Debates of March 26th, 2001

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between the definition that the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau had for equality for this country under the constitution and the charter. His definition was treating everyone the same does not equate to equality. Hence forthwith, Mr. Trudeau recognized that aboriginal people collectively had unique constitutional and legal rights and therefore recognized that in the constitution under section 35(1). Not only that but he took it one step further.

After a discussion at the constitutional conference and after listening and speaking to the great aboriginal leaders of this country such as George Erasmus, Jim Sinclair and David Ahenakew, Mr. Trudeau said that maybe they were right and that they should speak for themselves. He suggested they be funded so they could have their own voice. He therefore funded them. Hence we have the National Indian Brotherhood of Canada and the Metis National Council of Canada. Those organizations were born with the will of the people and with the definition that man stood for, which is not the same as the member's.

Treating people the same is not treating them equal. If someone requires a wheelchair in order to get to the door, do we expect them to walk to the door if they do not have legs? Do we expect people to perform the same? They are equal with us. Do we expect them to receive the same information if they cannot hear?

My colleague from the Atlantic is an expert on the disabled issue. Treating them equally requires a different set of tools and mechanisms. We cannot treat them equally under the law and in the institutions by giving them all the same things that everybody else has. Perhaps there is a disadvantage. Perhaps there is a gap in the barrier that they need to overcome which requires something extra special. That is real equality. Equality is done with dignity and integrity. It does not denigrate and is not premised on a negative motive.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to look very far to realize that there is something terribly wrong in our society.

Statistics Canada reported in 1998 that 106,984 youth aged 12 to 17 were charged with a criminal code offence. One in five youth were charged with a violent crime. The rate of youth charged with violent crime is 77% higher than it was a decade ago. By comparison, the increase for adults was only 6%. Over the past decade the rate of female youth charged has increased twice as fast at 127% as compared with male youth which was 65%. Two-thirds of female youth were charged with common assault compared to just under half for male youth. Male youth tend to be involved in more serious crimes such as robbery and major assaults than female youth.

These are alarming statistics, but the newspaper stories about youth crime tell us the real stories behind the statistics. Here are just a few articles.

On December 5, 2000 a Chronicle Herald headline read: “Teen gets seven months for taking gun to school; Mill Cove kid thought it was a cool thing to do”.

On November 20, 2000 a Calgary Sun headline read: “Gun incident again rocks Lethbridge high school”.

On September 12, 2000 a Winnipeg Free Press headline read: “Hero takes shotgun from pupil”.

On April 17, 2000 a Winnipeg Free Press headline read: “Police investigate three threats of violence in local schools”.

On March 3, 2000 a Toronto Star headline read: “Teen charged in the seizure of handguns, a cache of ammunition and machete following a school fight”.

On September 28, 1999 a Vancouver Sun headline read: “Students taking weapons to school are trying to protect themselves. Nine percent of grade 7 to 12 students surveyed said they have taken a weapon to school”.

In October 1999 an editorial in the Peterborough Examiner stated: “Adding to the already strict gun control laws is not going to achieve safer schools. If laws aren't going to fix these problems what is?”

The statistics and the stories we read in our newspapers signal a dynamic societal change. We see it but we do not know what to do so we pass more laws. Instead of instilling in kids a sense of duty, we pass more laws restricting their freedom even more, which causes them to rebel even more.

Dramatic societal change such as illustrated in these news stories and statistics cannot be fixed only by legislation. Little of anything will be fixed by this particular piece of legislation.

When I was growing up this problem was non-existent. The guns hung in the rack in the backroom and the kids knew exactly what the firearms were for. We longed for the day when we would be old enough for our father to take us out in the bush to show us how to use the firearms safely. We longed for the day when we would join our father and uncles in the hunt for birds and game for our table.

Some of us took guns to school all right but it was for hunter safety training courses or to target practice in the shooting range in the school basement.

