Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2007

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from Quebec, and I took a special interest in youth justice when I was a minister and also in my law practice. I am not an expert in this area, and I do not claim to be.

Nevertheless, I would like to explain what has been done in Quebec and why we take such a different attitude from the rest of Canada. I would also like to explain why the architects of our youth justice system do not understand why the rest of Canada has never taken note of the success we have achieved and used Quebec as a model when drafting new legislation on young offenders, instead of looking to American models. Ours are based more on European models, but also on models suggested in the United States by people who study criminology and psychology.

In 1998, I attended a meeting of ministers of justice in the midst of an election campaign. I went to talk to the ministers of justice in the middle of an election campaign because I had something to tell them before they changed the legislation. At the time they were discussing a bill introduced by Ms. McLellan.

Canada had a juvenile crime rate at the time that was 50% greater than the rate in Quebec. That was not purely by chance. The political parties of all stripes in power in Quebec over the previous 30 years had always taken very seriously this primary concern with the rehabilitation of young offenders. An entire profession was created to deal with it called psychoeducation.

Rather than spending our money to build institutions, we put most of it into the training and treatment given to young offenders and the training provided to judges. I can recall the chief justice of the youth court in Quebec summarizing in a few choice words the attitude of the Quebec courts: the right measure at the right time.

This is a very subjective process, of course, but it is objectively justified. When dealing with adolescents, we are dealing with people who will soon be adults. They have to be induced to act not out of a fear of punishment—because this fear cannot be maintained very long—but out of a genuine acceptance of society’s rules, an understanding of them, and a responsible attitude.

I am sure we can all recall our own adolescence and some of the friends we had. We know very well that adolescence is quite a difficult time when we emerge from the body of a child to become an adult. It is also a time when we like to test limits, and not everyone does this in the same way. I remember some of the young people I knew, when I was young myself, who did some really foolish things. Now they are very respectable people who are very respectful of the law and extremely responsible. I am sure that nearly everyone here knew some young people like that—or maybe not. In any case, I think it is a generally accepted fact that some very responsible adults today went through some pretty turbulent times in their youth.

If we are concerned about a safe society, it is important when dealing with adolescents to do all we can to ensure that they eventually become responsible adults who do not always have to be frightened into controlling themselves, especially as I do not think that fear is a very effective way to deter them from committing crimes.

Something rather significant has happened in Quebec in the past few years: we have placed so much importance on prevention and rehabilitation that we are achieving good results.

Earlier I was talking about the results I saw in 1998, but I will read some more statistics from Juristat: “With the exception of Quebec, which saw a 4% decrease, all the provinces reported increases in the youth crime rate”.

Quebec has created something else that will achieve long-term results and will probably start to have an impact. I am talking about early childhood centres. We no longer talk about daycares in Quebec—except for maybe when we are out of breath. From an institutional point of view, there are no daycares in Quebec, but we have the best system of early childhood centres, where working parents can leave their children at a very early age.

These early childhood centres employ professionals. They are not babysitters; they are professionals trained in early childhood education. There are no hard and fast rules, but often early childhood professionals can recognize the signs of a young offender when the child is very young.

We have professionals who know. They know how to recognize it and intervene early on. Let me say, they do not put these children in prison; the children might be given a time out from time to time and given individual attention so as not to have problems in the future.

That was how Quebec saw things. That is what Quebec has done and people should know about the results we have achieved.

We did not much like Mrs. McLellan's bill. Nonetheless, I am sure that many people who adopted Mrs. McLellan's bill at the time are surprised at its results, namely a lower youth incarceration rate.

There is a reason we criticized it at the time. I know it was drafted by people familiar with Quebec's experience. They drafted it the way they did because they felt there was too much reliance on incarceration. They developed an extremely objective system, but when it comes to handling young offenders, many things should be left open to interpretation.

I will give some examples that I have often used. I will look at two extreme cases. A youth has just shoplifted a popular singer's CD and is arrested. He arrives at the police station and does not want his parents to be called because he is embarrassed. His parents come to get him anyway. He is ashamed, and so forth.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Excuse me, I was distracted.

I have to speak to you, I prefer to speak to you. I need human contact, especially to talk about these things. Right? You can see that there is no need to intervene with this youth or to take him before a court.

Let us take another example. A youth steals some jewellery, tools or something else that he will probably sell. Even if it is the first time, we must know how to intervene. If you have a tiered system, where you speak of a first offence and then a second offence, that is not the right system.

A youth commits a crime: you have to know how to interpret this sign. In the first case, you would let him go. In the second case, even if it was a first offence, I believe that you would have to intervene.

Let us go to the other extreme and look at murder, which is much more serious. A youth, together with two or three others, steals from some seniors and beats them to death.

We will definitely take a very tough stand with these youths.

In another case, a young person has an alcoholic father who beats his wife, does not look after the children and even beats them. The youth ends up killing his father. This is serious and it will be taken seriously, but the approach will be completely different. It is the same crime, but each requires a different solution because the youth's circumstances will be taken into consideration as well as the fact that one day this youth will be an adult and he will have to function in society.

I remember that, at the time, of the 35 young people who had committed murders in Quebec, none had become repeat offenders. Only one committed other crimes later. Good results were obtained thanks to the competence of the judges, the training and the system in place.

However, what I am hearing from the minister worries me a great deal, and it will be even worse for the future. The word “prevention” is missing from his remarks. He makes no reference at all to the principles of psychology or of criminology, and I know why. It is because he believes that the principle of criminology is to put them all away, right? It is not that at all. It is a matter of knowing how to take the right measure at the right time. To that end, it is necessary to allow a great deal of discretion to the judges who try these cases and who must be able to direct these young people to various institutions.

