Debates of May 28th, 2001

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would like to inform the hon. member again that we are in the second rotation. Nobody from the NDP rose during the first rotation. We will have a Liberal, an Alliance, another Liberal and then the NDP. Is that agreeable?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to register my disagreement with the Chair's interpretation of the events. It does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am more than willing to give this time to the hon. member and I will take the next spot.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Thank you for your generous offer. The Chair was about to ask for unanimous consent to give the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. The problem has been settled.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up a lot of the House's time with respect to the motion put forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion would change the wording of the bill to require that the authorities shall rather than may notify teachers who have young offenders in their classes.

After much thought I want to say that it is our intention to support the motion of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is tempting to leave this kind of discretion with the courts, the judges or the police.

Upon reflection, to not require that this kind of information be passed on to teachers is to single out teachers as the one class of professional that deals with young offenders that will not have access to the information to which all other professionals who deal with young offenders will have access.

I say to the government that I think I understand its position without having heard it expounded on the floor of the House. The parliamentary secretary has not yet had a chance to speak and the Liberal member who just spoke did not address it.

There is an element of discrimination against teachers. It may be unintended. It may be done with the best intentions to build a certain amount of discretion into the system. I understand that. On balance, we come down on the side of the amendment which changes the language from may to shall because it would seem to us that when all things are considered teachers should not be excluded. The possibility of teachers being excluded from access to this information should not be enshrined in the bill in the way it is now. For that reason I wanted to rise very briefly to indicate our support for the amendment.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the member from the New Democratic Party support the amendment because I likewise support it.

I will go back in history to 1980 when I was appointed principal of a school in Alberta. From 1980 to 1984, whenever a transfer student came in from anywhere, accompanying the student would be all kinds of records. These would include not only school and academic records but behavioural records and even criminal records if that were the case.

Needless to say, when someone arrived at our school who had a past history of criminal activity, it made it a whole lot easier for the school to accept him and to enter into specific programs or interventions that would make it easier for the populace to accept him. It also made it a whole lot safer for people around the individual depending on what the circumstances were.

In 1984 the Young Offenders Act became law, and suddenly there were numerous people transferred into our school without any indications other than academic records. When phone calls were made to other school boards or schools they had attended, no information was released regarding their behaviour or any activities outside school they may have been engaged in that could be a danger or threat to other students in the school body.

As a result I saw a very significant change begin to happen. It only took a few months for the first one to come about. I thought a normal schoolyard scrap was developing between two individuals. When we managed to get to the scene and break up the so-called fight, I quickly realized that it had gone beyond a schoolyard squabble between two young people. One of then was trying to put an end to the life of the other individual. It was that serious. He had attacked him with a weapon and his intentions were to really hurt the young fellow.

At that time an investigation was done by the police because we brought charges. The investigation involved parental input. We learned that the young individual had taken part in cult activities where he had come from, and believed in these kinds of activities as a way to resolve difficulties with other people. In other words, the individual believed the violence and severe assaults he had committed in previous years were legitimate and that he should continue that way of life.

Had we known this was the kind of individual who was coming into our school, we could have taken steps that would have possibly prevented any threat to other students or other individuals in our community who were accessible to the young fellow.

From 1984 until 1992 when I finally retired and went into a new profession much like the previous one but where the kids are older, it was impossible to determine the kind of individuals we were getting with transfers to the school. I would get reports from the city, for example, that the reason certain individuals were coming to my school out in the country was because they were no longer accepted in any school in the city. They had been expelled from every school in the city.

It would have been nice to have been able to determine that before they arrived. It would have been nice to know that they had gone through a great pile of difficulties in the city, that no school or school board in the city would accept them and that they had to move in with relatives in my community and start school there. However I was not allowed to know anything about it.

This happened so many times that I could almost write a book about it. Why would I want more information on students who were being transferred to my school? Why should the government support the amendment that my colleague from the Conservative Party has brought forward?

Since 1993, when I came here, I have heard that prevention is the real key to stopping youth crime. I agree. However I would like someone from the Liberal government to stand and tell me that making sure school authorities do not know the facts about a new student is a good measure of prevention. Prevention of what? It makes the community at large unaware of the kind of individual living in it. It makes the teachers and other students unaware. They go on as if the individual is a normal human being and that they should not be alerted.

Even if one has the brains of a freshwater trout, common sense ought to dictate that it is safer to know what kind of situation one is dealing with than not to know.

However, the people on that side of the House over the past seven years have constantly refused to change the Young Offenders Act to give it real teeth. Along comes an amendment from my colleague in the Conservative Party that would add teeth and makes perfectly good common sense. I do not think a school in the whole country would not agree to the full disclosure of the records of violent young people being transferred into schools. The information should be available for the safety and the prevention of harm to others. If the Liberals cannot buy into that then they are as bad as I think they are.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the facts about Bill C-7 now under consideration.

