House of Commons Hansard #121 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was moved.

Topics

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2594

That Bill C-3, in Clause 179, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 31 on page 152.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2600

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2601

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 30 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2602

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 33 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2603

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 34 to 41 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2604

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting line 36 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2605

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 37 and 38 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2606

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 39 to 41 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2607

That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting line 42 on page 153.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2616

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2617

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2618

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2619

That Bill C-3, in Clause 187, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 42 on page 155 and lines 1 and 2 on page 156.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2620

That Bill C-3, in Clause 187, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 19 on page 156.

Motion No. 2621

That Bill C-3, in Clause 187, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 28 on page 156.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2622

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2623

That Bill C-3, in Clause 188, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 40 on page 156.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2624

That Bill C-3, in Clause 188, be amended by deleting lines 43 to 48 on page 156 and lines 1 to 8 on page 157.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2625

That Bill C-3, in Clause 188, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 17 on page 157.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2628

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2629

That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 35 on page 157.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2630

That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 42 on page 157 and lines 1 to 3 on page 158.

Motion No. 2631

That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 40 to 42 on page 157.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2632

That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 158.

Motion No. 2633

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2634

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 2635

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2636

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 2642

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the motions in Group No. 1 of amendments to Bill C-3. This is a very complex bill and we had to look at it very closely to get the government to reconsider, and particularly to show the government that it was making a mistake in wanting to pass Bill C-3 at all costs.

The experts in the area of young offenders do not understand. I parenthesize here to state that not one of the experts from Quebec who appeared before the committee supports the minister's bill.

None of the experts working with the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis can find a single reason for the minister to want to amend the Young Offenders Act at all costs and ram through the bill criminalizing the young people who are having problems with the law. The only reason would be a political one, to try and win votes in western Canada.

Since the creation of the Canadian Alliance, the government opposite has been trying to build an image for itself in western Canada, the image of a party that it more to the right, a party more and more like the Canadian Alliance Party. It has taken the Young Offenders Act and the young offenders as hostage to bolster its image in western Canada on the eve of a federal election.

Everyone knows that I made spoke hours on end in committee, and even reached out to the minister, suggesting that, before completely changing a legislation that has proven its efficiency over the past 15 to 20 years, she should stop the proceedings of the committee and tour the provinces to examine their youth policies, and come and see what we are doing in Quebec, where the crime rate is the lowest in Canada because the Young Offenders Act is enforced properly in Quebec. The present Minister of Justice recognizes it, as does her predecessor, the current Minister of Health, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, the legislation is very well enforced in Quebec.

I was telling the current Minister of Justice that, if she made comparisons and looked at the Young Offenders Act closely, she would be able to see if there was any reason whatsoever to change it.

With my 27.5 hours of speeches in committee over the past 11 months, I have tried to give the minister time to go and see for herself, particularly in Quebec, what was being done.

She did not see fit to take a little time to consult and to check how the act is implemented in Quebec. She did not check either in the other provinces, with the result that we find ourselves today in front of a very complex piece of legislation. The minister has attempted to sprinkle here and there certain notions she picked up along the way either in my speeches or in the briefs presented to the committee by witnesses who came from Quebec to tell her she was on the wrong track.

As a whole, the bill remains complex. Given its goals, it is unenforceable.

I never said nothing should be done to try to improve the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act, quite the contrary. An extensive study conducted in Quebec in the 90s resulted in the Jasmin report, which concluded that the blame did not lie with the act, but rather with its enforcement.

Although it is enforced properly in Quebec, there is always room for improvements. Had the Young Offenders Act been enforced properly in the other provinces, in particular in western provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba, they would not be clamouring for changes to the Young Offenders Act now. These provinces where it is enforced the least have the highest detention rates, the highest youth crime rate, and an increasing number of young re-offenders. This shows that the problem is not the act, but its enforcement, as I have been saying for weeks.

One of the good elements in the existing Young Offenders Act is that it is tailored to their specific needs since a 14, 15, 16 or 17 year old cannot be expected to have the same responsibility as a 30 or 40 year old adult.

Section 3 of the existing Young Offenders Act, under the heading declaration of principle, says it very clearly. It contains the major thrusts for dealing with young persons in trouble with the law, and trying to rehabilitate them and reintegrate them into society.

