House of Commons Hansard #138 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
There have been none in Quebec.
The second point concerns a program I heard on the radio. The prison ombudsman was saying that too many youths were in jail now in Canada.
Does my colleague think that, with the new bill the government is so proud of, we will reduce the number of youths who will be jailed or increase this number, thereby contravening the charter that was signed to protect the rights of children?
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, first I will address the question of whether there are young offenders actually incarcerated with adults. I am not aware of any in British Columbia. That is the only province I have practised in. There are youth detention centres and provincial and federal institutions but they do not mix young offenders with adults; of course being over or under 18 determines where they are detained.
As for whether this legislation will ensure that there are more or less people behind bars, I have to argue that this will increase incarceration or keep it the same. It will not reduce it. The reason I say this is that it really is the status quo but with a higher level of bureaucracy. It probably will take longer in some cases because the bureaucracy will be bogged down more with a lot of these provisions.
It is not going to the root problem. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca put a motion before the House to bring in a head start program. I was fortunate enough to be able to second his motion. I applaud him for this. A head start program would ensure that children from birth until eight or nine years of age are given all the necessities of life. As someone who has practised in the youth courts, I will say there is no question that a high percentage of the people before the courts have had very troubled pasts and did not have these basic necessities.
States such as Michigan and Hawaii where this has been brought in have seen something like a 50% reduction in their youth courts. They went to the root problem. It was an investment in their communities. We are not doing that here. What we are doing is making a highly bureaucratic and complex system more bureaucratic.
Young people should be brought before the courts when they are in trouble, but the goal is to give them assistance and to ensure that these young people do not end up in a revolving door of crime, that they are not back in court as adults. I do not see any of these issues being addressed in the new youth criminal justice act.
I would argue that parliamentarians who stand in the House ten years from now will be talking about the same thing, just as I can go back ten years in Hansard and pull up debates that were virtually the same. I have looked at speeches from five and ten years ago and the same applies. Why? Because the government has not gone to the root problem. It has not addressed anything.
It is absolutely mind-boggling that after eight years of talk by the government, it has failed. I believe that government has failed and time will be the test. The amendment being brought back by the Senate is another prime example of the government just wanting to stick a band-aid on something, walk out the back door and hope that everything will go away, but it absolutely will not.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is time for people on both sides of the House and the young and the old to ask ourselves a few questions as to why we have this bill and why we are at this position in our society. Fifty years ago we had more youth in my province than we have now. We had very few people appearing in court.
Why was car theft almost an unheard thing? Why have we listed all these crimes today? Our jails are not large enough to hold the people. Our courts are busy and stacked up. What were we doing right 50 years ago? Maybe we should take a look at that because obviously what we did then did not promote what we have today. We have to take a serious look at that.
Many of the institutions which held families together then are now gone. Many things we learned at school and beyond have been changed, so we now have a problem today. We try to take it to the courts instead of asking where we went wrong. Maybe we should have a study of why we went wrong.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is no question we live in a very different world today. I know we cannot turn the clock back, but I would argue that we need to have a serious look at the root failings. I would conclude that we need to ensure we give our law enforcement and police the tools to deal with this effectively.
When these young people are brought before the courts our goal is to ensure they get the help and assistance they need. Sometimes it will be a bit of a tough love approach and they will not like it. There may be a couple of years of some pretty tough conditions on probation, but it might prevent young people from entering a life of crime and it might get them out of the revolving door at the front of the court house so they can become productive members of society.
Not only does there need to be a punitive aspect, but there also needs to be more of a rehabilitative nature to ensure they do become productive members of society. That would be far better than putting in statutes sentencing provisions based solely on race that give special considerations to those of aboriginal descent. I do not see how that is possibly going to help anybody of aboriginal descent from getting out of the revolving door of crime. We are not helping them at all and time will tell.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, since I do not have much time, I mostly want to congratulate the member in my comment. In the end, his stand is not that far from the stand of the Bloc Quebecois. I think that we could sit down and surely find some common ground.
In fact, as regards its treatment of young offenders, British Columbia is one of the provinces that has listened the most intently to Quebec. I know quite well, since I talked with the deputy public prosecutor, who, I believe, appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that there have many years of consultation between Quebec and British Columbia to know exactly how the law was applied and particularly to know what the Quebec model was. In British Columbia, it was recognized that there was a Quebec model, that things were done differently as regards the treatment of young offenders.
What does the member think of a Minister of Justice who is rushing to have Bill C-7 passed even before consulting or meeting with the stakeholders in the field to understand the issues and to see how the law is applied in Quebec and, I would say, even in British Columbia?
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has got to the very root of the problem in the House. The House has become dysfunctional and needs overhauling.
I look at the member for Surrey North who has so much to offer, as I am sure all members from all corners of the country do. The goal is to improve and to make things better. However the systemic flaws in the House make the input of backbenchers on the government side of the House and the members on this side worth nothing.
Good amendments that are put forward are not taken seriously and the losers are the Canadian people. If we all looked out for the best interests of the whole country, we would all be a lot better off. We need to change how we operate in the House.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am really quite fascinated by some of the debate that has gone on in here on this bill. I want to address a couple of the issues that deal with the amendment.