We did not have to lock our doors. No teenager would dare enter their neighbours' homes without being invited. We played cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians and wore our cap pistols proudly on our hips, and none of us became homicidal maniacs. The only violence in our schools was a bit of fisticuffs and the penalty for brawling was a few licks of the strap from the principal.

What happened in the last 30 years to bring about such dramatic change in how our young people act?

It will take more than passing more laws to bring about the changes that the public is demanding. Maybe we should be asking for the government to work with our communities and churches to develop programs to address the underlying reasons that are causing our young people to turn to violent crime.

What kind of programs might that entail? Studies have been done that show us the direction we must head. There are even programs that are showing dramatic results. They are not the programs that liberals and other left wingers will like hearing about, but I have the floor and I will tell them about them.

In July 1999, Charles Moore's column in the Calgary Herald was titled, “To Know Guns is to Respect Them: Kids didn't shoot up schools before gun control became all the rage”. In his column he reported:

A study conducted from 1993 to 1995 by the United States Department of Justice's office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention tracked 4,000 male and female subjects aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh and Rochester.

Among the study's findings: children who are given real guns by their parents don't commit gun crimes (zero percent); children who obtain guns illegally are likely to commit gun crimes (21 percent); children who get guns from their parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14 percent), children who have no gun in the house (24 percent), and are dramatically less likely to commit a crime than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent); boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use than boys who obtain illegal guns, and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.

After I read this article, I ordered a copy of the study from the U.S. department of justice.

The column goes on to quote Dr. Garry Mauser of Simon Fraser University who commented on the U.S. department of justice study. He said:

Socialization into guns for sporting and hunting purposes appears to have “inoculated” the adolescents against the criminal use of firearms. Time magazine reported that:

—teachers and counsellors affirm that kids taught to use guns responsibly generally demonstrate more maturity, better manners and saner attitudes than their non-gun using peers.

Teacher Cesario Guerrero, who supervises hunting trips for programs for kids from tough, inner city neighbourhoods in Houston, Texas, told Time that these kids often “become part of a different crowd” as a result. “It gives them pride”.

It gives them pride. Would that not be something if we could give our young offenders back their pride?

Before I became a politician, I was a teacher. One of my greatest accomplishments would be those occasions when I could instil one of my students with pride. Hunting trips for troubled kids gives them pride. Who would have thought? Well, anyone who hunts understands this.

Randall Eaton, author of the book called The Sacred Hunt: Right of Passage , understands this. He was in Canada recently and did a number of media interviews. He even impressed Valerie Pringle on Canada AM with the results of his research. Eaton has proven that taking young boys and girls hunting is not only good for kids but it can also help rehabilitate young offenders. That is why I am bringing that up here today.

The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal reported on Mr. Eaton's visit to Canada. Its article reported that Eaton is an American author and lecturer with standing in several universities, “has studied the role of hunting in behavioural evolution and cultural history. Respect for life starts with the food chain, and the food chain becomes a love chain when we participate directly in it”.

Eaton believes hunting can curb teen violence because when a kid takes an animal's life they discover the consequences of pulling the trigger and are less likely than anyone to take a human life.

The Toronto Star reported that Eaton spoke about a 13 year program in Idaho for wayward boys that teaches them the benefits of self-sufficiency. Eaton said:

I know of three other such programs and I know they have turned around the lives of seriously aggressive young men. Going out into the wilderness connects a youth with nature in a profound way and it also engenders respect for life, paradoxically enough by taking a life.

On Canada AM Eaton claimed that the Idaho program had an 85% success rate.

This is a program worth looking at. This is a program that every wildlife federation in every province would be willing to sponsor and manage.

This is a true young offender program, one that sets kids back on the right course and one that brings about real change, societal change. We should not only be thinking of passing more and more laws. We have been going down that road for the last 30 years and look where it has taken us. We need to try some other things, things that work.