I also hear a great many remarks that demonstrate to me that the purpose of this legislation is not to ensure that young people, when they become adults, will no longer be a danger to our society. Rather, it is legislation that responds to perceptions, because people perceive that there is an increase in criminal activity.

As politicians, what should we do if we know that those perceptions are wrong? I know that other people in my riding also think that criminal activity is on the increase. Yet it has been decreasing on a regular basis for the past 25 years. Criminal activity decreased until last year, especially among young offenders.

Those perceptions are rather normal, given that the statistics are not emphasized. Regardless, in general, since 1990 criminal activity among young offenders has decreased in Canada. It would be hard to persuade the majority of that, they will not believe it. Why? Because the statistics are published in the newspapers, once a year, beside the obituary notices. In contrast, whenever a serious crime is committed by a young person, unfailingly, it makes the headlines.

Public perception in relation to crime is based on the headlines that we read every day. Thus, it is consistent. People always believe that crime is increasing, even when it is decreasing.

However, I want to respond to the challenge issued by the member for Kitchener—Conestoga, who thinks he can challenge anyone in this House. I would ask him to confirm for me whether he is not almost harassed by his constituents who tell him that young offenders should be more severely punished.

For my part, I am not harassed by my voters. It must be said that the worst of the United States also rubs off on Quebec. Sometimes, people say to me that a certain punishment is terrible, and so forth. I answer them calmly and explain to them a little of what I explained earlier. I tell them that we still get good results and, above all, that we must not follow the American example.

This shows me something. I am a sovereignist. But I was not born a sovereignist, I did not grow up in a sovereignist environment and there were not many sovereignists around when I was a teen.

I supported the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, but really, my ideas fit in with the Mouvement souveraineté-association. Because of our history, the country I love the most, besides Quebec, is still by far Canada, because we have things in common. Yet I still remember my ideal as a teenager, which was to live in a great country in which there were two important nations, with the contribution of the aboriginals and others. I thought that since we came from two great European countries that had made so many contributions to science, the arts and so forth, this would be a good combination and we could enrich each other.

However, once again, I can see that most people are unable to see something good when it is right in front of them. One thing we should at least do with Quebec is to go back to the old way of dealing with young offenders, which was very successful. This just proves to me that we would truly be better off to live separately—we would remain neighbours—and to enjoy sovereignty.

That is why the Mouvement souveraineté-association appealed to me the most. Even so, back when I joined the movement, I thought that there were some things we should definitely have in common, such as criminal law. We do agree on that. People in Quebec are not very keen on the French criminal law system. We prefer the basic principles of the adversarial system and so on.

Nevertheless, what I have been hearing from the other side is giving me more and more reason to doubt. I am becoming, astonishingly, more of a separatist than a sovereignist. This is a good example of why. Why is it that westerners are always trying to copy the United States? Why not look for a solution right here at home?

In a way, I understand. I was looking at the crime statistics, which are a little scary. Take crime rates, for example. In Quebec, that rate is 5,909 per 100,000 people, but out west, in Manitoba, it is 11,678; in Saskatchewan, it is 13,711; in Alberta, it is 9,000; and in British Columbia, it is 11,000. I can see that members on the other side of the House have the perception of problems. Still, perhaps they should look eastward for better solutions. After all, Quebec's homicide rate is a lot lower than Canada's.

The last thing that I do not understand is this: some members of the government are from Quebec. Are they aware that our way of dealing with young offenders is a good model? I am not saying it is a success, because success would imply that there is no juvenile delinquency, which will never be the case. However, if we compare Quebec's success rate to those of Canada and the United States, it is a model. Why can those members not persuade their government to consider the Quebec model?

Once again, this shows how limited Quebeckers are in federal government. Our party's founder himself discovered those limits. Just like me and many others, he proposed full sovereignty for Quebec with close ties and strong friendship between our two nations.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague for presenting the Bloc Québécois position so well. I wish to ask him a question.

Recently, in Quebec, in my riding, a young driver killed little Bianca, whose family lives in Île-Perrot. Citizens of the area mobilized to demand that the youth was incarcerated until the case was heard. However, as a youth, he had undertaken to appear in court.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this case. I would like to know how the Bloc's position would help this youth. His companions, his friends, the people around him could also support him. Can the member tell us why it would be detrimental for his future for the government to make an example of this youth?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a case where the young person would be affected by the bill. In the cases presented here, the individual must be accused of a violent crime. In your example, if I am not mistaken, it is the youth's first offence. Thus, he is not a repeat offender and is not subject to any conditions. It appears very likely that he will observe the conditions. I think that the law, as it is currently applied, would be no different in his case.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a fairly technical question with respect to proposed paragraph 29(2)(c) of the bill, which states:

the young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt under this Act....

When Mr. Justice Nunn did a comprehensive review of young offenders' bills generally, he made a suggestion that instead of a pattern of findings of guilt there be a pattern of findings of “offences”. I wonder whether this would be appropriate for review by the committee and whether the hon. member has an initial reaction to changing a pattern of findings of guilt to a pattern of findings of offences.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if it involves one of the circumstances proposed in paragraph 29(2)(c), generally, the judges I know would keep that young offender in custody. Once again, this does not change things much.

An important point that I wanted to emphasize and I will continue to emphasize is that young offenders must be sentenced and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I understand that, in this instance, it is before he or she is convicted, that it is a question of bail, but all decisions must be on a case-by-case basis. It also depends on the young offender's family situation and the family support involved, the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and so on. The major flaw in Ms. McLellan's reform was that the legislation is too objective.