In the last parliament, the government introduced a bill to amend the Young Offenders Act.

We already had a Young Offenders Act which was enforced differently in different regions of our country. Each province would enforce it in its own way and Quebec is a model in that regard. Quebec has its own culture and thus its own way of approaching problems.

The Bloc Quebecois was very much opposed to the first bill tabled at that time. It had even received the unanimous support of the Quebec national assembly, which had passed a motion in November 1999 asking the federal Minister of Justice to suspend passage of Bill C-3 and to allow Quebec to continue implementing an intervention strategy based on prevention and rehabilitation.

The Bloc Quebecois had moved almost 3,000 amendments. In fact, it had moved 2,977. That was a lot of amendments for one bill, to delay what we call at home—in political language or at least in parliamentary language—filibusters. We came back and we moved amendments; we moved them to play for time and to prevent passage of the bill.

In February 2001, the Government of Canada introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice Act. There was also a reason for this. Most of us, Liberal members here in Ottawa had met with some members of the Quebec national assembly to know about the inherent objections to passage of Bill C-3.

Of course, after some discussion, five points stood out and we made representations to the federal Minister of Justice. A specific answer was given to the five points raised by the members of the national assembly in their letter. Of course, not all the members of the national assembly signed the letter. We did not have consultations with the sovereignist members of the national assembly. We had consultations with the federalist members of the national assembly because this is also a federal bill. We really wanted to know their position.

We answered the five concerns raised about Bill C-3. We have amended the bill to completely resolve these issues.

We now learn Quebec's national assembly has unanimously agreed to another motion expressing its opposition.

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

Including the Liberals.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes. We still wonder why. For what fundamental reasons? We still do not know why.

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

Oh, come on.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

When the Bloc Quebecois says that it believes Bill C-7 favours—

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

You're better at bridges.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could speak without hearing all the barnyard noises across the way. The Bloc Quebecois believes that Bill C-7 favours repression over the rehabilitation of young offenders. Even the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm said in this regard “that the new legislation continues to focus on repression by neglecting the needs of young offenders. Once more, the federal government has rejected the consensus in Quebec that focuses on rehabilitation, an approach that is working in Quebec”.

I read this in the press release he issued at that time but we are still asking the question. We get the impression that we are not reading the same bill. There are two sides to a coin. They read the bill one way, and we read it another.

We know very well that the objective of the federal government in Ottawa is not to marginalize young offenders. The purpose of this bill is to prevent crime, to ensure the rehabilitation and the reintegration of minors into society and to show that when they commit an offence there are real consequences.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot oppose such objectives, which will make our communities safer as well as allow for the rehabilitation of young offenders. We are talking about rehabilitation, we are not talking about repression. This is why the bill provides that young offenders who have committed a serious crime and gets an adult sentence will be held apart from adult criminals.

While these young poeple are in custody, they are supervised and those in charge will provide them with any therapy or other program needed for their rehabilitation into the community.

We should realize the obvious: the Bloc Quebecois exaggerates all the time. It is a grand master of the art of blowing things out of proportion. The balloon eventually blows up.

The Canadian government is not intent on repressing adolescents. The measures in the bill give the preference to rehabilitation and the reintegration of young offenders into the community. We should speak the truth. Some, especially in that party, have a tendency to tell the opposite of the truth.

We want young offenders to get the help they need to develop in our society. A young offender is just starting in life. The bill's purpose is to help young offenders through a difficult period in their life in the best way possible so that they can have a fulfilling life afterward.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to withdraw the bill or to give Quebec the right to opt out so it can continue to implement the current Young Offenders Act.

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

That is the unanimous consensus reached by the national assembly.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

According to the Bloc, there is a broad consensus in Quebec on the effectiveness of the current legislation. In this regard, Quebec wants the status quo.

It seems to me that even though there is a Canadian criminal law framework for young offenders, Quebec implements its own legislation. As the Prime Minister said once more today in the House, the proposed legislation would allow Quebec to continue to implement its own legislation.

Each of the regions would have its own criminal law framework. The bill would allow each region of Canada to adapt its approach. This frees up resources that can be used for more positive action for the young offenders.

The proposed bill would give a lot of freedom to provinces. As we will see, it will be implemented and if there are problems, we will solve them. We will solve them one at a time.

Provinces can apply the bill according to their own needs and taking into account their own situation as long as they respect the guidelines provided for in the federal act. They are guidelines. It is a criminal law framework. What is a framework? It is a set of rules that allow each of the regions of Canada to adapt and to put forward a particular approach, as has been the case until now and as still is the case.

The Government of Canada recognizes the success Quebec has had in rehabilitating young offenders. Have members ever seen a government pass legislation that goes against well applied legislation, against a successful approach put forward by a province?