After waiting seven years for a youth justice act, we finally have to ask: Is this all we get? I have offered a positive alternative that the government could incorporate in its legislation or practice. The bill is too long, too complex and too expensive. By following my suggestion, it could address all three of those problems.

In conclusion, I was listening to the government members as they argued in this debate that it was better to let 10 people go free than convict one innocent person. I would like to propose that it is better to rehabilitate 10 young people than to cling to one ideological system that is not working.

The government's liberal ideas may help one person, but if it took my proposal, it could help 10 times as many for much less cost to the justice system.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Health; the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, the Environment.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the member opposite speak and I wondered in my own mind what it is with the reformed Alliance people that they love things American.

During the election we had members opposite talk about a two tier health system like the American system. We knew they were going to strip away environmental protection laws, sort of like the Americans as well. They would rip apart the judicial system. They would scrap our great charter of rights and freedoms. They would go and rip apart the supply management system. They would do all those kinds of things in the name of something great and good that is American. I just do not understand.

Here we have the audacity of the member opposite to somehow link our young people with guns. I think what he actually said was that to set them back on the right road we should give them a gun. We have to think about this for a minute. We just saw not so long ago in California, not once but twice, kids walking into schools with guns. As a former school teacher and a former head of the Waterloo Regional Police, this is not the Canadian way. This is not the way we should be going in terms of our young people, by giving them a gun. It is outrageous and it is not in keeping with the values of our great country.

My question is simple. Why is it that the reformed Alliance people always, and this member in particular, want to somehow connect American style guns with our justice system? It does not make sense.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is talking about guns. Last week he was on about racism and was caught lying in the House and has refused to apologize—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for St. Albert has garnered a great deal of experience in his years here. That word is unparliamentary and I would ask him to withdraw it.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will now continue with the question and comment period. Is the question of the hon. parliamentary secretary complete?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why would we want an American style system? Why would we go down that path? Why would that member in particular and the Alliance in general want to advocate an American style system where kids walk into schools, pull guns and shoot other kids? Why in God's name would they advocate that?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member was during my speech. He completely misrepresented what I said. I do not think his question merits an answer.

The Liberals would rather accept the violence growing in our society than take an idea that the opposition might offer, run with it and prove that it actually works, as has been proven in many parts of the country.

Why would the Liberals want to mock a very good idea that really could reduce the violence in our society and help rehabilitate a lot of young people, by labelling it? When we label something in an attempt to not engage in a decent discussion, it really smacks of—well, I will let you fill in the blanks there, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to engage in the kind of debate where we just throw labels at each other and we do not debate the ideas that I have seriously put forward.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would just like to ask the member a question.

Your suggestion is, as I understand you—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I just want to remind the hon. member to please direct his question through the Chair.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The member's suggestion, as I understood him, is that somehow gun control has taken away the ability for hunting trips to take place. I think the idea of involving youth in hunting activities, target shooting or anything of that nature is really not much different than involving them in hockey or other activities in the community.

I am curious as to why the member would draw the parallel that somehow gun control prohibits young people from being involved in that kind of activity.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again that is not what I said. I would ask the member to check Hansard and read it very carefully. A direct answer to what he just asked is that it is not the same as getting kids involved in hockey. This a very different program. I would ask the member to go and check the record because I do not have five minutes to re-explain it.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the broader issue of dealing with youth rather than getting into the details of the amendment. I will do that by asking at least four questions, to which I will give some answers. I understand that in the House we do not always get answers to questions, so I will try to provide my own as I go through.

The first question is: With whom are we dealing? It sounds like a very simple question because obviously we know we are dealing with youth under 18 years of age. We are not sure whether that should go down to 12 or 10 years but we are sure that it is youth under 18 years of age. What does that mean? Who are these people?

I was severely shocked about 20 years ago when I walked out to my backyard in Regina and heard some kindergarten children and first graders using language that I had never heard in my youth all the way through high school. I came from the sticks, as the House can tell, but I had never heard that kind of language.