I had prepared an argument, but I did not have the time to discuss it. I remember one judge I know well, a classmate of mine, telling me about a young offender who appeared before her for trafficking in a small amount of drugs. He already had a previous conviction for something else and he had complied with his conditions. He wore designer clothes; he had an apartment, a car, a cell phone, and she knew very well that, in all likelihood, if he was trafficking in small quantities, he was distributing it for others or he was in contact with other dealers. He was seventeen and a half and she therefore had only six months to do something with this young man. Under the McLellan legislation, since he had complied with the conditions that had been imposed and since it was a small quantity of drugs, she was forced to release him, although she would have liked to send him elsewhere.

It must be understood that, when referring to a good system, it is not a question of whether the system is slack or tough, severe or lenient. The system must be appropriate, with the right measure at the right time.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to congratulate my colleague on his speech concerning this bill.

He made reference to sovereignty and sovereignty-association. I remember how in recent months, and even in recent years, there have often been discussions in which people found us a little laughable when we talked about the Quebec model.

I have the impression that in this case it is actually essential to demonstrate that there is a Quebec model, on which the government and the people in this House could base a policy that would be much better for youth and for young people who have committed petty thefts—some of them more serious than others. Under such a policy, young people would have an opportunity to be rehabilitated. We must not try to do things that will place young people in either a too permissive or a too restrictive situation.

We know that some people want to improve society. If they want the social system to perform like an Olympic athlete, they have to become acquainted with the best models. It would therefore ask my colleague why the government would not now want to adopt a model like the one in Quebec, which would mean that our young people would be better protected in future.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer in one word: ignorance.

Obviously they are ignorant of Quebec’s success, and what it results from. I suggest that the member read the answer the minister gave me when I put the question to him. I laid out the figures we had in front of him. I have been unable to determine whether it was still the case, because it is the McLellan legislation that applies. In 1998, however, before it came into force, the juvenile crime rate in Canada was 50% higher than in Quebec. He did not dare to contradict me then, and I certainly felt that it was because he did not know this.

The rest of his answer obviously showed that he did not know how we had done this. He did not know the institutions we have developed, the professionals we have hired, or the training they are given.

It is ignorance, and that is what makes me say, because we are such very distinct societies, that we should lead our own lives, separately.

This is one more argument for sovereignty. Because we speak a different language from the rest of America—obviously, we are aware that we are influenced by it—we therefore have a tendency to look toward Europe and elsewhere to solve our problems. Essentially, that is how we developed our system, in Quebec, while in the rest of Canada there is a tendency to be always looking toward the United States.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that I intend to split my time with the member for Halifax West.

What we have here is a new initiative, which is really not that new, in evergreening and updating the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is not the first time we have seen an amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and it probably will not be the last.

There will be amendments made to the Criminal Code and criminal justice legislation many times as we work our way into the future. This is because society changes, society's values change the way we deal with social issues, and problems change.

Some have asked why we have a Youth Criminal Justice Act anyway. Why do we not just treat all offenders the same? Some people say that if the government is into setting up mandatory minimum penalties all over the place, so many that we can hardly keep track of them, why do we not just make the sentence for every crime five years or ten years? Then everyone would understand.

Most Canadians realize that this would be crazy. It would not work. We would fill the prisons and we would not accomplish anything.

Why do we have a separate Youth Criminal Justice Act? The answer probably is because it makes a whole lot of sense and this is how we have always done things as Canadians.

Before I was born, which is quite a while ago, there existed the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Then it became the Young Offenders Act. Now it is called the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We have always in this country had a separate youth criminal justice system because society has believed and continues to believe that youth need to be treated differently than adult offenders. The current statute does that and does it quite well.

In case Canadians think there is something radically wrong with the statute, we can refer them to the recent report of Mr. Justice Nunn in the province of Nova Scotia, who did quite a thorough reworking and studying of the act. He found in his report, which is publicly available, that the act actually works quite well overall. He did mention one or two small areas that could be modified. One of those areas is contained in the bill.

The bill does two things. I know that this has been mentioned on the record earlier, but the bill will broaden the scope of circumstances in which pretrial detention of a youth may be considered, including instances where a violent offence has occurred. This is the part that reflects the report of Justice Nunn in Nova Scotia following his commission of inquiry.

The other thing this statute does is add into the principles of sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act the principles or objectives of deterrence and denunciation. There may be a place for that. That is what we are considering here.

I, for one, recognize that these principles were not put into the original Youth Criminal Justice Act because there did not seem to be a need. In other words, the objectives of dealing with youth under the YCJA did not require advertence or reference to principles of deterrence or denunciation because there was a whole constellation of principles that seemed to fill the need.

I would say for those who want to fix this, if they think something is broken--and of course there is an adjustment needed in the statute--and if they think we can fix things by shouting louder or complaining longer or praying harder so that we just keep changing laws by increasing sentences, it does not work. It never has. It never will. What we have to do is be rational in how we are doing this.

The myth out there, and this probably is not just my own view but the view of many, is that by tweaking sentences and changing sentencing we somehow reduce crime.

We have heard the phrases “getting tough on crime” or “getting harder on crime” around here so often it is getting boring. The offences have already been written. The code already exists. We are not, generally speaking, around here in the last while making new criminal codes, new sentences. All we are doing is changing the sentencing.

I am pretty sure that if I went out on Wellington Street or out on Shepard Avenue in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River, I would not find anyone who would actually know how we have adjusted the sentences up or down. If I were to ask them what the penalty was for stealing a magazine from a convenience store, I do not think they would have any idea whether it was a mandatory sentence, a jail sentence or a fine.

The reason I say that is because the whole criminal justice system has recognized that the real deterrence for those who would commit a crime is not the actual sentence they might get, because before they commit the crime they do not know what they are going to get. They do not even think about it. The deterrence almost always lies in the prospect of getting caught and having to deal with it. It is getting caught that is the deterrent component in the criminal justice system. Whether or not they go to jail, whether or not they pay a fine, whether or not they are embarrassed or whether or not they lose their job, getting caught is the most important part, which is why police enforcement and resourcing our police is so important. They must be able to keep up a reasonable effort at catching those who do criminal acts.

