Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise tonight to say a few words on behalf of my colleague from Surrey North in support of his private member's bill, Bill C-260.
I say at the outset that I find it absolutely incredible that the government can move so expeditiously as it just did to shut down debate on an important piece of legislation. For the 53rd time the government moved time allocation, a form of closure. It closed down the debate on Bill C-78, the government pension bill. It rams through the House legislation that we see is of real importance to Canadians.
I am specifically speaking now in favour of Private Member's Bill C-260, which is votable. We see foot dragging which takes up valuable time in the House, when for all intents and purposes this is a very simple and straightforward bill which makes a minor change to the Young Offenders Act. This bill could be put through quickly with all-party support.
In fact, one would think that would happen, because ironically enough the justice minister and the justice department have seen fit to pick up the idea of my colleague from Surrey North. Basically the content of Bill C-260 is included in the justice minister's new youth justice act, Bill C-68, which is also being debated in the House.
What does Bill C-260 do? As I said, it is very simple and straightforward. It involves a minor change to section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act. It would move that from a simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid offence.
For the benefit of those at home viewing the debate tonight, we have to ask what this bill would accomplish. It would hold parents, guardians or others more accountable, the people who sign contracts with the courts to take on the responsibility for youth who have been charged with criminal offences.
Rather than incarcerating those youths, the courts would grant bail. The youths would be out in the community but under certain conditions imposed by the courts. Those conditions, once imposed, are meant to be respected. Adults, often parents but sometimes guardians or others, sign a contract with the courts and take on the responsibility of ensuring that the youths follow those conditions.
What exactly does the bill do to hold the parents or guardians more accountable? It would simply change the present possible penalty from six months imprisonment to two years less a day. Nothing else would change.
The justice minister has paid my colleague from Surrey North the ultimate compliment that can be given to a private member, certainly to a member from an opposition party. She has included his Bill C-260 virtually verbatim in her new youth justice act, Bill C-68.
We have heard from members on the government side during the preceding debate on this bill. This is the third hour of a votable private member's bill. In the preceding two hours of debate members from all parties congratulated my colleague from Surrey North for accomplishing that, for bringing forward a bill that has actually been included in government legislation.
Another question would have to be asked. Why would my colleague from Surrey North not simply withdraw Bill C-260 since it is included in the government's new youth legislation?
Unfortunately we have seen time and time again that government legislation for many reasons can take a considerable amount of time to get passed, especially omnibus bills that are not like Bill C-260 that contain clauses that are certainly arguable as to their worth to Canadian society and to the general public. The new Bill C-68, the youth justice act, is going to be one of those bills. There is going to be some very contentious parts to that legislation if it ever comes before the House.
There is another thing hanging over all this legislation. We keep hearing rumours that the government is going to prorogue parliament in June. Legislation on the Order Paper will die. We are very concerned that the youth justice act could be one of those pieces of legislation that dies at the end of this session. Then it is of little benefit to anyone that one of the sections in Bill C-68 that we support is in effect Bill C-260 put forward by my colleague.
In our estimation there is some need to push this forward. My colleague was fortunate enough to begin with to win the lottery and have his name drawn to debate the bill. Then he was successful in convincing the subcommittee which deems certain private members' legislation votable that his bill was important enough to be made votable. Obviously it met all the criteria for a votable item. He was able to argue sufficiently and it was made votable.
The bill is now before the House for its third hour of debate and it will be votable. We just heard the hon. government whip say that although it will be deferred, there will be a vote on Bill C-260. All members will be able to vote on it.
It is important that we vote and that we push this issue along and that we have that opportunity to pass this very important change into law as quickly as possible, rather than wait to have it brought forward some day in Bill C-68.
Some people have said that this bill is too harsh because it will hold parents accountable. It is important to point out, as I did earlier, that the only thing it changes is the possible maximum sentence that can be levelled by the court against parents or guardians who do not live up to their responsibility, who do not fulfil the contract they sign with the courts when they take the responsibility for youth who have been charged for criminal activities.