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

Yes, the Liberals.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

To think that way is to be defeatist, as they usually are, and negative.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

So Quebec is rather negative?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

It also encourages Quebec to continue its efforts. The federal bill is flexible enough to allow Quebec to apply its own legislation regarding young offenders effectively. The provisions of the bill meet the needs expressed by the provinces.

However the youth criminal justice act is founded on federal powers governing criminal law and criminal proceedings. There should be only one youth criminal justice law framework in Canada but with the possibility for each region to apply its own approach.

It has been said that the Bloc Quebecois speaks on behalf of Quebecers. I am sorry but when I rise in the House I speak on behalf of Quebecers also. We got more votes than they did. I can say that I speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

—and if I add the Conservative federalist vote and the NDP vote, we have more than 60% of the votes in Quebec. Therefore when I rise in the House it is an honour for me to speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Motion No. 2 to amend Bill C-7. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the content of the motion itself, which amends the word may to read shall.

What is the significance of that word? That word tells the judge that he shall make information available to the appropriate school authorities, among other people. They have to be people in a responsible position who need to know information. That is what we are trying to achieve. Why is this so important? Without knowledge, it is impossible to deal with the problem.

This act deals with young offenders. Sad to say, there are among our young people those who commit violent acts and do things they are not supposed to do, things which society says should not be done. Some people would argue that the only way to deal with them is to put them in jail or incarcerate them somewhere. That is not the only way.

It is impossible to help young people to understand what they have done wrong and how they can right it without first knowing who they are. We need to know who they are if we are going to have a program of rehabilitation and a program that will prevent future behaviour of this type. That is the absolute number one requirement. That is what this amendment does. I am very surprised that there are members in the House who are avoiding this amendment. That amendment should pass unanimously in the House.

Some might ask why are some people not supporting this amendment. I have to refer back to question period today. I was terribly surprised at the response from the Minister of Justice to a question raised by the member for Fraser Valley concerning two children who were forced to visit their father. The conditions of that particular order were such that we had to wonder where the common sense was in this situation. Rather than sympathising with these poor children who did not want to visit their father, the minister said the system said they had to go. A social worker had to intervene in this case.

It was absolutely atrocious that the Minister of Justice, who had the golden opportunity to sympathize, to show compassion and recognize that there was perhaps a flaw in the system, did nothing. She defended the system, then the law. She did not recognize that there could be a problem. There are problems not only in this instance, but also in a variety of other instances.

While a lot of things can be adjusted in this young offenders act, this is an instance where there should be no quarrel. Yet, we had to bring to the government's attention not only at committee level, but at report stage the fact that some changes had to be made.

We need to recognize that the reason why school officials need to know is because they act in loco parentis. It is significant to recognize what this phrase means. This phrase has been used for school boards, teachers and principals. Teachers who act in loco parentis act in the same position as a well meaning judicious parent. It is not only their actions, it is also their responsibility. They have the responsibility to look after our most precious resources.

There are many people in this House who have children. Probably the most traumatic experience we face is when our five or six year old youngster leaves home for the first time to be entrusted to a teacher. We are giving teachers custody of our children and we have to trust them to act in our best interest as parents and in the best interests of society.

Our judges ought to be acting in that same way. They need to recognize the responsibility that exists in our schools. They need to recognize the responsibility of teachers and principals. Judges should take the same care as if their child were being accused of certain things. What are they trying to do? Hopefully, they are not punishing the child but helping him or her to grow into responsible citizens. That is what the purpose of this should be and that is what it is. That is why we want the word shall in there.

We want it so that the judge shall make it possible that those who are charged with the responsibility of looking after our kids will do so in a manner that will reflect the values of our society and the best thinking among our professional people and among us as well-meaning parents. That is why the word shall should be in there.

I will now refer to a speech made very recently by the ex-prime minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher. She was at a college in the United States recently and reminded the assembled group of a visit she had from Mr. Gorbachev just before the system changed in the communist U.S.S.R.

She made the observation that he recognized that the system was not working and that an attitude had to change. The attitude that had to change was that human beings need to have the incentive to do what is right coming from within them, that the government could not force upon them a certain behaviour pattern. The government tried that for 50 years. It did not work. Finally the economic system broke down. The social system broke down. The judicial system broke down. Fear itself was no longer strong enough to bring these people under control.

Mrs. Thatcher said there is one thing we need to recognize, which is that the human spirit requires liberty in order to evoke the best and most noblest of emotions. That is what we need to engender in young people. We need to recognize that the greatest liberty for youth is to be able to walk down the street safe from the threat of punishment or violent attack. The same thing should happen in the corridors of schools. As well, teachers should know that they are free and have the liberty to work with these youngsters without feeling the threat of being violently attacked.

To do that we have to know who these people are. That is not an infringement on their privacy. They took the public action of committing violent acts. Those acts were not done in secret. They took it upon themselves to make victims of us all, because when one of us is attacked we all suffer, directly or indirectly.