I just wanted to debunk the myth that by ratcheting up sentences and changing the way we sentence we will reduce crime.

I will ask the question one more time. If we were to increase the sentence for a bank robbery by three years, does anyone really believe that there would be fewer bank robberies in this country? I do not think so because the guys committing the robbery do not think they will get caught. If they do think about getting caught, they know they will do time. However, when they are planning to do whatever they are going to do to break the law, they do not get out a calculator and do the sentencing math. Almost all of these people are not actually very intelligent. I am sorry to treat them as a class of people, but they actually are not smart enough to go through that exercise. They are into a lifestyle that reflects, perhaps, an absence of thought, an absence of consideration.

I want to now deal with the sentencing principles that are contained in this bill. First, I want to refer to the sentencing principles that are contained in the Criminal Code, generally. As I said earlier, they do not actually apply directly to the Youth Criminal Justice Act but they are contained in the Criminal Code. This House legislated them in the year 1995. That was a first for Canada because it was the courts that generated the principles.

At committee we will consider the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation being added in the bill. Those principles exist in adult sentencing. However, I want to point out that there may be a conflict between those principles being inserted into the statute and sections 38(2)(c) and 38(2)(b) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which say that proportionality and similarity of sentencing between different youths committing similar crimes need to be there.

If we begin inserting denunciation and deterrence in a particular case, judges may have some difficulty making that fit with the other sentencing principles that already exist within the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

If this bill gets through second reading, I look forward to reviewing it at committee.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is almost nothing in my hon. colleague's speech with which I disagree. His analysis is right on.

What is troubling about this particular piece of legislation, as is the myriad of pieces of legislation that seem to flow through this House, is that it is like a bits and pieces approach. It is an emphasis on trees rather than the forest.

I would be interested in my hon. colleague's comments on Mr. Justice Nunn's report, which is actually a comprehensive report, a road map on the changes that do need to be made to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I invite his comments on why, in heaven's name, we are dealing with picayune pieces of the justice's report rather than dealing with the forest, so to speak, of changes that need to be changed in that act.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry by Mr. Justice Nunn took place following, what so often happens, a tragic series of incidents, in this particular case involving a young offender. The part that Justice Nunn reflected on here is that if the youth court can see a pattern of violence, if violence has occurred and there is some prospect of it continuing if the youth is released, the judge involved should have some statutory ability to maybe flip the thing over a little bit, move the goal posts in a way that is more likely to protect society.

That is like having twenty-twenty hindsight in advance. The judge does not have it. No one has it. However, in cases where the judge sees a pattern of violent behaviour and has a sense that it might continue if the youth is not restrained in custody, then the judge would have an ability to do that.

According to Justice Nunn, that was a conspicuous piece of the YCJA that was missing. All the procedures in the act that were intended to help deal with youth were working quite well except for that one small piece. It is a one-off and I think Mr. Justice Nunn appreciated that it was kind of a one-off, filling in a little gap in the current statute, and it was given in that spirit.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a very knowledgeable member of both the justice committee and the legislative committee so he has a lot of experience in the justice program.

I wonder if he would comment on the program in general starting with the basis for this bill and the fact that crime is going down, which everyone knows, but there are quotes of some serious offences, which no one disagrees occurs, but the problem is that we have had legislation that does not address that and programs that do not address that in general.

Going down the road, the reason we are in so much trouble and it has been such a mess and so much change had to be made or the bill stopped was that no one had the answer for reducing crime. In fact, as many experts said before committee, some of the changes would have actually lead to more crimes and a less safe society.

Could the member go below the surface a bit, below the gut reactions and get to the science and the evidence of people and the victims who are really on the ground, and tell us what would really help and whether this bill is part of that solution?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, as a society, we know the causes of crime. We have itemized them and studied them. A parliamentary committee published a report that itemized the causes of crime.

This particular piece of legislation, and some of the others before the House, actually does not address any of those causes. It only attempts to deal with sentencing. I mentioned the myth that tweaking the sentencing will reduce the causes of crime but it will not. This pattern of activity, the increasing of sentences, does not help solve crime. It is a massive employment program for prison constructors and correction officials.

The myth of public protection is attached to it but it is actually a massive federal-provincial download because most of these mandatory minimum sentences we are talking about now will need to be dealt with by the provincial reformatories, not the federal prisons.

We are mandatorially sending all these people into provincial correction institutions and the provinces need to pick up the tab. That is a federal-provincial downloading exercise, one of the biggest ones I have seen.

All of this debating and tweaking of sentencing will not reduce crime because it does not address the real causes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's comments were very thoughtful. I know he is very knowledgeable on issues related to justice, including youth justice, and I certainly enjoyed listening to his views and comments, as well as those of the members who asked questions and added their thoughts to his.

The issue of youth justice and of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is one of concern in Nova Scotia, particularly after the very sad and tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, a teacher who was killed by a young offender out joyriding.

My hon. colleagues referred to the Nunn commission which followed that event. Justice Merlin Nunn of Nova Scotia was asked by the provincial government to look at the whole situation, the administration of youth justice, the act itself, and the services provided for youth in a variety of manners, particularly youth at risk or youth who may be involved with the justice system, and recommend a series of changes.

Justice Nunn, as we have heard, made a lot of recommendations relating to the programs that should be available for rehabilitation, dealing with the issues of poverty and other matters of that sort. He also said that the Youth Criminal Justice Act works very well. He praised it and said that in the vast majority of cases, in relation to the great number of young people who come in contact with the law, the act works extremely well. However, in cases of repeat offenders, particularly with serious crimes, there is a need for changes.