The ultimate aim is to help a youth with a problem to become an anonymous citizen and to integrate into society as a citizen, as if he did not have any legal problem or any criminal problem. The aim is really to try to see to it that this youth might someday pay income taxes, get married, have children and get integrated very anonymously into society. In Quebec, we see it as a long term investment and believe that protection of society will be increased if this youth does not re-offend and does integrate into society.

As I said in the declaration of principle, in section 3(1) of the Young Offenders Act and the following sections, there was all that was needed to guide the court so that a judge hearing a case could consider a youth with a criminal problem as a particular case. The judge could deal on an individual basis with young people with criminal problem.

Everything necessary was there in the declaration of principle. I do not want to read it all for my time is limited, although I could speak for several hours more since the subject is close to my heart, but, only to remind hon. members of a few elements found in the declaration of principle, I will quote this “While young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions”.

Further on it provides that “because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs and require guidance and assistance”. A little further on it says, “depending on circumstances, the needs and facts of a youth's childhood, which might explain his behaviour, must be taken into account once again”. The thrust in this declaration of principle was to provide alternative measures for young people.

There was everything in this declaration of principle. The minister axed this declaration. She said no to Quebec, which is properly applying the Young Offenders Act. She made a sort of omnibus preamble. It contains all sorts of things that are not integrally part of the bill like section 3 of the act is.

In the series of amendments in Group No. 1, there is one by the minister that will complicate things even further. It is an amendment to the preamble, when what counts is how the courts will apply it, especially the interpretation the supreme court gave of the special needs of adolescents dealing with a problem of crime within the context of rehabilitation and return to society especially.

I will to close by saying that the major difference between Bill C-3, which we are studying today, and the Young Offenders Act lies in the fact that the act referred to needs, whereas the minister with her bill now wants to talk about the gravity of the offence. She is putting the offence at the centre to enable a judge to impose a sanction, as the minister puts it in the bill. This is unacceptable.

Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Erie—Lincoln Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

As the cornerstone of the Government of Canada's youth justice renewal strategy Bill C-3 provides for a fair and effective youth justice system that involves young people, families, victims and communities. This legislation modernizes the youth justice system and builds stronger links with other programs and services that help children and youth.

Experience has shown that the current youth justice system is not working as well as it should. More must be done to prevent youth crime in the first place, to develop meaningful responses to youth crime when it does occur, and to emphasize rehabilitation and reintegration so that youth who do get into trouble with the law can turn their lives around. Working toward these three key objectives is the best way to ensure the protection of society.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights I have had the benefit of hearing from many Canadians with insightful ideas about youth justice. The Government of Canada has been listening. As a result of the input received from the thoughtful witnesses who appeared before the committee on Bill C-3, and through consultations with provincial and territorial governments, professionals, the legal community, academics, aboriginal groups, voluntary and stakeholder groups, and young people and their families, the government is proposing amendments designed to improve upon the approach in Bill C-3.

The proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act sets out the purpose of the youth justice system through its principles. The new principles reinforce that the criminal justice system for youth is different from the one for adults. Bill C-3 emphasizes preventing crime, ensuring meaningful consequences for offending behaviour, and rehabilitating and reintegrating a young person as the most effective way to contribute to the long term protection of society.

A number of witnesses who appeared before committee put forward suggestions that seek to clarify further the principles in the bill, some of which have been accepted by the government. For example, we are proposing the inclusion in the principles of a reference to the importance of timeliness in dealing with youth offending behaviour. We are also proposing a provision specifically requiring judges to take into account a young person's individual needs and level of development.

Another amendment to the principles would stipulate that measures taken should respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons. In addition, while the importance of treating victims with courtesy, compassion and respect, and of providing them with information about proceedings and an opportunity to participate and be heard, a proposed amendment would enshrine the interests of victims in the preamble of the legislation. We would also propose emphasizing in the preamble the importance of making information about the youth justice system publicly available.

Bill C-3 makes a distinction in the way we deal with the small number of youth who commit the most serious violent crimes and the vast majority who commit less serious offences, providing more effective measures for dealing with both.

Bill C-3 gives the police more tools for dealing with youth in their communities in order to try to turn youth around before they get on to commit more serious crimes. Greater police and crown discretion early in the process will lead to meaningful, effective and faster resolutions of the majority of less serious cases. The formal court process and custody will be used to deal with the more serious crimes.

We have heard concerns expressed about the definitions of non-violent, violent and serious violent offences in Bill C-3. Some have indicated that the definitions may lead to confusion as to what comes within a certain category of offence. To remove any ambiguity the government proposes to delete the definitions of non-violent and violent offences from the legislation.

