qualify for adult sentences or who received a youth sentence for a particularly heinous crime. But again there is no certainty, again there is room for dispute, so let us call that initiative half good.

Alternative sentencing for first time non-violent offenders is, in my opinion, only common sense, as long as it is indeed limited to such offenders and not extended to young thugs who cause bodily harm. Similarly it should not be extended to old thugs who cause bodily harm and it sometimes is.

Diversion programs are also a very good idea, very laudable, but as my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster pointed out, the provision as written is wide open for abuse. There has to be some certainty in the law. This is all so wishy-washy, so poorly tied together. Again it is written by lawyers for lawyers. They can probably figure it out. They can find all the loopholes. They know where to jump to get over the barriers.

However it does not improve the justice system in this country by one iota. All it does is put a new coat of paint on the old YOA, and I think this is not an exaggeration, which almost everybody wanted to get rid of.

The government had the chance. It could have given us good law, but we are right back almost where we started from.

Before concluding, I would like to voice my objections to the string of insulting comments the Bloc Quebecois has been making about the west and westerners.

Imagine the fuss there would be if we dared to make such comments about la Belle Province. Attacks like these are revolting.