Debates of May 13th, 1999

Division No. 433

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote yes on this motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would vote nay to this motion, no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 439

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 36 defeated.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following: Motions Nos. 44 and 52.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in that fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 448

[The Speaker]

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 44 and 52 defeated.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 449

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 19 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

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and the member for Surrey North concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-260 scheduled at the conclusion of Private Members' Business today. I believe you would find consent for the following:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-260, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 25, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

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.

[An hon. member]

It is already in the legislation.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

The reality is that the bill as it is presently constituted will accomplish that. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was heckling a moment ago saying that it is already in the act.

Of course it is in the act, but as has been pointed out by previous speakers, being able to hold the parents accountable with more deterrence that will be provided by the possibility of a two year sentence is not in the act. That is the reason we must push this through to a vote. I expect that members from all sides of the House, including government members who obviously intend to support Bill C-68 which includes this change, would want to support Bill C-260.

Unless they would want to be called hypocrites, which I am sure no member would want to be called, I am sure they will actually support the legislation when it comes to a vote.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House of Commons this evening.

As most hon. members know, the government fully supports the concept behind the bill. We have incorporated it completely into the proposed legislation, Bill C-68, the youth criminal justice act which currently is at second reading in the House. The Reform Party member for Surrey North should take some credit for that inclusion.

Let me first look at the current situation under the Young Offenders Act. It provides that young people who are denied bail can be released to a responsible adult who undertakes in writing to care for the youth and ensure compliance with the conditions set by the court. Currently a wilful failure by the responsible adult to comply with the undertaking is a summary conviction offence.

Bill C-260 would amend the Young Offenders Act to make the offence of wilfully failing to comply with an undertaking a hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence, that is give an option for the offence to be treated as a summary conviction or as an indictable offence with the possibility of a prison term for up to two years at the discretion of the crown. The new youth criminal justice act also provides for the same hybrid offences treatment.

The government feels that a wilful failure to comply with an undertaking to act as a responsible adult in relation to youth is very serious. It is useful to allow a prosecutor to use discretion as to what charge to bring forward.

It is no secret that we greatly appreciate the hon. member's important contribution to the new youth criminal justice act. However, the motion put forward by the government at this time would allow parliament to deal with the issue in the more comprehensive government youth justice bill that is already before the House.

Once again it is important to note that the concept behind Bill C-260 has been completely incorporated in Bill C-68. While Bill C-260 seeks to amend the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-68 seeks to replace the Young Offenders Act with an entirely new act, an important element of the government's youth strategy. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

When the bill was before the House on March 15, at the conclusion of the time for debate the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough had the floor and had six minutes remaining in his speech.

The bill was subsequently debated on March 19 and the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough did not on that occasion use his six minutes. I understand he is seeking the floor floor now, and since he is rising on the amendment he may take ten minutes.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment to the main motion. The amendment keeps in mind that Bill C-68 has borrowed from and incorporated much of the intent the hon. member for Surrey North had in mind when the bill was originally brought forward.

I acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the member for Surrey North in this regard. Through no fault of his own and through no desire of his own, he joined a very exclusive group in the country, and that is being the survivor of a murdered victim. As a parent I think the bill and the incorporation of the bill into the Criminal Code serves as a tribute to his son Jesse.

This a very commendable focus of what in most circumstances would be a very bitter and negative energy. He has put forward what is a very positive motion which will hopefully help to prevent, perhaps in some way, matters such as this where a parent is not being held accountable and not making significant efforts to supervise a young person who is bound by a court order.

There has been much discussion throughout the debate on Bill C-260 about the new youth criminal justice act that has also been debated in the Chamber. We in the Progressive Conservative Party like all Canadians were looking forward to the changes that were coming about as a result of deliberations and as a result of the long delay endured on the issue of changes to the Young Offenders Act.

As has been stated time and time again in the House, in the media, in the coffee shops and in general debate throughout the country, the Young Offenders Act was not serving its purpose, not serving our criminal justice system, and not serving Canadians at large.