It is a sad thing to see someone playing a race card in this place in an attempt to obfuscate or confuse or to send out a message that somehow the government, through an amendment coming from the Senate, is showing particular favoritism toward one group or another, in this case aboriginal youth.
I know the speakers who have suggested that it is a race issue know better. For example, I know the previous speaker is a lawyer. That member would know, having worked in the criminal system, that this amendment deals with a requirement to consider non-custodial sentences for aboriginal youth. If someone reads that in its own context and does not know the law, maybe one would assume that it was indeed racist. However, if one knows the Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 718.2(e) of the criminal code requires that alternatives to custody be considered for all young people, particularly aboriginal youth.
That already exists in the criminal code. The amendment comes from the Senate. After having looked at this, the Senate, in doing its job of sober second thought and reviewing it, has said there is a problem because this bill does not totally match up to that section of the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore it has recommended an amendment that would bring it in line with the criminal code.
To say that somehow this creates special status or is racist is nothing more than political opportunism and misrepresents an issue in attempting to speak to the factions existing in the country that might indeed be prejudiced against aboriginal people or might feel this was in some way a racist remark. To actually know the facts and understand the truth, yet to portray this as something it is not is politicking at the lowest possible level Frankly, I find it shameful.
Let me deal as well with the accusations that somehow government members are not listening or that because we are dealing with time allocation, which gets turned around and put under the guise of closure, that we are being whipped into shape. Earlier one member said that we should not be punished by the party and that if 40 of us were to stand up and vote against the amendment, the Prime Minister would not punish 40 of us because of the size and the sheer fact of it being 40 people.
Let me assure that member that were I to vote the way that member wishes, which is against the amendment and the bill, I would not be punished by the Prime Minister. No amount of punishment on this side of the House could cause me any concern. However I would be punished by my own conscience. I would be punished as I laid awake at night and thought that I had listened to this argument and voted that way.
The member should not confuse the fact that the Liberal caucus will support the government in the bill. He or anyone else in this place should not confuse the fact that what we believe in is in the bill. I can respect the fact that certain members in this place do not support the bill, but what could we possibly do to get that support.
We know there is some flexibility within the bill that allows the provinces to adjust the age of the young people with whom we are dealing to be either 14 or 16. We know the province of Quebec thinks the bill is too tough and the province of Ontario thinks the bill is not tough enough.
We also know the Canadian Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform Party of Canada, have stated in this place that they believe the age should be lowered to 10, and we should be putting the kids jail. We understand their position on that.
How could we arrive at a consensus? If we were to soften the bill, I would suspect that members of the Bloc Quebecois caucus would simply adjust their positioning to say that we did not go far enough. If we were to toughen the bill and somehow put all these young people who come into conflict with the law in an adult prison, then I believe the provinces--
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a rule in this place that a member cannot say that someone is not telling the truth because it is assumed that everyone always does. That member should not be saying that we are calling to put 10 year olds in jail because that is untrue. He should not be saying it.
Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
That is a matter of debate. I will recognize the hon. member in questions and comments and he can make that point.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, if Canadian Alliance members want to stand up and say that they are not abdicating that the criteria for the determination of a young offender be established at age 10, I am willing to listen to that. However that is not what I have heard from Canadian Alliance members in this place. I have heard people over on that side of the House say that there is nothing wrong with taking a block of wood to the backside of a youngster as it will teach him or her something.
I just heard another member stand in his place and say that we should take a look at what we did 50 years ago, that out on the prairies things were not so bad back then, that maybe we could go back there and figure out what we were doing right; and that no matter whether we were dealing with aboriginal youth or dealing with other youth in this country that we should take a look at what went on 50 years ago.
I heard a really interesting quote the other day at committee by the new minister of immigration who said that there was a reason the front windshield in a car was bigger than the rearview mirror. He said that it was because we were looking forward, not backward.
It is so typical for a member of the official opposition to stand and say that the way we did it 50 years ago was the right way and that we should go back there. That clearly shows a lack of understanding of the problems that our youth face every day in this modern day world; the problems that confront them with young people, perhaps their peers, leading them astray; the availability of drugs; and the violence we have seen in our schools. Does anyone honestly think we should be going back 50 years to a policy, one which has been supported by members of the official opposition, that encourages the use of a cane as a disciplinary tool to whip our youngsters into shape?
This is the new millennium. Dinosaurs have no place in establishing the justice system, the rule of law and the way in which young people need to be dealt with. That is what we have been hearing from the opposite side and what we have been hearing all along.
If we were to agree to use age ten as the criteria for defining a young offender--and I am not suggesting that we would do that in a minute--I suspect that the official opposition would say that maybe it should be eight, seven--where do we stop this--or maybe it should be six.
What do we do when we put a 10, 11, 12, 14 or even 15 year old in jail with adults? Let me tell the House what we do. We create an incubating system for a full-fledged adult criminal to be abused and to learn what it is like to be a criminal. Is that what we want to do? Obviously not on this side of the House.