Unfortunately, while the government addresses a little of that, it does not address most of the recommendations that Justice Nunn brought, not just in relation to the whole range of issues but in relation to amendments to the act.

He had a series of recommendations for changes to the act, and I will get to those in a few minutes, which the government has completely ignored. I hope that when this goes to committee as I think it will, members will consider amending it to provide for the kinds of changes that Justice Nunn has very wisely recommended.

This became an issue following the McEvoy case and other occurrences that have happened in Nova Scotia, particularly in the Halifax area. I, like other members, have received emails and phone calls related to issues concerning crime. In fact, in my fall householder, the mail-out to people who live in my riding, I placed a short survey so that I could hear from my constituents about their concerns on this issue.

There was a really significant response from the community. People were very eager to share their thoughts and feelings on what should be done by the Government of Canada to help to mitigate crime in our country. The overwhelming response was to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but also to fight poverty and get at the underlying social problems that, as Justice Nunn said, are so often the root causes of crime.

When I hosted my 78th “Let's talk” meeting, a series of local meetings that I hold in my riding, at the beginning of this month I had guests from a variety of areas of the criminal justice system, including the Halifax regional municipality's chief of police. I was very pleased that he could attend. There were defence lawyers, a retired police officer, probation officers, members of families of victims of crime, including, very sadly, three families who have had loved ones murdered.

It was very powerful to hear their words and concerns. It was interesting to note they were not just saying that we should lock up young criminals and throw away the key. They were certainly concerned that the system should function well, that there be good investigation and prosecution of crimes, and proper systems of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.

However, these same people were also concerned that we address the causes of crime, such as poverty and other kinds of social problems in our country, whether it be fetal alcohol syndrome, as an example, that are other causes of crime.

I remember that the parents of Jonathan Reader, who tragically was found murdered on the corner of Lacewood Drive and Dunbrack Street in my riding, were present and argued that the first thing we have to do is to be good neighbours, to be aware of what is going on in our neighbourhoods, to keep an eye on things, to know who our neighbours are and be in touch with them. W must be more aware of what is going on, so that we have more of a texture and fabric of a society that will be strong, will prevent these kinds of things from arising, and prevent people from going in the wrong direction as much as possible.

We also heard at this meeting that the role of the federal government, in their view, was to integrate the expertise and research that has been done on so many of these areas, and to get different levels of government working together in a much better way.

People are certainly impressed with the knowledge and research that has been done in relation to crime and youth crime. I saw that they were clearly frustrated with the weak cooperation they found between the different levels of government, between the administration of justice, the police, the crown prosecutors and the people who make the laws, the Department of Justice, the drafters of the laws in Ottawa, that do not always respond to the reality on the ground or on the street, so to speak. That was clearly a concern. Also, the need to support the kinds of community groups that provide programming for youth that is so important in getting kids off the streets and keeping them active and worthwhile, and in meaningful activities where they are growing and learning and developing in a positive way.

There is no question that I also heard that youth need to be held accountable for their actions through meaningful consequences, through rehabilitative change, and through rehabilitative programs. I do not disagree at all that there needs to be changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act as Justice Nunn has recommended, particularly to deal with those youths who are repeat violent offenders, the more serious offenders.

One of the problems I see with this bill is it does not address an absolutely key recommendation of Justice Nunn's commission and his report, which said that we have to amend the definition of violent offender. At the moment the act treats violent offenders differently than other offenders, and with good reason. The majority of youth are not involved in serious violent crimes and should not be treated as if they are.

Where they are it is a different matter and should be treated seriously. The problem in the case of Theresa McEvoy was that the young joyrider had stolen a car and was driving the car. That was not treated as a violent offence, but clearly what happened to her was violent and reckless. It should be treated in a very serious manner.

I think Justice Nunn had a very good point in relation to how that should be changed. We do not see any sign of that in this bill and that is very disappointing.

Also, enhancing measures for pre-trial detention. It is important that those be paired with the enormous increases in the resources available to the courts to deal with these young people. Currently, they can wait for up to a year and longer for sentencing.

If they are on remand and being held waiting for a trial and they have not even been found guilty yet, that is a problem. That is why judges want to have them left with a responsible person, such as their parent for example. What the government has again failed to do is deal with recommendations that Justice Nunn made in terms of what happens, for example, when a responsible person such as a parent says, “Look, I agreed back in court a few weeks ago to be responsible for this person and I made an undertaking to look after this and make sure he or she does not get into trouble, but now I've got a problem. I can't control him or her and I want to give up. I want to be released from my undertaking”. There is not a good system now for when that happens.

The judge recommended that system be put in the act but the government has failed to do so. Again, another failure of the government to respond to the recommendations by Justice Nunn.

I do not see why the government could not understand what was being recommended and see that those were good recommendations, reasonable, sensible changes to this act which would have made a real difference and helped to prevent another death such as Theresa McEvoy's.

One of the things we heard from a retired police officer at the meeting I had was that “young people involved in crime are victims of their lives”. It is the nature of their lives. This is about poverty which I mentioned earlier.

In fact, one of his main concerns, and he is a retired police officer who has worked with people and crime all his life, was that the underlying issue of poverty remains unresolved. Although there was a good understanding that people living in poverty are not the only people involved in crime, they are a big proportion of the people who are involved. That is why I am so pleased that our leader, the Liberal leader, has come out with a whole series of recommendations and a platform proposal in relation to dealing with poverty.

I am sure many members in this House will agree that we have to address this problem in our country. We can do better in this regard. I think the plan that our leader has put forward is a good measure in that regard. I also think that we need to make changes to this bill to improve it along the lines of what Justice Nunn has recommended.

