Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to contribute to the debate and add my support to Bill C-297 introduced by my colleague, the member for Surrey North.
The legislation now before us is testament to the determination and dedication of the member for Surrey North in his campaign to bring some semblance of rationale to the Young Offenders Act and to put some emphasis and focus on an area that cries out for attention.
As most members of the House now know, the member for Surrey North and his family have been visited upon by youth crime. In 1992 the member's son, Jesse, was killed by a young offender. This young offender was in the community on what is called, under the Young Offenders Act, a section 7.1 undertaking. We are here today to address this section by way of the member's initiative to ensure such a tragedy, like the kind that befell the member for Surrey North and his family, can from this point on be averted.
As the member for Surrey North has said, the bill is simple and minor. However, the consequences of the bill are profound, addressing an issue that begs for attention and justice. In short, Bill C-297 calls for parents and guardians of young offenders to account when they fail to discharge their responsibility to supervise. One would not think that we would have to tell parents and guardians of their responsibilities in such instances, but alas, some parents and guardians are less responsible than the young offender in their charge. It is sad but true. The son of the member for Surrey North was a victim of this irresponsible and reprehensible parenting.
Bill C-297 changes section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act from a simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure or hybrid offence. If passed, Bill C-297 would make offenders of section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act subject to either imprisonment of up to two years or the normal summary conviction penalties.
This amendment, by way of this private member's bill, should not cause the government much concern. In fact this initiative forms part of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-3. Sometimes it takes a Canadian Alliance initiative to make things right, even if the government cannot admit it.
Allow me to outline the genesis of Bill C-297 and what it attempts to accomplish. Section 7.1 of the Young Offenders Act permits a youth court judge to allow an accused person, who would otherwise be held in custody, to be placed in the care of a responsible person who must undertake in writing to be responsible for the attendance of the young person in court as required, and to ensure compliance with such other conditions as the youth court judge may specify. At the same time, the accused youth must also undertake in writing to comply with the aforementioned arrangements and to comply with any other arrangements as specified by the youth court judge. It seems fairly straightforward and easy to understand. It simply allows a parent or guardian to supervise the young person until charges are decided by the court. It is a form of custody outside of formal detention and can be considered bail.
One would think that any responsible parent or guardian would enter this contract with the courts in good conscience and abide by the terms and conditions. One would think that no matter what the penalty would be for breaking the contract, the parent would be mature enough to comply. Sadly, as was the case involving my colleague for Surrey North, some parents wilfully fail to provide proper and sufficient supervision. It is this negligence on the part of the parent or guardian that Bill C-297 seeks to address. It is a shame that some parents are less responsible than the young person who is supposed to be in their custody. This bill would make it clear for those irresponsible types that the penalties for breaking the contract are very severe.
During his opening remarks in earlier debate on Bill C-297, the member for Surrey North painted a tragic and bleak picture, which I will paraphrase. For example, suppose one of the terms and conditions of the handing over of the young person to the parent or guardian is a parent agreeing to a curfew to ensure that the young person, while awaiting court, is not tempted to fall back into a situation where friends can influence the person and cause that person further criminal charges. What if the parent has always been the problem, never raising the young person properly to begin with, running loosey-goosey rules of curfew and never paying much attention to the young person's lifestyle? Is it not time for that parent to be held accountable for this irresponsibility?
There is no doubt that most Canadians have come to realize that parents have to take more responsibility in raising their children and that they should not start after they offend. It should be a deeper responsibility. Raising children is a commitment. It means more than having them around as a accessories. Bill C-297 reinforces that premise.
In Bill C-297, if a young person merely breaks a condition of release, then the parent may face a summary conviction procedure for this failure to comply with the undertaking to supervise. If the breach of the release condition leads to the commission of a serious offence by the young person, that same parent may be subject to an indictable proceeding. Like all hybrid offences, the crown has the option. In the final analysis, the judge naturally has the final say on the appropriate punishment.
We must impose on parents the gravity of improper, irresponsible parenting, particularly when they have entered into a contract with the courts. We have a responsibility to society to protect the innocent, the innocent like Jesse Cadman. If a parent thwarts this responsibility by not complying and wilfully breaks this trust they accepted, then penalties should be imposed.
Some will say that Bill C-297 blames the parents for crimes committed by their children. This is not the intent of Bill C-297, as the member for Surrey North pointed out. Young persons are responsible for their actions. Bill C-297 simply says that parents or guardians are guilty of an offence for failing to comply with an undertaking they entered into with the courts. It is a serious commitment and not to be taken lightly. If they cannot comply or have no intention of honouring the commitment, they should never have entered into the contract in the first place.
Bill C-297 requires our support now. We cannot wait for Bill C-3 which contains the essence of this private member's bill. I ask my colleagues on the government side and opposition members, who have already agreed, to acknowledge the urgency of this legislation and add their support.
Finally, I congratulate the member for Surrey North for his tenacity, in the three years we have been here since the last election, in getting his private member's bill to this stage and for the great work that he has done. Most constituents never see it when their people are working in committee. There is no more dedicated member than the member for Surrey North when working in committees of the House of Commons. I and I know all members of the House congratulate him for that. He has worked very hard since he has been here. I hope and trust that we will see this bill passed and become law so that what happened to his family will never happen to another family in Canada again.