I reject the implication that somehow we on this side of the House are being forced by a government whip or a Prime Minister to vote for a bill. I categorically reject that. The bill would give an opportunity for young people to see rehabilitation efforts in the community. Why should that not happen? Should we put them in jail?
I have heard members opposite say that three strikes and they are out and that we should throw away the key. That is just terrific modern thinking on how to deal with our young people.
We want rehabilitation. We know statistically that Canada, on a per capita basis, puts more young people in jail than any other country in the west. We lead the way in that. That is shameful. Putting them in jail is not the way to solve youth crime. This is not about punishment. This is about rehabilitation and about saving lives.
The other thing I want to stress is that at no time have we talked in terms of young people who commit murder or rape. When we talk about the most serious aggravated assaults, the bill would allow those young people to receive an adult sentence but not be tried in an adult court. It would allow those young people to have representation in a youth court, with a clear recommendation and a clear judgment that an adult sentence should be imposed in those situations.
The bill would also do something that has been a major battle within our own ranks on this side of the House. In a situation where a young person is at large and is deemed to be a risk to the community, the name can be published so that the community can be aware that there might be a problem.
Those are positive steps that will offer a balance of protecting the community, giving people an opportunity to be aware of certain problems and, at the same time, not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
We have all witnessed some terrible tragedies. I cannot remember the name, but I recall the young baby who was beaten to death in England and thrown on the railroad tracks by two young children who were well under 10; I think they were 7 or 8 years old. The two children were arrested and actually convicted. In fact they have been in rehabilitation and in the care of the state for some time as a result of that.
My brother-in-law who lives in England made a comment at that time. He said that we know society is in trouble when the babies begin to kill the babies. We all abhor this. It is unimaginable. We cannot explain how a child can take a small child away from his parents and beat the child to death. It is just not within our power to conceive how that could happen. However the reality is that it has happened.
Does that mean we simply take those young children and lock them away? There has to be a better system. It is a tragedy for families on both sides: the victims as well as those who are found guilty.
I recall a story in my own community in Streetsville many years ago where a young man was killed in a brawl outside a bar. A group taunted this young man. Somehow pushing and shoving took place and all of a sudden someone shot their foot through--as they say, shot the boot through--and as he did so the youngster fell, hit his head and it killed him. It was an unbelievable tragedy. There were calls in Mississauga at that time for capital punishment. That was the solution.
Interestingly enough, in my days on municipal council I served on a body called the licensing review board. We had to review whether or not someone should have their licence revoked or reinstated after revocation. Lo and behold, before us appeared a young man with a lawyer who had just got out of jail having served 18 months for manslaughter. We were astounded. How does one serve 18 months for manslaughter? Our committee of three was given a copy of the pre-sentencing report. It was the exact case, a very high profile case, in Streetsville where the young man had been killed and we had before us the person who was convicted of manslaughter in that death.
We were being asked at the municipal level to return a licence for a particular type of vehicle to this young man. It was an astounding experience to find out that this was the person involved in that death. When we read the pre-sentencing report, all three of us on the committee understood that there was clearly a victim who could never be brought back and that was a tragedy, but the remorse shown by the young man who was involved in an altercation that led to a terrible incident, was very clear. What was also clear was that the young man had a family. He had a wife and two children. They had to move out of Mississauga to another city in Ontario to continue with their lives, and the young man simply wanted to get on with his.
He was a young offender when the incident occurred. He came back and was going out to work. The committee recognized that the anger in the community would be negative enough that it would be unproductive, that it would be a bad move to simply reinstate the licence in our city, and so we made other arrangements for that individual to get a job in another city in the province.
Should we have shown that kind of compassion? Some would argue, perhaps the family members of the victim—the young man who was kicked in the head and died—with some understanding, frankly, from me and others, that we should not have shown that compassion. However when we are faced with the actual information and know the entire story, it puts a different spin on it and gives us a different perspective.
I am proud to say that I think we did the right thing. We showed the compassion and helped the young man get on with his life.
One of the things we want to stress again is that we are interested in preventing crime and working with young people. Will we be able to prevent crimes by incarcerating young people? There are instances when incarceration may be the only thing we can do, but that should not be the first decision made when dealing with a young person in trouble with the law.
I believe the bill offers a balance. The balance is to work toward preventing crime and to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into the community, with a requirement, upon reintegration, that there be some community support.
Let us imagine young people who have been sentenced to prison for about two or three years. When they get out they are probably still only 16, 17 or 18 years old. Do we just turn them out into the community and leave them entirely on their own? The bill allows for and insists upon community support. It makes absolute sense.
There are many tremendous groups: church groups; NGOs; groups that work with new immigrants and that can work with youth; and the John Howard Society. Many different organizations are dedicated to helping young people get on with their lives. This is the positive aspect of the bill.
It is interesting to hear members opposite say that we are going too fast in invoking closure. I heard a speaker just a few moments ago say that the government has been debating this issue for eight years and that he has been following it and has been involved in it.