If we do that and combine it with real efforts to fight poverty, we can make real progress.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments just made by my colleague. I certainly would agree that one of the biggest and best predictors of success for children is linked to poverty rates.

We all know there is a need for a solid foundation, whether it comes from education programs or skills development programs through recreation. There also needs to be support for parents because we know that children are not poor, that it is their parents who are poor. So by examining things like living wage programs, programs for affordable housing, and making sure that jobs are available to those parents, we can really make a difference in the lives of children.

Yet, I note with interest also that the member from that party sat down when we had the debate on the budget and, more importantly, the vote on the budget, where we gave away $190 billion of fiscal capacity to address the very issues that the member spoke about with respect to the need for addressing poverty.

I wonder whether the member could explain to us why his party chose to sit that out to allow the corporate giveaways to go to the oil and gas industry instead of going where they should have gone, which is to help children in our communities.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate parts of the hon. member's question which I thought were important to hear and I appreciate the comments she had.

However, when people watch the House of Commons, one of the things that frustrates them so much is that they look to us to be deliberative in the nature of our discussions. Unfortunately, we are all guilty from time to time of being political, when we should be deliberative.

We all know that question period is the time when the government is to be held to account. We also know that the only way to get it held to account effectively is to put pressure on government members by being effective and strong in our questions and getting media coverage so the public will be concerned and put pressure on the government as well. We recognize that and it is not surprising that question period will be a time when we have that kind of heightened atmosphere.

I do not think it is reasonable, unfortunately, to expect a deliberative process to take place during question period, but I would think that more and more we should look for it in debate here in the House on bills, for example. We should try to be more deliberative.

To get into the question about why we voted or did not vote on the question of the mini budget, for example, I think we know the answer to that. That is clearly trying to be political. It is making a political attack, a partisan attack, and my hon. colleague knows full well that in the past there have been times when the NDP has not voted to avoid an election.

We also know, we have seen the polls, that the likely result, if the polls are accurate lately, would mean a very similar House. We would have $300 million spent at taxpayers' expense to have an election to have basically the same result.

I would not be all that surprised if Canadians said that they have all kinds of reasons to be unhappy with the government, and being reminded of that in an election, they might make a change, but the chances were at that time that we would have the same results.

My hon. colleague is being unreasonable and being a little bit partisan and political when it is an appropriate moment for us to look at the bill, to look at how it can be improved, and focus on this very important issue of youth justice and how we can work at it. That is the key here, not being partisan.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, returning now to the bill as opposed to the previous question.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the report of Mr. Justice Nunn. There are about 34 recommendations that were made, 19 of which were of an administrative nature, but six, which were actually substantive, were specific suggestions to the amendment of the legislation.

I am looking in the bill, and I might be able to find one, but I am pretty sure I will not. We have six recommendations from the justice, none of which appear to be incorporated in the bill, one of which appears to have some general support in the House and the others seem to be off in some la la land as to what needs to be done here.

I would like to ask the hon. member, why in heaven's name does the government choose to approach this particularly important area of legislation in such a piecemeal fashion?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague has a very good point. I did mention a couple of the recommendations of Justice Nunn that were ignored by the government, and I would like to talk about some more.

I hope the government will actually reconsider this. I am disappointed, partly because when the Justice Minister went to Halifax and met with Nova Scotia's minister of justice, he seemed to be saying that he had listened and heard the recommendations of Justice Nunn and recognized the concern about this in Nova Scotia and he would bring forward changes to the act.

I must say that my assumption was that those changes would reflect, at least in large measure, the recommendations of Justice Nunn. That is why I am so disappointed because they do not.

Let me speak about some of the other recommendations that Justice Nunn made. For example, recommendation 11, “That the federal government amend section 42--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, but the hon. member does not have time to do that. Time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the overall crime rate in Canada has been falling since it peaked in 1991. Police reported about 2.6 million offences in 2004, resulting in a crime rate that was 12% lower than a decade earlier. However, youth perception of safety is declining.

Between 1998 and 2002, fewer young people, aged 16 to 24, considered their neighbourhoods to be a very safe place in which to live. In 2002, 72% felt their neighbourhoods were very safe from violent crime, a decrease from 1998, which was at that time 78%. By and large, the majority of young people still feel very safe, but there seems to be a small decrease.

We have seen another statistic from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, which shows an increase of about 13% in the violent crime rate among young people from 1993 to 2003.

Of those young people who feel unsafe, roughly 25% of them are boys and girls who are home alone by grade seven. Eighty per cent of mothers of school-age children are in the workforce, according to the Canadian Council on Social Development, and they worry about their kids. In fact, the average child spends 67 hours of discretionary time each week at home, more hours than they spend in school. That is the time, especially after school, when they are worried about their own safety. Young people are most likely to be bullied during this time and likely to engage in unsupervised Internet use.

In terms of adolescents being victimized or running afoul of the law, research shows this happens between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. When we talk about youth crime and youth safety, that is the time when young people sometimes get in trouble. It is between the end of the school day and when parents return home from work.

Research has also shown that this unsupervised time is the risk factor for substance abuse, gang behaviour and other problematic behaviour. Therefore, we know the time that we need to deal with, yet the bill does almost nothing. It does not talk about how we deal with prevention.

There are solutions such as dealing with anger management and bullying. The best programs that can be put in place are after school activities. Again, if young people can attend good after school activities, not only will they be safe, but their self-esteem will be enhanced and their educational success and their positive mental and physical health will be improved. Those are all the things we want for our young people.

Organizations like the Boys and Girls Club transform their after school hours from unsupervised time, where they feel unsafe, to a productive time where they can learn with structured activities.