Unfortunately the new bill is a disappointment. There was an opportunity, which the minister chose not to exercise, to make changes that would have had a more significant effect. That is not to say that commendable changes have not come about. Certainly there is an element through some effort on the part of the member for Surrey North to bring in some form of parental responsibility. It is a positive measure to have the ability now to identify certain dangerous young offenders and the ability to transfer certain types of offences. That would be seen in a positive light.

However other offences have been excluded for some reason from consideration. Although we are not through the final stages of the bill, there will be an opportunity to propose amendments. At least there will be an opportunity to fix some of the glaring omissions on the part of the Department of Justice. Time will tell.

The introduction of the new bill was given a great deal of focus in the media. There was a great deal of hype and much discussion outside the Chamber by the minister. It is with sort of a heavy heart that we are facing a situation where this change to the Young Offenders Act does not exactly hit the mark.

Some of the areas where obviously there is a downturn or a failing is the inability to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10. There is also an omission in the area of focusing on the use of weapons in the commission of a criminal offence and making mandatory minimum sentences for young offenders in situations where weapons have been used.

The focus of the bill was to be on violent versus non-violent offences. There was much discussion and acrimony about the fact that young people should be given an opportunity and should be treated differently under our criminal justice system. That is the philosophy of the old bill, of the juvenile delinquents act, and of the bill before the House.

There is difficulty in saying that we have to be more pro-active and pre-emptive when it comes to treating young people under our criminal justice system. There has to be an acknowledgement that the resources also have to be allotted.

The enforcement and administration of the legislation have to acknowledge that currently there is a funding shortage and that currently the federal government is not holding up its end of the bargain. The original intent of the old legislation, the Young Offenders Act, was that the federal government would pick up 50% of the cost of administration. Similarly the new legislation would have the same fiscal or monetary attachment. That is not the case.

We also know that the present social services are in many cases the first line of defence, that is child welfare offices, offices that have to deal with the protection of children. These offices are drastically underfunded, yet at the same time the bill will put a greater emphasis on those agencies.

I would be reticent not to mention the fact that the police are given greater powers of discretion under the new bill. It is a very laudable intention that police officers be allowed to exercise greater discretion in the field and perhaps on occasion, rather than formally charging a young person, be permitted to take the young person to his or her parents or back to the station and administer a tongue lashing, for lack of a better word. Sometimes that will have a better impact on the young person than having them go through the very formal and very sterile court process.

With all of that in mind, if the intent of the new legislation is to have this proactive attempt by police to circumvent more formal processes, there also has to be an acknowledgement that it will be a very onerous task for police in terms of taxing their time, their effort and their current resources.

They simply do not have those resources. We know that because time and time again we hear it from the policing community and from the chiefs of police. We know that the RCMP is drastically underfunded at this time. We know that its budgets have been cut time and time again. In general terms we have seen billions cut out of transfer payments to provinces that go to the administration of justice in individual provinces.

It is nothing short of lip service. It is very lame for the government to suggest that it will give more responsibility to the police and the frontline agencies which will be tasked with administering the new bill and at the same time tell them not only that they will not get more money to do so but that they will not get the same amount they used to have to administer the Young Offenders Act. There is an absolutely hypocritical nature to the bill.

With respect to what some other justice ministers in the provinces have said, I will quote from the Alberta Minister of Justice, Jon Havelock, who said in relation to contemplating the tougher spin which has been put on the legislation that to increase penalties, increase the jail time and ensure that those who were repeatedly committing offences are dealt with more appropriately under the act, the money will have to be in place.

New Brunswick justice minister, Greg Byrne, said that he could not remain partisan when speaking about the new bill. He said that it should be tougher on violent offenders. This creates an interesting dilemma for the Minister of Justice because she has cautioned Canadians that the provinces will have to come on side and enforce the provisions of the bill which will become law before the year 2000.

During the minister's year long consultation process with many of the provinces she stated continually that they were being properly consulted. Consulted is one thing but being actually listened to is another. It has become patently obvious that the ministers of justice of many of provinces, including Alberta, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and even New Brunswick, are sorrily disappointed with the outcome and the final draft of the bill.