We know that for three years both the House of Commons and Senate committees have held hearings. Every time the bill has comes forward so far it seems to have fallen off the table for one reason or another. This time it will not. This time the amendment will carry, not because Liberals are being whipped but because Liberals believe this is just, this is fair and this is legislation that is overdue and about time.
Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, I would like to know what the previous speaker would say to former chief, Gail Sparrow, of the Musqueam Band in Vancouver, who commented on the case of two Musqueam youth who pled guilty to an assault that put a 17 year old young man named Joel Libin into a coma and caused him brain damage. The two youth were given conditional sentences?
Former Chief Sparrow said:
The message for younger kids now is, 'Hey, they got off too, because there's a special law for us.' You're going to put the community at risk
She further stated:
The undercurrent here is that people are afraid to speak up because of the repercussions. They're asking, 'Why do we have a separate set of laws for us? Now my son will go and beat somebody up and think it's no big thing because it's home arrest.
A lot of people do not support that action and are very upset. There have been a number of other cases in British Columbia, incidents in the aboriginal community where that community has been completely upset with this kind of legislation and the way it has been applied. They do not feel it is appropriate. It is not fair to the victims or to anyone.
What would the member have to say to the aboriginal folks who are upset with this kind of legislation? They do not like it one bit either.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's passion and feelings about the bill. I would say to him and the aboriginal community that the amendment to the bill today says custody should not be the first choice.
If we are dealing with repeat offenders, violent murders, manslaughter, rape and those kinds of issues I am quite confident our justice system will see fit to hand out adult sentences and publish names. That is what the bill calls for. The people the hon. member mentioned should take comfort in the fact that it will happen.
However the amendment says that in most cases dealing with young offenders we are not talking about murder, manslaughter or rape. It says that when these crimes come before the justice system we should look at alternatives like working in the community and finding ways to rehabilitate and help these young people because putting them in jail and incarcerating them is not the first choice. That is all it says. I have confidence that our judicial system will judge accordingly.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think the speech made by the member for Mississauga West is just further proof that government members confuse things and do not understand Bill C-7 that is before us.
I will give you just two examples from the member's speech. He talked about the criminal code and Bill C-7 as two pieces of legislation that should be identical. He even referred to section 718 of the criminal code to justify certain changes made to the legislation dealing with young offenders.
They are two different systems. Each time the government amended the Young Offenders Act, it was to bring it more in line with the criminal code. It is a mistake. I think the member does not understand that.
He also does not understand when he said that Bill C-7 would allow us to use various extrajudicial measures, as if this were something new. The Young Offenders Act already provides for alternative measures. It is exactly the same thing as extrajudicial measures. Maybe it was easier for the member to understand when we were talking about alternative measures instead of extrajudicial measures, but it is the same thing. Once again, this shows that the member for Mississauga West does not understand the bill on which he will be voting.
When he says that he is representing his constituents, I am sure that if he were still in Queen's Park, he would be against Bill C-7, as the majority of MLAs in Queen's Park is against it, not for the same reasons as the Bloc Quebecois and Quebec in general, but rather because it is not repressive enough.
To illustrate the fact that there really is a problem with this legislation, it does not have the support of hardliners nor does it have the support of Quebec that has been using an approach based on rehabilitation and reintegration for 30 years. What should have been done is what we proposed, namely allowing provinces to withdraw. All those provinces wanting to withdraw from Bill C-7 to continue using the Young Offenders Act should be allowed to do so.
Does the member, who sits on the government side, find it normal that the new Minister of Justice is refusing to meet with the experts and stakeholders in Quebec to gain a better understanding of what we are doing there before ramming Bill C-7 through, as he has just done by limiting debate and gagging opposition members, particularly those from Quebec who want to properly defend Quebec on this matter?
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me first assure the hon. member that if I were still at Queen's Park it is highly unlikely I would be in support of the government of Ontario's position given that it is led by the hon. Mike Harris. I have seldom found myself in agreement with Mr. Harris or his party's policies.
In my home I receive the householder of the hon. Rob Sampson who is minister of corrections for the province and happens to be my MPP. I found it rather disgraceful that he was using it for political purposes to slam the Young Offenders Act and put forward the kind of misinformation we have heard today from certain opposition members about the nature of the bill. It was blatant use of a householder document to communicate with constituents to put forth a partisan view.
The member may think I do not understand the bill, but because we do not agree does not mean I do not understand it. I do. In the case of Quebec it is clear that flexibility is there. Contrary to the government of Quebec's claims, the bill would offer substantial flexibility to allow Quebec to maintain its approach to youth justice. Having said that, the member should know Quebec transferred 23 youths to adult court in 1998-99, making it the province with the second highest number of such transfers that year.
I turn to the hon. member and his caucus and ask, is this your solution to the Young Offenders Act?
Youth Criminal Justice ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I know there are strongly held views on the matter, perhaps not different from any other subject matter but certainly on this one the views are very different and strongly held. However at all times and on either side of the debate interventions will be made through the Chair and not across the floor.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I apologize. I say through you to the members opposite: Is that the solution for dealing with young people? I had thought the province of Quebec was more interested in a system that would provide rehabilitation and community based services to help young people.
