Debates of Feb. 4th, 2002

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the hon. member for Provencher to be quiet? He is just awful.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

I would like the minister to tell me exactly which clauses in his bill provide for this flexibility. In Quebec, we have been looking for them, we still have to find them. Maybe they are written in invisible ink.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I understand that the opposition parties would like the bill to come back in its entirety before this House but this is not the case.

What is coming back before the House is a very specific amendment that we have to deal with, an amendment that we support.

With regard to the issue of the flexibility of the legislation, the bill is in its third reincarnation, if I may use this word. It has been the subject of 160 amendments. It includes a declaration of principle that deals first and foremost with the rehabilitation component.

Principles in clause 3 are found throughout the bill. There is flexibility everywhere in the bill.

[An hon. member]

Wrong. Wrong.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Let us take, for example, the issue concerning 14 to 16 year olds. It is true that for some presumptive offences the age will be lowered to 14 years, although a province may maintain it at 16. This is a good example of flexibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill may be in its third incarnation but it has a lot of incarnations to go before it reaches such a state of perfection that it need not be reincarnated again. That is part of the problem.

The provinces do not like the bill. It would put a burden on them. It would not be flexible enough with respect to provinces like Quebec that have a distinctive way of doing things when it comes to young offenders.

Having had the bill come back from the Senate, the Minister of Justice could have taken the opportunity to address some of the concerns various provinces have raised instead of insisting rather arrogantly that the bill will do the trick. It will not. Ten years from now, five years from now or whenever, we will be sitting here with another incarnation of the youth criminal justice bill because the government has not been willing to listen to what people have been telling it.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again I will be precise. The bill does not come back to the House. It is the amendment that comes back to the House.

Regarding the question of the government listening to people and being open minded about the bill, I remind the House that the process started in 1995 with some amendments to the legislation. We then proceeded with Bill C-68 in March 1999 and Bill C-3 in October 1999. Before those bills were introduced we proceeded with a full hearing across Canada by a standing committee of the House which tabled a report in 1997. After that the bill came before the House. We are talking of course about first reading, report stage and third reading. Altogether we have been discussing the bill in the House for almost 19 hours.

When we compared Bill C-7 to Bill C-3 we went through over 160 amendments. If opposition members have been unable to make their point with all this discussion they will never be able to.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my concern with these amendments before the House is the amendments themselves, because as I understand it they require judges to take into consideration whether a person is aboriginal during sentencing.

I would ask the minister, is that not asking judges to consider race in sentencing rather than other factors like ethnicity, poverty or societal circumstances?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Senate is based essentially on the declaration of principle in clause 3 of the bill. It is in accordance with the vision of the legislation. There is a similar provision at this point in time in the criminal code.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I need clarification. Let us look at a victim, a woman who is brutally raped and beaten by a young aboriginal offender.

In the minister's words of a moment ago the legislation would allow for special consideration when sentencing aboriginals. The minister has thus confirmed it is possible, indeed probable, that offenders will get less of a sentence because they are aboriginal. That would be a disgrace to the woman.

Why is the government moving in the direction where fair and firm justice would reside with non-aboriginals only?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the amendment is essentially based on one of the principles of Bill C-7. Clause 3 of Bill C-7 takes into consideration young aboriginals. The Senate amendment takes this into consideration as well as the sentencing. The exact same thing is found in the criminal code.

This is always a very sensitive issue. We on this side of the House do believe in rehabilitation. If we look at clauses 3 and 19 of Bill C-7 there is a place for victims which did not exist in the previous legislation.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate the minister is moving from one mental restriction to another. He says that the issue is about one amendment pertaining to the aboriginals when in fact there is a subamendment requesting that the bill be withdrawn from debate in the House and reviewed all over again. It would have been interesting to see the minister follow the debate he himself has generated.

Can the minister tell us about the dichotomy between a proposal for a meeting and a motion for closure? How can he explain the rationale behind that? He offered to meet with the coalition and the groups opposing the measure and will not even be doing so before the bill is passed. Now he is supporting a motion for closure to ensure that his bill will pass before all the stakeholders, the Quebecers and the Quebec representatives tell him that his bill does not make any sense.

How can the minister explain to the five Liberal members from Quebec sitting behind him that they will be voting against the movement taking place in Quebec, where a unanimous report against this position? How will the minister explain—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is called overstatement. It should be pointed out that those members have a tendency, when they speak about Quebec, to claim that they do so in the name of all Quebecers.

I would simply tell them that I have also been elected by Quebecers, like many other members of the Liberal Party caucus. There are people on the government side who come from Quebec, who are proud to be Quebecers and who are doing a very good job of protecting the interests of the whole population of Quebec.