What I realized was that we live in an age where the age of participation in violent and vulgar activities is becoming lower and lower. It is a declining age of awareness and involvement. We are dealing with young people who are in that kind of time.

We are also in a time when young people are dealing a lot more than I ever did with the peer pressure trap. They sometimes get into situations where they must commit crimes to be in the in group. They play games of committing certain crimes.

Recently in my city I was at the police station one day and learned that overnight every colour of Jeep Cherokee had been stolen because that was the game of the evening for young people. A Jeep Cherokee of every colour was stolen, joyridden and then trashed or parked somewhere. That was the game of the evening. We have had the Oldsmobile gang in Regina. Now I understand it is the SUVs, the sport utility vehicles, and the Volkswagen Jettas that are the vehicles to have.

A group of people are doing such things to be in the in groups in our high schools. There is a group of repeat offenders. A couple of years ago one offender in our town was up on his 85th car theft charge. Something is wrong when we allow one young person to accumulate 85 car thefts charges in one lifetime in one town. We are in an age of when these things are happening.

We are also dealing with young people who are in some cases basically rebelling against any authority in their lives. Perhaps they are out and making a laughing stock of police, teachers, parents or any authority figure in their lives. That is going on.

There are also young people out there who are crying out for some authority to be exercised in their lives. They do not experience the restraint from teachers and parents that teenagers require to develop properly. We are dealing with that kind of a young person.

We are dealing with young people who commit crimes against their communities. We are also dealing with young people who have been victims of other young people's crimes. Almost two-thirds of youth crime is committed against other youths. We need to take a good look and get an understanding of what kind of person we are dealing with.

Before I go any further, let me also say who we are not dealing with. We are not dealing with some of the finest young people who have ever been born, some very bright students, some keen personalities, some who have tremendous athletic ability and academic ability and who participate in many things. We are told in our town that 80% of the youth crime is done by only 20% of the youths.

We have some tremendous young people in my riding. I would like to call attention to a young lady named Brea Burgess, a key player in the Regina Lady Cougars basketball team for the University of Regina. They won the national championship a couple of weeks ago. She attended the Dr. Hanna School as a young elementary student where my wife teaches and then Thom Collegiate. I know her parents Laurie and Spencer Burgess are very happy about this fine young lady who is not a young offender and who displays all this great talent. I commend those proud parents for their wonderful daughter.

Just how are we dealing with the youth crime problem? I believe that we insult their intelligence in the way we deal with the problem. They understand much more than we give them credit for.

I have an eight year old grandson. I have him come and visit us and stay with us about one weekend a month. Every once in a while he puts on the front of being a baby. He tries to convince me and his grandmother that he is a baby, and yet we know that he knows much more than that.

It seems to me that somehow the youth of the nation have been quite successful in duping adults into believing that they are not intelligent and that they are incapable of making adult decisions. At the age of 11 or 12 my youngest son, who is now 23, came to me and declared that he had known right from wrong ever since he was 10 years old or younger. He said when they say they do not know what they are doing, they are not telling the truth.

We have young offenders who certainly know how to work the system. They are smart enough to know that. Some years ago a man taught me how to finish concrete and he told me that learning to finish concrete was very simple. He said there was only one thing required: to be just a little smarter than the concrete.

When it comes to making laws and dealing with young offenders, perhaps that would be a good guideline for us too: to be just a little smarter than young people to be able to figure out how to best help them. I think we are failing them on that point. Lawmakers, enforcers, teachers and parents all need to be ahead of our young people.

We insult their intelligence. I believe we also strip them of responsibility and accountability. We take responsibility and accountability away from the parents. We take it away from the teachers. Then we take it away from our young people. We tell little Johnny, if he is bad, that we will not tell anyone. He will not be accountable. We do not want him to feel badly about it. We know he will grow out of it when he gets older. We turn our heads away and forget that they need a sense of responsibility and accountability. We simply pretend that they are innocent little kiddies, too little to understand, and that is not true.