I see the member shaking his head. I am not sure what that means. Either he believes in helping young people through rehabilitation and community support or he believes in putting them in jail like the Canadian Alliance does. I sure do not support that.
Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, the bill would destroy federalism because provinces would be under no obligation to carry out the will of the federal government in this respect. The province of Quebec could opt out of the bill completely and say it would not enforce it. There is nothing in our constitution that could make any province carry it out. It would be a delicate exercise in co-operative federalism.
The hon. member for Mississauga West has said there should be alternatives. I think we all agree there should be alternatives. The act already provides that there be alternatives before one considers incarceration. The hon. member has been missing the dangerous aspect of the bill in that it would institutionalize racism in the country by mandating a category on the basis of race.
What is his reply to that issue?
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, for a former member of a cabinet of a provincial government who held a justice portfolio that claim is quite remarkable.
Perhaps the member was not here, but I said in my speech that the amendment would bring the bill into line with Canada's criminal code. If the member cares to look it up, paragraph 718.2( e ) of the criminal code requires that alternatives to custody be considered for all young people, particularly aboriginal youth.
The hon. member represents a constituency where there would be substantial involvement with aboriginal youth. He would know as well as anyone in this place that there is a problem and we need to help our aboriginal youth break the cycle. That is what I believe the bill would do.
PrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Before I call for resumption of the debate I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Provencher on Thursday, January 31, concerning the manner in which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights carried out its order of reference with respect to unanswered questions on the order paper.
I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter and the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Fredericton for providing additional helpful information on the committee’s work. I would also like to thank the hon. House Leader of the PC/DR Coalition, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the hon. government House leader and the hon. member for Surrey North for their contributions on this question.
The hon. member for Provencher in raising the question alleged that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights violated Standing Order 39(5)(b) when at its meeting on Thursday, January 31 the committee voted down a motion to invite departmental officials to testify regarding the delay in answering Question No. 98.
He argued that the order of reference given to the committee on January 29 concerning the delay in replying to Question No. 98 constituted an order of the House to investigate the delay and report the matter back. He disputed the committee's right to decide that it was satisfied that there were mitigating circumstances and that, since a response had been tabled in the House, the matter could be considered closed. The chair of the committee explained that the committee considered a motion to invite the departmental officials to answer questions about the delay but that the motion was negatived and the committee passed on to other business.
Let us briefly review the basic procedures involved in this matter. With respect to written questions, Standing Order 39(5)(a) provides that the ministry must respond within 45 days. Standing Order 39(5)(b) states:
If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond. The question shall be designated as referred to committee on the Order Paper and, notwithstanding Standing Order 39(4), the Member may submit one further question for each question so designated.
It is important to note that it is the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond that is referred to the committee, and the hon. member for Provencher rightly draws a distinction between that matter and any issue relating to the sufficiency of the reply, an issue that he wishes to pursue as a separate item.
There is a longstanding convention in this House that committees are masters of their own procedure. I refer hon. members to page 804 of Marleau and Montpetit which states:
Committees are bound to follow the procedures set out in the Standing Orders, as well as any specific sessional or special orders that the House has issued to them. Committees are otherwise left free to organize their work. In this sense, committees are said to be masters of their own proceedings.
Again at page 885 it states:
If there is an irregularity in the committee's proceedings, the House can only be seized of it once it is reported to the House.
In the case before us the delay in replying to a question stands referred to the committee, but it is important to remember that, like other matters before it, the committee may dispose of this as it deems appropriate. The committee in this instance has decided not to pursue the matter further. This is a decision that properly rests with the committee, and while the hon. member for Provencher may disagree with the decision it has been taken in full compliance with our rules and procedures.
The Chair has always refrained from interfering in the business of committees which are free to pursue the work before them as they see fit. In this instance the Chair has concluded that since the committee is empowered to decide how it will deal with its orders of reference and since there has been no report to the House concerning its proceedings, no further action is required on this point of order.
That being said, as hon. members know, I was the Chair of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons and this new procedure with regard to unanswered questions was one of the committee’s recommendations that, like the rest of the report, was adopted unanimously by this House. As such, this is a matter that is of special interest to me and I believe that it might be helpful for committees faced with such orders of reference in the future, if the Chair outlines its understanding of how this procedure is intended to function.
Let me simply describe how the Chair sees these matters unfolding, always bearing in mind that each committee will decide how to handle its own order of reference.
First, upon the expiration of the 45 days, the Speaker informs the House that the question has been referred to a particular standing committee. The member in whose name the question stands is responsible for determining the committee to which the question will stand referred.
Second, the specified committee must meet within five sitting days of the referral to discuss the matter of the failure of the government to respond in the time period provided by the standing orders. The member in whose name the question stands should be advised at the committee meeting at which the failure to respond to the question will be raised.
Third, departmental officials may be asked to be available to explain why the question has not been answered within the 45 days. For more complicated questions, a committee may wish to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is responsible for co-ordinating the tabling of answers to questions.