How many of us did not empathize with the two young kids who had to go and visit their father, a convicted sex offender? Who did not? It would be a very callous, heartless person who would not sympathize with that. We did sympathize.

Now we want to create an environment where school officials will indeed have the knowledge and then develop the skills in order to treat these people. Can it be done? Yes, it can be done.

I want to refer to an interview in the Vancouver Province with RCMP inspector Rick Betker. He has been a cop for 30 years and has seen every type of bad guy and heard every sob story excuse.

Why is Inspector Betker waxing so enthusiastic about a program in which the bad guys do not go to jail, do not go to court and do not even get charged? For him the answer is simple: because it works.

What is this program? “Probably for me it is the most positive thing I have seen in 30 years of policing”, he says of the community justice forums he has now started in Victoria's western suburbs, where he commands the RCMP detachment. The idea of the forums is to bring offenders and victims together face to face, with a trained facilitator, to talk about what happened and to work out a resolution that leaves both happy.

Inspector Betker says:

It is very powerful...You can see the remorse (in offenders). You can see...this may be the first time they really realize how their actions have affected not just the victim, but their own family as well.

Here is an RCMP officer with 30 years' experience who shows us a way. It is not the only way, but it is a way that works. Will we give that kind of tool to our educators and school authorities, which is what we are talking about today? Will we tell the judges they shall make it possible for them to do that? Yes, we should do that. I hope we all support this amendment.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on criminal justice for young persons.

During the week of recess, the Bloc Quebecois members were working; we went on a tour. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm went on a tour of all the Quebec regions to meet with people. Unlike the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, we met with people and asked them their views about the young offenders bill.

In Quebec, many representatives of organizations with a particular expertise on troubled youth or young people with delinquency problems have a different approach. They told us that the bill was unacceptable and that it was a major change of direction with respect to the rehabilitation of young persons who have committed minor or serious offences.

This does not mean that we do not deplore the fact that these young people are committing criminal offences, serious offences against some people, and that it affects society as a whole.

I heard the new member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who got elected on the promise to have a bridge built in that riding, say that once again the Bloc Quebecois wanted to delay the passage of the legislation and that we were in bad faith. I remind the House that we have done some field work. In my riding, representatives from 15 different organizations, people who are working with street youth or in youth centres, came to tell us that this legislation represented an approach totally contrary to the one in Quebec.

I remind the House that the Jasmin committee was struck to conduct a study aimed at improving the approach used to work with young people who have committed serious criminal acts. What we wanted in Quebec was to act more swiftly, ensure consistency of action and give more room to parents and victims, and to have a good measure at the right time.

The legislation put forward by the minister ignored that approach. To illustrate what we mean when we say that our approach is different in Quebec, and that it brings a good measure at the right time, I will summarize Hughes' case and how under Bill C-7 that young person would be accompanied.

Hugues would appear before a court after his offence. Given the antecedents of the accused, the crown would deny him a release on bail and Hugues' counsel would agree by strategy. After a 30 day period, at best, the trial would begin and Hugues would finally be found guilty.

What would happen then? A pre-sentence report would be requested. After a minimum of 30 days, the report would recommend eight months detention. Hugues would have already served two months of temporary detention. The judge would sentence him to four months in prison. Hugues would serve two-thirds of the sentence; he would really serve 80 days, at worst. Note that during the 80 days of detention, Hugues will not have access to rehabilitation programs; he will be left to himself. Finally, our specialists, teachers and scholars will become prison guards.

That is the bill this member, who says he is a Quebecer, will support. He will support the federal minister. Under the existing Young Offenders Act, there is a totally different approach providing immediate support. This is what the Jasmin committee requested: quick action in dealing with young persons who have committed a serious crime.

There will be an appearance before the court and a request for a report on the adolescent. His background will show that his belonging to a street gang is the problem and that he is retrievable. The crown and the defence attorney will probably agree on a training and social reintegration program where he will be kept away from his gang. With a six or eight month social intervention program, Hugues has a chance. He will be working with specialists who will be more demanding

Members can clearly see that the approach we offer in Quebec is different. I do not understand how the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry can say this comes from the Bloc Quebecois. It goes well beyond the Bloc, it is a consensus. Therefore, one must think twice before supporting this bill.

Another event occurred last week. A motion was unanimously passed at the national assembly. I must stress that the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois members are not the only ones to oppose the minister's bill. There are also federalist members in the national assembly who adopted a motion asking for Quebec to be excluded.

Why is it that when questions are asked in the House—

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the kind of speech that we heard at second reading and that we will hear at third reading. I would like the member to get to the topic of Motion No. 2.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

This is a point of debate more than anything else.

I believe the hon. member for Quebec nevertheless got the message that she ought to keep her remarks more directly relevant to the bill.