We take away their opportunity to experience positive peer pressure, leaving them subject only to the others around them who are encouraging their offending activity. This is what I mean.

If someone in the community knows what is happening with a young offender, if someone knows what is going on in his life and that young offender knows the person knows, there is peer pressure on him, some kind of community pressure. If he knows the teacher knows, there is pressure on him. If he knows the other students know what he is like, there is pressure on him. It seems that we want to insulate him, protect him and keep him from having any kind of positive peer pressure, which only throws him to the negative peer pressure that is readily available.

I have in my hand some notes that were taken this past weekend as I met with some salvation army officers who had been flown to somewhere in southern Ontario to meet with the justice minister. There is a list of oppositions. Let me quickly name three of them. They oppose the legislation because there is no provision to make parents responsible. It fails to address the root cause of youth crime. There is no provision to reverse existing standards regarding rights.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. It seems to me that it was not unlike the usual position of the reform alliance, that it sees things in black and white instead of with all the nuances, especially in such an important area where there are incredible nuances when it comes to our young people and the protection of society and the security of our communities, our neighbourhoods, our provinces and our country.

I remind him, as I remind all members in the House, that not only is overall crime dropping but crime among our young people is declining. Why is that? It is because we have in place and we continue as a government to put in place the kinds of measures that are appropriate given the circumstances of the 21st century.

One thing I do know is that our young people have enormous capability to rehabilitate. Given the right circumstances and the right assistance, the kind of backing and crime prevention members of the government have put into place, we are on the right track.

Instead of making criminals out of young people as they would do, instead of dropping the age and making them pay and pay big, that real vengeance mentality which it seems only the reform alliance people have, and instead of trying to do those kinds of things in the most audacious fashion, we should be doing the things we are doing at present: rehabilitating with crime prevention and the kinds of programs necessary.

Would publishing names, for example, as they would do, embarrass the parents? Would it embarrass siblings so that when they go to school they get it rubbed in their faces? I do not think so.

That is not our Canada. It is not my Canada. I do not believe it is most Canadians' Canada. We want to ensure a good and balanced system. We want an equilibrium kind of system and that is what the government is presenting today.

Given the member's speech and his background, why do members of the reform alliance party in general want to fearmonger and scare Canadians into somehow believing that crime is out of control when it is not? What do they hope to gain by that kind of nonsense?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt but when the hon. member is asking questions with respect to the official opposition of Canada he always refers to it as the reform alliance. He should address it by its proper name, the Canadian Alliance, so that at least he is referring to the right party in the spirit of asking the question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is a point of order, but certainly I think everyone recognizes that each party should be called by its official name.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member across understands. I certainly am not a vengeful person. I am a grandfather and a father. I have worked with youth in the community for years. My wife is two years away from retirement as a school teacher. Many of her friends and my friends are school teachers. I hear what they say. I hear what is going on in the school grounds and the school systems as they deal with young people. I am friends with RCMP people and many others in my community.

It is the consensus of the people I know that young people are not being done a favour by being allowed to operate under a veil of secrecy. Peer pressure is very powerful in the life of a young person. If we do this properly we will allow some positive community pressure to come to bear on the young person and on the family.

As for the statistics, who is to say what the crime rates really are? In our town if there is a near riot of young people outside my window, which happens many times, or there is fighting going on and an exchange of drugs, if we call the police they do not come because they know there is no use dealing with young people under the Young Offenders Act.

Last summer I was approached by four young people in my own front yard and threatened simply because I wrote down a licence number. Night after night in that park there are drug exchanges and the police will not even bother because they know it involves young people and there is no use dealing with them.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, especially since I have taken a keen interest in the debate surrounding the proposed reform of the youth criminal justice act.