Fourth, the committee decides how it wishes to proceed. It may decide to proceed no further with the matter; to invite witnesses to appear; not to report back to the House; or to report back to the House: one, stating that it has considered the matter and considers it closed; two, stating that it has considered the matter and recommending improvements in the departmental or agency responsiveness; three, stating that it has considered the matter and recommending to the member certain actions to facilitate a timely response; four, stating that it has considered the matter and making other pertinent recommendations.
The Chair has provided this guidance because this is a new procedure. Also, as the Government House Leader explained, Standing Order 39(5) ( b ) does not prescribe how the committee will dispose of the matter but only that it must meet on the issue within five sitting days.
All members of the House are conscious of the steps that we have taken recently toward modernizing our procedures. The changes that have been made as a result of the adoption of the report of the modernization committee represent a clear indication that members are committed to improving the way in which we conduct our proceedings. This is true of members from all parties on both sides of the House.
I would urge everyone to respect the decision that the House has made to institute new procedures to better serve members' interests. I hope that all of us will continue to be guided both by the letter and the spirit of the special committee's report.
I thank the hon. member for Provencher for raising his concern.
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, and of the amendment.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Senate amendment as well as to the amendment brought forward by my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm. I am all the more pleased because Bill C-7 now before us, the youth criminal justice act, has been around for a while.
Discussions have been going on in this House since 1995. I was not there then. Today, I am pleased to close this debate. I will probably be one of the last members of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to this issue.
I want to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm who, since 1995, has done a good job defending Quebec's position as well as the interests of young people and of all Quebecers. I salute his work.
The amendment to the Senate amendment proposed by my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm is simple. It reads as follows:
That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time and concurred in, since it does not in any way take into consideration the distinct character of Quebec and the Quebec model for implementation of the Young Offenders Act.
This amendment to the Senate amendment fully summarizes the position and the consensus reached by Quebec stakeholders. They did not want Quebec to be subjected to this legislation. They all wanted Quebec to have the right to opt out. Again, I am pleased, as the last speaker for the Bloc Quebecois, to name the members of the coalition: the Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, Jean Trépanier of the University of Montreal School of Criminology, the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Institut Philippe Pinel, the Association des directeurs de police et pompiers du Québec, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, the Association des Centres jeunesse du Québec, the Crown Prosecutors' Office, which is under the Quebec Department of Justice, the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, Marc Leblanc of the University of Montreal School of Psycho-Education, the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, the Child Welfare League of Canada, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec, the Société de criminologie du Québec, Dr. Jim Hackler, of the University of Victoria Department of sociology, Tim Quigley, a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Marge Reitsma-Street, an associate professor at the University of Victoria Faculty of Human and Social Development, the British Columbia Criminal Justice Association, the Innu, the Government of Quebec through a resolution unanimously passed by all the parties at the National Assembly, the Action démocratique du Québec, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois.
All these stakeholders built a broad consensus in Quebec to ask the federal government to simply exempt Quebec from this legislation. Why? Namely because of the data that have been published over the past seven or eight years, since 1995. Why has it been so hard for the Government of Canada to adopt new provisions in the House? Simply because the numbers do not support such measures.
It wanted to amend the Young Offenders Act, which was passed in this House in 1984, and has produced results. I will give some statistics.
For instance, between 1991 and 1997, the indictment rate for youth dropped by 23%. The indictment rate for violent crimes among young people has dropped by 3.2% since 1995. In 1997, the national crime rate declared by the police was down for the sixth consecutive year. Rates for nearly every violent offence went down, including sexual assault by 9%, robbery by 8%, and homicide by 9%. The rate for youth charged with criminal code offences is down by 7%, confirming the general downward trend observed since 1991. The rate of youth charged with violent crime dropped by 2% for the second consecutive year. It should also be noted that the majority, 53%, of young people who were indicted were charged with property offences and 20% with violent crimes.
Furthermore, when one compares Quebec to the other provinces with regard to the youth incarceration rate, Quebec has the lowest rate. When comparing indictment rates among provinces, again Quebec has the lowest rate.
This is also true of British Columbia, when it comes to the incarceration rate. No wonder our colleague from British Columbia supports the Bloc Quebecois in its demands to keep the current act, which focuses mainly on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than indictment.
This is the harsh reality: in 1984, when the Young Offenders Act was passed by a Conservative government, there were more members from Quebec in the House at that time than there are now under the current Liberal government. The 1984 act came into being as a result of discussions started under the Liberal government of Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, which had many more Liberal members from Quebec than the current Liberal government has today.
Naturally, there is a good reason why the Young Offenders Act of 1984, which reflected a consensus on rehabilitation and reintegration, was passed. What does the Liberal government of today intend to do with its 35 Liberal members from Quebec? It wants to go against this direction given by a Tory government in 1984, following discussions held under a Liberal government. These two governments had a far greater number of members from Quebec and, naturally, they achieved a greater consensus from Quebec in this House.