It demonstrates to me that it is another example of broken promises. If this is the consultation that takes place, and yet at the end of the day the provinces are ignored, it is not something that will further good relations.

The federal government and the provincial governments agreed a long time ago that they would divide the cost of administering the Young Offenders Act. This is certainly the intention of the provinces today. They are still asking the federal government to pick up its fair share of the cost of the administration. No where have we ever seen the commitment of the federal government to do so.

The minister's attempt to please all of the provinces by taking bits and pieces of the suggestions and implementing them into the bill will eventually please no one, and I would suggest that includes the hon. member for Surrey North.

With the introduction of Bill C-68 we saw a lot of bells and whistles and a lot of publicity about what it is going to accomplish, but at the end of the day we saw a very cumbersome bill that will be extremely difficult to administer. The bill is twice as lengthy and includes twice as many clauses as the old Young Offenders Act. We know that the old Young Offenders Act was a very cumbersome piece of legislation. This will be a field day for lawyers, a nightmare for judges, and it will not accomplish for Canadians what we had hoped it would.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was going to be a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill and to talk about the great things that my colleague from Surrey North has done in this House, and about how even the government has inserted what the member has in this bill into its legislation.

We heard the government whip say “Let's defer the vote”, and we all thought that was fine, but in the middle of the debate the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London moved a motion to hoist the bill. The people who are listening probably do not understand that the motion to hoist will delay the bill for six months in order that we can have a look at it. Maybe they think that is a good idea. However, in parliamentary terms the government has killed this private member's bill. The bill is dead.

[An hon. member]

Not true.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

The parliamentary secretary said that it has not been killed. She should walk down to the clerk's table and find out a little about parliament because this bill is dead. That is what they did on the other side. The Liberals have killed this young offenders bill which would have benefited this country. It is a shame.

What is really a shame about it is that we have the government interfering in Private Members' Business. This was not done by a backbencher; it was done by the government with a plan to kill this private member's bill.

The public may not understand what the bill addresses. It calls for parents and guardians of young offenders to be held accountable when they fail to discharge their responsibilities. It could have been law in this country by May 26, when we return, but the government has killed the bill. It has killed this great idea, which even it admits is a great idea because it included it in its legislation.

Liberals might say that we should just wait until their legislation comes along, but we know that the government does not intend to pass Bill C-68 in this session. The House is going to prorogue before the bill ever sees the light of day because the government has taken so much heat over the fact that certain things are not in the bill that should be there. It will let the bill drag on. The government House leader has not brought the bill back into the House for debate. We have had 20 minutes here, an hour there, two hours there, but there is no government behind Bill C-68.

We do not even see it on our agenda of “must haves” before we break for the summer. That is a shame. It is an absolute shame that the government spent a couple of million bucks on PR for the bill to try to make the minister and the government look good and it is not even on the agenda as an item to be considered before we leave for summer holidays. The government could have had the bill of the member for Surrey North which would have made that part of it law before the summer, but it has not done that.

Democracy is really great on the other side. The Liberals have killed this bill. They have killed this young offenders section. They just do not want to see a member from this side getting credit for doing it. They will pay the price for that. What is even worse is that young people will pay the price. They will pay the price because this was a good bill. Even the Minister of Justice said that when she brought down her legislation. She said that this was incorporated in Bill C-68 because it was a good idea, but then they killed this bill today. They are going to kill Bill C-68.

[An hon. member]

That is why we incorporated it.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

They are sitting over there yapping away. A little yapping here and a little yapping there, but it makes no sense.

This bill could have passed. We could have supported it, we could have voted for it and it would have been part of the present bill because we are not going to see Bill C-68 for a long time.

They can talk all they want, but what they have done is killed democracy and killed this member's bill. That is what a hoist means. If they do not understand that, they should sit with you, Mr. Speaker, to get a few lessons on parliamentary democracy. If they have been conned by their own House leader that this will not kill the bill, they do not understand how parliament works.

I say shame on the government for hurting democracy tonight and for killing this private member's bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member for Surrey North speaks now, he will close the debate.