With regard to meetings, one only has to look at the work that was done on Bill C-7, for instance, by the Standing Committee on Justice. Ninety-three witnesses appeared before the committee on Bill C-7 and Bill C-3.

In the Senate, 72 witnesses were heard. I believe the time has come to move on and to find a way to work together to implement a bill that will serve the whole population of Canada.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directly related to the motion on closure.

The reason the government has brought in closure is that we on this side strenuously object to the bill and to the racist attitude expressed in the amendment from the Senate. We know it is wrong and a whole bunch of Liberals know it is wrong.

I would like to ask the minister and the Prime Minister a specific question. When it comes to voting on the bill and voting on the amendment from the Senate, will they at least allow free votes for members on that side who agree with this anti-racism that we support and who are against the racism that the Liberals are trying to promote? Will they give free votes so that members over there can express that displeasure?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have any lessons to learn from the other side of the House. Our party has given more free votes to its members than any other party in the past.

With regard to the amendment, as I have said many times, such a provision is found in the criminal code. Essentially the amendment reflects the principle of the legislation that we find in clause 3. With regard to the possibility of the opposition parties voicing their concerns to Bill C-7, I will just mention the number of hours we have spent discussing the bill.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister of Justice. He just mentioned the number of witnesses heard by the committee. What I wish to hear is not the number of witnesses but what those witnesses said. Second, how many groups from Quebec appeared before the committee to support the bill? None. Finally, how many groups has the minister met in Quebec since his appointment as minister?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the debate has begun.

Let us have some fun. They want to talk about the time spent on reviewing the bill, which is not up for debate today.

The process began in 1995. Hearings were held across the country, including in Quebec, by a House committee, which tabled its report in 1997. We had Bill C-68, followed by Bill C-3 and then Bill C-7.

The House of Commons committee heard 93 witnesses, while the Senate committee heard 72 witnesses. The bill was under consideration for a total of 75 hours in the House committee and 40 hours in the Senate committee, and over 160 amendments were put forward.

What we have before us, namely Bill C-7, is good legislation. People now want us to move forward so we can work together as partners to implement this legislation and the measures needed to promote the rehabilitation of young offenders.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, under Bill C-41, the Liberal government undermined one of the most fundamental principles of our justice system, that all Canadians are equal before the law. We see it eroding again today.

In its 1997 report on the role of victims in the justice system, the justice committee recommended a mandatory minimum victim fine surcharge for both adults and young offenders. The government chose to implement the recommendation for adults but decided not to recommend the recommendation for the young offenders.

Why should convicted young offenders not have the same obligation to the victims as does those of the adults?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times today, what we have today in the House is the amendment from the Senate.

If we look at clause 3 of the bill we find a declaration of principle. It seems quite obvious that the bill focuses on rehabilitation. We believe there is a possibility for those young people. This is always very sensitive. We need to have a balanced approach. With regard to the victims, the bill gives more room for the victims than the actual legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question by my friend from Crowfoot.

We know this amendment was aimed very much at bringing parity to the justice system as it pertained to aboriginal people, both in the adult court system and in the youth court system. The reason for the amendment was to ensure that we were treating aboriginal people in a similar fashion. We also know that the minister's own department has made a policy decision not to have the same parity as it pertains to the victim surcharge that would apply in the youth court system.

His own department, as Canadians would know and as the minister has recited here today, brought in 160 amendments to its own bill, almost the same number of provisions in the new legislation. The new legislation is of course double the size of the old Young Offenders Act.

Would the minister also confirm for the House today that not only did the Senate recommend this particular amendment but that there were 12 others that were in fact polled or vetoed by his predecessor? Would the minister confirm that?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hidden goal of the actual discussion is the amendment that was sent back by the Senate to the House of Commons, an amendment that reflects a principle that already exists in Bill C-7.

I would refer the House to clause 3, the declaration of principle. The amendment is in conformity and according to the provision that we have in Bill C-7.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people in the capital city of Saskatchewan would like some answers to this particular bill. Regina has now become the car theft capital of Canada, with an average of 20 cars being stolen every day.

The bill sets out that victims have the right to be informed of certain information concerning an offender or the case but there is no requirement that the victims be informed that they have that right. Could the minister tell us why that is?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know all parties on the other side of the House would like to re-open debate on the bill but the bill is not in the House at this point in time. We are talking about an amendment.

It is rather curious that they would want to re-open debate on the bill knowing the amount of time we have spent discussing Bill C-7. The process began back in 1995.

What I am saying today is that it is time to move forward and proceed with the full implementation of this brand new reform and vision.