The difference between a non-violent and a violent offence is obvious and therefore these terms do not need to be defined in legislation. In addition, we would improve the definition of serious violent offences by replacing the phrase “creates a substantial risk of serious bodily harm” with a reference to “attempts to cause serious bodily harm”. These proposed amendments should provide greater clarity to the categories of offences.

We know that it is important to involve others in the youth justice system in order to improve upon understanding and to provide support for victims, youth, families and communities in responding constructively and meaningfully to offending behaviour.

Among other things Bill C-3 specifically encourages conferences at many stages of the proceedings. Some conferences may involve bringing together professionals such as child care workers, school psychologists or others who are already involved with youth to seek advice and ensure continuity of services. Others may be in the nature of sentencing circles or family group conferences involving victims, offenders and their families.

While conferencing has been strongly endorsed, some are concerned about the lack of definition in the bill. Therefore we are proposing amendments clarifying who may hold a conference and giving provinces and territories scope to regulate non-judicial conferences.

A number of witnesses also expressed concerns about youth ending up in the criminal justice system when their problems and needs could be more effectively dealt with through the child welfare system. A proposed amendment to Bill C-3 would recognize that a judge can make a referral of a young person to child welfare authorities for an assessment. While this is something that judges already have the authority to do, the amendments would encourage a link between the two systems in appropriate cases.

A major flaw of the Young Offenders Act is that it does not include sufficient provisions for safe, supervised reintegration into the community. Bill C-3 aims to better support the young person's reintegration back into the community, which protects the public by guarding against further crime.

The bill provides that periods of incarceration will be followed by periods of supervision in the community. To ensure “truth in sentencing” and clarity for the young person at the time of imposing the sentence, the judge will state in open court the portion of time that is to be served in custody and the portion to be served in the community. Breaching conditions of community supervision could result in the youth being returned to custody.

Generally the reintegration scheme has been strongly endorsed. Some, however, have expressed concern about requiring that the period of supervision in the community be half as long as the period of custody in all cases. Under a proposed government amendment, where a young person rebuts the presumption for an adult sentence on a presumptive offence, judges will have the discretion to set the periods in custody and the periods in the community. This will allow more flexibility in dealing with those who receive youth sentences for the most serious violent crimes.

A number of witnesses have raised concern about the admissibility of statements made by youth. The legitimate concern of the police and others that the exclusion of youth statements for technical reasons under the Young Offenders Act brings the administration of justice into question needs to be addressed.

Bill C-3 currently permits a judge to allow the introduction of a statement that has not been taken in accordance with the requirements set out in the bill if the admission of the statement would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In order to clarify the intent in drafting this provision, the government is proposing an amendment specifying that this applies only to technical breaches and that statements will only be admitted if the admission would not bring into disrepute the principle of enhanced procedural protections for youth.

An important concern about the Young Offenders Act has been voiced by both the police community and victims groups. The existing law does not allow for publication, without a court order, of information that would identify young victims or witnesses who are involved in a young offender's case, even where the victim or witness and his or her family want the information to be published. This means, for example, that parents of a deceased child victim of a young offender do not have the right to publish the name of their son or daughter without facing criminal sanctions.

A proposed amendment to Bill C-3 would correct this situation by allowing a young victim or witness to have his or her identity published with parental consent, and in the case of a deceased young victim, by allowing parents to publish or cause to be published information identifying their deceased son or daughter.

Finally, many of the proposed government amendments are aimed at enhancing the clarity and reducing the complexity of Bill C-3. These amendments include improvements to drafting language in the bill and the consolidation of certain clauses in order to streamline the legislation. In addition, at the request of the provinces and territories, the Government of Canada is proposing a number of technical amendments aimed at facilitating the administration of the new legislation.

The new Youth Criminal Justice Act is built upon the values Canadians want in their youth justice system. Canadians want a system that prevents crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour. They also want a system that seeks to rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society. The system must also ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence. Canadians know this is the most effective way to achieve the long term protection of society.

Our new approach also responds to the concern of Canadians that the youth justice system has to do a better job of instilling values such as accountability, responsibility and respect. The system must also be more responsive to victims needs, encourage young people to acknowledge the harm done and provide restitution where appropriate.

I am confident that Bill C-3 will provide Canadians with the kind of youth justice system they want and deserve.