When we talk about youth crime and safety, in the summer the New Democrats called for the extension of the Canada youth employment program to make it year round permanent program. Right now it only applies to the summer. We know this would have an impact on reducing the youth crime rate.

We have seen it over and over again. For example, the city of Toronto has an after school recreation and care program. This initiative hires young people in their own neighbourhoods. They become role models and mentors. They go to elementary and high schools to teach young people. Sometimes it is an arts program, basketball, physical programs or homework. Some of these young people could have been in trouble with the law, but they decided to turn their lives around.

These kinds of programs have a dramatic effect on safety in a community. Some may remember the summer of youth crime a few years ago. There were a lot of shootings in the city of Toronto. With different strategies, one of which is the youth employment program, the gun crimes for young people dropped 40% within one year. We know this kind of program works.

This kind of program not only provides good jobs, it provides excellent training and new opportunities to benefit the entire neighbourhood. If we look at youth crime, it is not just young people. Sometimes it is the neighbourhood or the families. The program provides young leaders with the tools and resources to reach out and support families and youth to break out of the cycle of violence, alienation and despair, which can often plague the at risk communities.

Research by Geena Brown shows that if we have these kinds of programs, fewer mothers would use emergency services, child welfare, food bank services and prescription drugs.

I want to point out how much money we could save if we could have a youth crime prevention program attached to the bill.

The latest survey I have seen shows that to keep young people in jail, even without the counselling and support that they may need while in jail, it costs society and taxpayers a bare minimum of $65,000 per year. If we add the counselling and sometimes the substance abuse help they may need, we are looking at $100,000 to $120,000 a year of taxpayer money. If we do the deterrence, the prevention kind of support we have for young people, it is much better use of funding because we know it works.

We recently looked at the figures. The justice department reported that crimes cost our society almost $50 billion a year. If we can enable groups like the Boys and Girls Club of Canada, YouCan, which teaches young people how to deal with violent situations by de-escalating and learning the skills of conflict mediation, they can take a very explosive situation, de-escalate it and young people end up supporting each other rather than resorting to violence.

We know that a lot of the young people resort to violent crimes because they feel is the only method in which they know to express themselves. It is not an excuse. They have to take responsibility, but we also have to give them the tools to learn how to de-escalate things, whether it is a bully situation or very at risk behaviour.

YouCan has had a lot of successful initiatives and many other organizations in the community have had some very good initiatives.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act contains the whole notion that when a young person commits a crime, rather than going to jail, we should find some way to give them alternative sentencing, such as working in the communities so they can reform themselves. Unfortunately, the funding has not followed that principle. A lot of neighbourhoods, organizations and municipalities said that it was a good principle, but when judges told young people, who were facing court time, that they had to take some kind of alternative programming, no programs were available in the communities. The community agencies do not have the funding to provide the alternative programs to train these young people.

Therefore, while we have had good principles in the past, we have not had the kind of funding we need to provide the community support, which is critically important.

The National Crime Prevention Centre, a major body for national crime prevention, funds pilot projects, sometimes for one year, sometimes for three years, but it does not provide permanent funding. Many of the organizations that are doing a lot of work with young people to prevent them from committing crime or after sentencing ensuring they learn the skills so they will not reoffend are saying that they need permanent funding. They know what works. The centre has seen the program work and yet after two or three years the funding dries up and a lot of young people and the communities themselves end up being in trouble.

Other areas that would really help to reduce youth crime are in supporting local initiatives. We have to assist municipalities to build, expand and support drop-in centres, whether it is social infrastructure like basketball courts, community centres or libraries. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has told us there is a social infrastructure deficit.

For example, the city of Toronto is looking at closing swimming pools because there is not enough funding to support them. Again, more and more young people, after school or even during school hours, will be unable to learn skills. Unfortunately, some of these young people will end up getting into the wrong crowd or joining a gang. Then they get into trouble, and that is unfortunate.

We know young people sometimes are get in trouble. Why? Because the rate of depression and anxiety among young people in Canada is growing. The rate of suicide is 15% among 15 to 20 year olds, which is the third worst record among OECD countries. When we look at young people, whether they are in jail or not, or in their community and whether they are young offenders or not, we see a clear link because we do not invest in communities. These young people are feeling more and more depressed. We also see obesity and even suicide.

With Canada being a rich country, how could we possibly have the third worst record of young people committing suicide? They must feel dramatically hopeless to do that.

I know I have talked about deterrence, but the bill does not go into the whole notion of how we deal with youth crime prevention. At the end of the day, that is what will work.

Another aspect the bill does not deal with, which is a key one, is witness protection. Some young people would like to tell authorities what is happening in their circle. They would like to tell them that they may know who is doing what in a community in terms of crime. However, some of them feel tremendously unprotected. If we do not beef up witness protection program, many young people will continue to feel they will be targeted or will be at risk and therefore not speak out. A strong witness protection program is very much needed.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recently told the Standing Committee on Public Safety that while witness protection programs are extremely important for law enforcement, they are often too expensive for the local police force. They are unaffordable for the local police departments.

We need a comprehensive youth crime prevention plan that would include youth employment, after school activities, investing in local communities, investing in witness protection programs. Then we could really talk about deterrence and prevention. The bill that is in front of us sets out these sentencing principles. It is fine to have these principles, but there is no community infrastructure or capacity to support these principles such as deterrence.

We know that jailing young people is not a deterrent. While in jail they learn to become hardened criminals. Who is in jail with them? Criminals who have been around for a long time. It is a form of university, I guess, post-secondary education. The youth go to jail and while there, learn how to become hardened criminals. Putting them in jail alone does not work. Not only is it expensive, but it sometimes is counterproductive.