Today, we have 35 Liberal members from Quebec, a fair number of whom are ministers. They do not want to antagonize the majority, which is, of course, from Ontario.
When you look at the charge, conviction and custody sentence rates, you see that Ontario and Western Canada, except British Columbia, are the regions where the number of custody sentences and the charge rate per province are the highest.
These provinces, these societies have not chosen the direction recommended in the 1984 act, that is an approach focused on rehabilitation and reintegration. In fact, given the results, only two provinces have chosen that path: Quebec and British Columbia.
There is a reason why—ironically—in this House today, we have a Minister of Justice from Quebec proposing and discussing closure. This is ironic because, since 1995, since the very first debates, we never had a Minister of Justice from Quebec to discuss such an important situation as that of criminal justice for youth or young offenders. So, ironically, it is a Minister of Justice from Quebec who had to answer our questions today.
He had to answer our questions on the Quebec consensus. The questions our colleagues have put repeatedly to the Minister of Justice were simple. How many stakeholders, individuals or groups from Quebec appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice to support Bill C-7?
The Minister of Justice, a minister from Quebec and a member from Quebec, has never been able to answer this question to which we, in the House, all know the answer. No individual, group or coalition from Quebec appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice to support Bill C-7.
Why? Because the Quebec consensus is virtually unanimous. We say virtually, because there are at least 35 Liberal members from Quebec in the House who support Bill C-7. And, of course, the government is rushing to invoke closure today. It rushed to invoke closure when Bill C-7 was debated in the House before being sent to the Senate. Why? So that government members would not have to speak.
When a gag is imposed, the time MPs have for interventions is limited, and the opposition is restrained in the expression of its opinion, but so are the Quebec representatives of the Liberal Party, who might have had the opportunity to go and explain to their constituents why they were supporting a bill like Bill C-7 that we have before us, on which there is nowhere near anonymity. It is even denounced by all those working in the field.
It is difficult for the Quebecers and Canadians listening to us to have a proper understanding of how we can end up today with a restricted debate and acceptance of a bill that is intended to bring in a totally new law. It does away with the 1984 Young Offenders Act, and with the consensus of that time, which brought the bulk of Quebec members of this House on side.
The 1984 statute was the work of the Conservatives. It followed on to the discussions held initially under the Pierre Elliott-Trudeau Liberal regime, at a time when there were more Quebec Liberal MPs than at present. There were more Conservatives as well, as this was the time of the Mulroney government. At that time, the majority of that House, including the representatives of Quebec, made the decision to pass a piece of legislation that was focused on rehabilitation and reintegration.
In 2002, the decision was made to set that legislation aside. This evening, the Liberal MPs from Quebec will likely be voting along with the others and C-7 will get passed, against the consensus in Quebec. This is very hard for the Quebec community to accept.
Once again, I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for his tireless battle over the past eight years on amendments to the young offender legislation.
What the Quebec representatives were asking for was simple: the system is working well, as statistics show. The 1984 Young Offenders Act is working well, so why not allow Quebec to opt out of this bill?
I would remind hon. members that, after the 1995 referendum, this House passed a resolution—the Liberal majority of course ensuring that it was passed—recognizing the distinct character of Quebec society. It must be acknowledged that, when we are able to convince the Liberal majority that Quebec is distinct in the way it applies the Young Offenders Act, the way it handles youth crime, when we have the chance to apply that distinct character here in this House, then the Quebec Liberals vote against the specific nature and distinct character of Quebec.
This is why, for Quebecers who are listening to us, the federal government does not have a good reputation in the community, whichever party is in power. Federal politicians are terribly unpopular in Quebec. It is not like Bloc Quebecois members are not trying to boost the image of federal MPs.
The hard reality is that, once again, when the federal Liberal members from Quebec have a chance to prove to their constituents that they are useful and can defend their interests, they vote for a bill like Bill C-7, which has been criticized by the majority of stakeholders in Quebec and by the Quebec national assembly. This is the situation faced by the Quebecers listening to us and watching as they eat their supper. Once again, they are witnessing what will have been a hard day for Quebec's identity in Canada.
Our approach to adolescents and to the youth justice system is not the same as elsewhere in Canada. We have much better results.
We have much better results and, for over 30 years, we have had an entire organization made up of individuals and organizations who are working and who have worked to build the present system for young offenders throughout Quebec.
That is why these stakeholders, who were working well before 1984, managed at the time to convince the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney that the solution needed in the case of young offenders was to have independent legislation targeting rehabilitation, which will no longer be the case with this bill.
It is why the majority of stakeholders, the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, the organizations that I mentioned earlier, this series of organizations and all those who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, all denounced the bill before us, which will be voted on this evening. It will not be possible to change or amend this legislation for several years, since we have been working to change it since 1995. We have worked on it for eight years and it will probably take another eight years before any changes are made to it.