I got involved by reading and listening carefully to the concerns expressed by stakeholders in Quebec and by meeting with concerned stakeholders at the Centre jeunesse Chaudière—Appalaches last week. I am pleased to have been able to gather additional information on the substance of Bill C-7. I have thus been able to rectify some of the ideas which have been circulating regarding the scope of Bill C-7.

I am now in a position to say that the bill, which builds on the strengths of the current act which Quebec has taken advantage of, has allowed the province not only to follow through with the elements of its approach which have proved successful, but also to improve on its approach.

To illustrate what I am saying I will review some of the fundamental principles underlying Bill C-7. In parallel I will highlight some of the opposition's criticisms.

According to the Quebec coalition, this reform is not necessary. It suggests that the problem, if there is a problem, is the result of the Young Offenders Act not being properly implemented by some jurisdictions. Data from studies carried out over the last few years and extensive consultations with the provinces, territories and various specialists in the area have identified several problems in the way the current youth justice system is working.

It bears reminding, among others, that Canada has the highest rate of young offenders in custody, the highest one in the industrialized countries, higher yet than in the U.S. It is also four times higher than that for adults. Average sentence length for minor offences is longer for young offenders than for adults.

In spite of an approach which, in many regards, is consistent with the goals of Bill C-7, Quebec is not an exception to the rule with regard to the identified problems. Quebec has the second highest rate of custody for young persons found guilty of a first minor offence. The average custody sentence in Quebec is longer than the national average and the second longest in Canada. In fact, what is surprising is that the rate of participation in alternative measures is higher in western Canada than it is in Quebec.

To solve these problems, Bill C-7 focuses on diversion measures that still aim at making young persons more responsible. Bill C-7 is based on experiments carried out in various European countries as well as in Australia and New Zealand, that show that informal measures focusing on responsibility for one's own actions and restitution have more impact than formal court proceedings not only on the level of responsibility the young person is ready to acknowledge but also on the recidivism rate, which is almost nil.

The federal government's main goal in its reform is to reduce the use of the formal system in order to fight youth crime. We are providing various options and better tools to the workers on the front line, so that minor offences can be dealt with responsibly outside the court system.

What does that mean in real terms? The opposition argues that Quebec will no longer be able to take the appropriate measure at the appropriate time to fight early signs of delinquent behaviour. The opposition uses examples of young people committing multiple shoplifting offences saying that the only possible intervention by a police officer would be a warning, thereby ridiculing police intervention and leading people to believe that Bill C-7 does not allow for effective intervention.

The most troubling thing about these remarks is that they are based on the assumption that custody can be used to rehabilitate young offenders and to turn them into responsible persons. This assumption goes against what can be learned from criminology research and what has been seen in other countries that have chosen less repressive measures to make their young offenders more responsible.

The bill favours diversion measures. These may vary, but they must be aimed at turning the young offender into a responsible person, at repairing any harm done and at rehabilitating him or her, which means changing his or her criminal behaviour as soon as it emerges.

In the case of shoplifting, to use the same example as the opposition, a police officer can exercise discretion under Bill C-7, which is not the case under the current legislation.

The police officer must first decide whether or not to make an arrest. If the decision is made to arrest the young offender, the police officer must then determine if the young offender qualifies for diversion measures or if he or she must be charged.

If charges are brought, the police officer must choose between release and temporary custody. If he or she chooses release, he or she will have to determine the conditions of such release.

If the police officer decides to make the young person take responsibility through a diversion program, he can choose, based on the circumstances of the offence and on the young offender, between a warning, a caution, a referral to a specialized educational program—for example to learn behavioural skills—or a referral to a community organization that can help the young person not to commit other offences. What is meant here is community work and other measures.

In a case of shoplifting, the police officer would probably give a warning or administer a caution after seeing that the goods were given back, to ensure that the young offender has taken responsibility and has made reparation. The warning or caution is given verbally and in writing, through a letter and a follow-up with the parents, to inform them of the young person's actions, of the measures taken and of the possible consequences should he commit other offences. This is the rehabilitation component.