Unfortunately, the key element of prevention is missing in this bill. I know of a lot of young people who started out their lives wrong, in that they made a mistake, got to know the wrong people and got in trouble. Because they are young, energetic and enthusiastic many of them are still hopeful. They have not given up hope. If we reach out to them at the right time and actually believe in them, then they can turn their lives around.

This weekend I was at an organization called Sketch. It teaches homeless youth how to express themselves through the arts, visual arts, painting, sculpture, music, theatre. Some of those young people, because they live on the streets, have had quite a bit of contact with police. Some of them have been in trouble before. This is the 10th anniversary of Sketch. Many of those young people come from broken families. They suffered abuse, sometimes physical, other times sexual. They ran away. That is why they are out on the streets. When they live on the streets they get into some crimes that sometimes they regret.

Organizations such as Sketch deal with those young people holistically to get them to express themselves through the arts and in that way, they heal themselves. They come together and form a very strong community. They support each other. They talk to each other about why they should not continue that cycle of violence, how they can get back to school, find housing and turn their lives around.

There is much we can do for young people. Unfortunately, this bill does not necessarily address all we can do to invest in young people.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I like the last example the member gave. Last weekend I visited a very similar project in my riding. People were doing excellent carvings, spectacular art, showing that if their skills are harnessed, it can go toward very productive and positive work. I think it was run by an organization called Sundog.

The bill is very small, as the member probably mentioned. It only has two items. One is to increase the opportunities for the crown to get a bit more detention in pretrial, and the other adds some adult principles of sentencing to apply to children.

I wonder if the member agrees with those two changes. I also wonder if she agrees with all the other recommendations in the Nunn report, probably 30 plus, that were not incorporated in the bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when young people can express themselves creatively, they tell me that their souls get touched and they turn their lives around. Often, that is what is missing in a lot of our programs.

The part of the bill I have a great deal of difficulty with is the sentencing principle, the second part. The first part, pretrial custody, I will put aside. The second part of the bill is the sentencing principle.

I used to be a City of Toronto children and youth advocate. I have certainly looked at a lot of research and there is no evidence whatsoever from all the research I have done to suggest that adult principles of deterrence and denunciation would have any positive outcome for the public safety. If we are talking about passing a law, one would think we would look at some scientific evidence. I have not seen any.

Furthermore, with respect to the difference between adults and youth, sometimes the courts and society do not necessarily sanction that. On this concept of protection of society, the best protection is to invest in the programs that my hon. colleagues are talking about, Sundog, Sketch, the Boys and Girls Club of Canada, YOUCAN, Leave Out Violence, or the YMCA. That is the best protection we could possibly have for our young people.

I have seen communities transform themselves when we invest in the communities. The key element is that the best allies to fight youth crime are the young people themselves, if we can get the young people to turn around their lives, go back into their communities and say, “Hey, that is not a good thing to do. Look at me. I have done it. It is terrible. Follow the right path”. They are the best allies, and that is the component that is missing here. That is the best deterrent.

Having the principle of deterrence and denunciation, the second part of the bill, I do not think works.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest and, most of all, a certain sense of satisfaction.

Bill C-25 is clearly based on the Conservative ideology that it is absolutely essential to punish offenders and the belief that this is the way to solve problems, without putting the necessary effort into rehabilitation. I was afraid that this might have become a common view all across Canada, but luckily that does not seem to be the case. In Quebec, we dealt with this issue a long time ago. We passed legislation that gives people a chance and allows for rehabilitation, which helps reduce crime. This is shown quite clearly by the statistics.

This bill sets out to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding deterrence and denunciation to the principles considered in determining a sentence. The hon. member just explained very well how far removed this is from reality. The summary also states that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable. In addition, the bill specifies the circumstances in which this presumption does not apply.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. It has never been shown in Quebec that this Conservative approach will have positive results, especially in view of the fact that the virtually identical model developed in the United States to fight crime has not had the desired effect. In addition, young people are at a time in life when we could be trying to ensure that they do not become repeat offenders. Therefore, an entirely different approach is needed.

I would like my colleague to answer a question. Does this Conservative approach really have a future in the area she represents? Would we not do better simply to study this issue again in depth to determine which real efforts should be approved? For example, we could put more emphasis on prevention, on fighting poverty, or on studying the situations in which young people find themselves, rather than taking a purely punitive approach.

I was reading an article this morning which said that, for the first time in ten years, the number of incarcerated people is on the rise. We would therefore be investing a lot of money in a punitive approach that would not necessarily be very effective. I agree with the hon. member that, in doing this, we risk helping to develop a school for crime. Does my colleague share this view?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, millions of people in the U.S. have been in jail. There has been a dramatic increase, but the streets are not safer.

If we are looking for a model, it is right in front us, in Quebec. I have seen the way the Quebec court system works. It gives young people a second chance. It does not just talk about principles. It actually invests in young people. It has programs. It believes in young people, that because they are young, they are still learning and there is a chance for them to turn their lives around.

The majority of young people can do that. Yes, there is a very small percentage of hardened criminals, but I am not talking about them. I am talking about the majority of young people.

If we look at the rate in Quebec of those who reoffend, the ones who have gone to jail or who have committed crimes and received alternative sentences, very few of them reoffend. The percentage of young people who reoffend is actually much lower than the percentage outside Quebec. Why? It is because Quebec fundamentally believes that young people have the capacity to reform themselves.

When we talk about principles and sentencing, we have to be very clear. The first principle is that we have to believe young people have the capacity to change. If not, then we throw the key away. They are young people. For how many years are we going to put them in jail? It is not going to work. We have to find the best solutions. In Quebec quite a lot of programs work very well, and of course, there are other models outside Quebec.

On the principle of simply locking them up and putting more and more people in jail, we have seen the example in the U.S. and it has not worked.