The stakeholders in Quebec, the various groups and politicians in Quebec, will have to be happy with what will be passed today by parliament, the Government of Canada, with 35 Liberal members who have decided to toe the line, and a Minister of Justice—I repeat, this is a terrible coincidence for Quebec, a Minister of Justice from Quebec—who, on this last day of debate on Bill C-7, had to answer such important questions as “How many stakeholders from Quebec appeared before your committee to support Bill C-7?” He did not wish to answer. He preferred to play politics and tried everything he could to change the direction of the discussion, when we know very well that there is no organization, no individual in Quebec, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to support Bill C-7.
All the stakeholders who appeared asked that Quebec be recognized as a distinct society and allowed to opt out of the legislation for the good and simple reason that things are working for us in Quebec, and the statistics prove it. I repeat, it is not for nothing that, since 1995, this parliament has been unable to reach an agreement.
Somewhere, Canada's nation building is still not working. Different societies and communities have different policies. And the Quebec community, the nation of Quebec, has a position that is very different from the rest of Canada. That is the reality. And 35 Liberal members from Quebec have not recognized that reality, and will not recognize it a little while from now. Perhaps some of them will not be here to vote and will prefer to be absent, obviously.
However, it is a hard day for Quebecers and for all the organizations and stakeholders who work for youth justice, who work with young offenders. Once again, they will have to go along with different legislative amendments or different interpretations by judges, which will change the rehabilitation-oriented approach that Quebec has been proposing for the past 30 years.
I will conclude by thanking the member for Berthier—Montcalm for his efforts over the past eight years, for so relentlessly defending the young offenders file, for so relentlessly defending the interests of Quebecers who, once again, will never have been as ill-served as they will be this afternoon in the House.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was a member of Parliament in 1984. I believe that I am the only member still in the House today who was also a member of the Standing Committee on Justice that actually drafted the Young Offenders Act.
I rise today in support of the amendment moved by my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and more importantly to say that I believe that the Young Offenders Act has worked well in Quebec. It has worked well precisely because the Government of Quebec has respected the fundamental principles of this legislation by providing the necessary resources to support the alternatives found within the act and to achieve the results that those who drafted the legislation wanted. That was to reduce the number of young offenders and to emphasize rehabilitation and prevention, rather than imprisonment and retribution. It was designed in fact to avoid, as many provinces do, young offenders being put in the same jails as adults.
I would have hoped that all of the other provinces could have respected the principles of the Young Offenders Act, as Quebec has done.
I regret the proposal that Quebec opt out of Bill C-7. What I would prefer instead, is that Bill C-7 be withdrawn and that the fundamental principles adopted by Quebec by supporting the Young Offenders Act be applied throughout Canada, in every province and territory. That is what I would hope for. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
Therefore, I have no objection recognizing the distinct character of Quebec society and recognizing at the same time that the current legislation has worked well in Quebec. Our objectives, those of us who drafted this legislation, have largely been met in Quebec, but not in the other provinces.
For this reason, I rise today to congratulate Quebecers and to tell them that we respect you for the way that you have embraced the principles of prevention and rehabilitation instead of vengeance and imprisonment. I wish that these principles could be respected throughout Canada. If this cannot be done through this bill, then at least Quebec should respect them.
For this reason, I will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois amendment.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas. I am glad he mentioned that he was one of the parliamentarians responsible for the adoption of the Young Offenders Act in 1984. My colleague is entirely right. This bill had a stated purpose of reintegration and rehabilitation.
Some provinces decided not to enforce this act. The present Liberal government failed to enforce this act. Today, representatives from Quebec and the Quebec government are the ones who have to change their way of dealing with these matters and to try and adjust to those who have not enforced legislation that has been in effect since 1984. This is what is so difficult to swallow. Some 35 Liberal members from Quebec have decided to break with Quebec concerning the enforcement of an act that worked well. They did not tear their shirts to pieces in the House in order to defend Quebec's interests against their colleagues who would have liked to do away with something that was a success in Quebec.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I am glad he mentioned rehabilitation because I heard from some youths on the weekend. It gives me a chance to pass along some comments from youths who are not in trouble.
I knew that this debate would take place today. Bringing Youth Toward Equality is the group and I would like to empower them. They would feel empowered if perhaps the member would comment on some of the remarks made by the three youths.
The first youth suggested that we spend more time fixing the problem rather than punishing the results of not fixing the problem and encouraging community work as punishment. The second youth suggested there should be more counselling. She also suggested that punishments are not as harsh and as a result youths are not as afraid as they used to be. It is not much of a deterrent. The third youth, who is from an aboriginal family, suggested that some children are raised in an environment of law breaking or inappropriate behaviour. They need to be taught otherwise because they do not know any better, which they may do in a different family environment. They cannot be blamed if they do not know any better.
Could the hon. member show these youths that they are being listened to by commenting on some of their remarks?
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Yukon that the questions on teenagers that his constituents have been asking him are something we do not hear in Quebec because we have already adopted this approach.
If members from Ontario, Western Canada or the Northwest Territories believe that it is important to change the legislation in order to adopt something that already exists in Quebec under the 1984 legislation, great. The problem is we have to give representatives from Quebec who have succeeded in enforcing the 1984 legislation while taking the needs of young people into account a chance to keep on doing so. This is not what is happening now in the House.