Experience shows that the majority of young offenders who are subjected to this follow up do not commit other offences. Most parents take measures with regard to their young offender, thus increasing the chances for complete rehabilitation.

Such measures will be compiled in an automated retrieval system that will be accessible by other police forces through an agreement on the exchange of information. A $9 million budget was allocated to the various jurisdictions to put in place or to improve the recording and management systems of automated files.

If a young person commits other offences, the police officer can lay charges or resort to extrajudicial measures. These are more formal extrajudicial measures, ones that translate into structured programs customized to correct the delinquent behaviour, hold the young person accountable, and have him or her make amends for the harm caused.

If the police officer opts for the laying of charges, it is then up to the crown attorney to take the case before the court or to have a program of extrajudicial sanctions drawn up. Once again, there will be follow up with the parents.

Another presumption that is worrisome to opponents of Bill C-7 is the suggestion that making a young person accountable for his or her actions must of necessity involve diversion, a judge and cautions. Such a presumption ignores the powers of front line interveners and the effectiveness of their interventions, and underestimates the community's capacity to correct criminal behaviours as soon as they first manifest themselves.

Bill C-7 gives precedence to accountability outside of the formal system for less serious offences, because this is more effective and less costly, particularly since it allows intervention immediately after the offence has been committed and makes it possible for victims and communities to be involved in the process of healing and of social learning.

Obviously, such an approach requires the introduction of new tools and new resources. One might well believe that, with the $221 million offered to Quebec over five years under the youth justice services funding program, including over $25 million for implementation of the youth criminal justice act, Quebec would be in a position to establish customized programs to hold young offenders accountable, provide them with effective rehabilitation, and successfully reintegrate them into society.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively and with interest to the speech by the member for Beauce. He said that he was making a comparison with the opposition, the nasty opposition. Everything was fine. If I listen to the other member who spoke before him, they are the only holders of the truth here in Canada, and maybe even in the universe. I can understand that they do not agree with us and that they have questions.

The hon. member began his speech by saying that he had been at his local youth centre, the Maison des jeunes. Now that he has tried to tell us why he was opposed, I would like him to tell us why members of the Bloc Quebecois are not the only people in Quebec opposed to Bill C-7. Many organizations are also opposed, such as the Association des maisons de jeunes du Québec, leading criminologists from the Université de Montréal, the Innu, the Jeune Barreau du Québec, the Association des avocats de la défense, as well as crown attorneys, the Quebec National Assembly—which, through a resolution unanimously supported by the Liberal and PQ members, opposed it—the Centres jeunesse du Québec, the Institut Pinel, the Centre de criminologie du Québec, the Association des policiers et des pompiers du Québec, and CLSCs from throughout Quebec, plus another 20 or so groups.

Is it that everyone has misunderstood and that he is right, or is there a difference between the two?

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out that I made no mention of a nasty opposition. That was certainly not my intention.

Second, I acknowledged in my remarks that the coalition representing all the groups mentioned by the hon. member was opposed.

However, since the bill on young offenders was first tabled, the Liberal caucus has worked to improve it. We have worked with the Minister of Justice and with the various stakeholders to ensure that our young people have the best means possible available to help salvage them in the system.

I have no doubt that Bill C-7 will prove indispensable. We certainly do not think this bill is perfect. Perfection does not exist. It will, however, improve the present system and enable people to salvage young people and make them better contributors to society.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauce says that the Liberal caucus, particularly the Quebec Liberal caucus, clearly understood the objections of the individuals and associations that I mentioned earlier. They consulted in good faith and they amended the bill of the Minister of Justice.

Can the hon. member tell us if, after this long consultation process to introduce improvements and amendments, the coalition and the groups that I mentioned earlier are now in agreement with Bill C-7?

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to make a correction by saying that I did not meet with the Maison des jeunes but, rather, with the Centres jeunesse de Chaudière—Appalaches—

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

They are opposed to Bill C-7.