Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the government bill dealing with youth issues.
It is a balancing act. Hearing my colleagues on both sides of the issue speak on the question of youth in the justice system, I cannot stand by without saying thank God I am a Liberal and thank God I am part of a government that balances the needs of society along with the needs of individuals. It balances the needs of youth and the need for proper security for our people. In this bill we have seen just that.
I am extremely delighted to see the approach that has been taken by the minister, in particular the approach dealing with rehabilitation. That is the most effective way of dealing with the whole issue of offences in our society. It does not make any sense to put all youth who commit crimes or offences in one room and keep them there for 15 or 20 years. If at the end of the day we do not do anything with them, when we let them back out on the street, they are going to commit other offences. There is no doubt in my mind.
This government has said there is a price that those who commit offences have to pay. In the meantime we have a series of requirements we expect individuals to follow. If they follow those requirements and meet the requirements as set out by law, then at the end of the day they will do well for themselves and for society.
I am delighted with an example in my constituency of Ottawa Centre. Debra-Dynes has been an incredible and extremely successful initiative. The police force in conjunction with the community, the private sector and youth have set up a team. They have approached this whole issue on a team basis, on a joint effort basis. The results have been exceptionally good.
Not everything in our society is bad news. There is a lot of good news. I hope my colleagues in the Reform Party are taking note. For example, from 1991 to 1997 there has been approximately a 25% decline in youth crime in our society. That tells me one thing, that what this government has been doing along the way has been good. All issues of prevention have served our youth well, have served our society well and have served justice well.
Having said that, there is still a lot of work ahead for us to do. There is still very high unemployment when it comes to youth. Still over 15% of our youth cannot find jobs. We still have a dropout rate of over 25% of youths who do not finish high school. That is tragic. That is not just the responsibility of the federal government. We are doing our fair share. We have to do more and we are doing more. But it is also the responsibility of the provincial government, municipal government, school boards, parents, of everyone collectively in our society.
Looking at the statistics, in particular when we look at the ages between 16 and 18, approximately 24% of all crimes being committed by youth are committed by those who are of age 17. Another 22% of all crimes committed by youth are committed by youths of age 16, and 30% of crimes committed by youth are by those over the age of 14, between the ages of 14 and 15.
I say this because I see a huge crack in our system and that is in the definition of a child. The definition is that a child who turns 16 can tell his mom and dad goodbye and he is on his own. No one is responsible for him; he is on his own. If he comes from a broken family, from a situation where there is abuse at home, the support that exists for him between the ages of 16 and 18 is minimal.
There is not enough support for our youth, for those in particular who are between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Those youth are falling between the cracks. As a result a person over the age of 16 years is no longer a child and has somehow become an adult in society. Yet the person cannot vote, cannot collect employment insurance and cannot legally drink alcohol.
We define our children in different ways. Under certain laws we define a child as anyone who is under the age of 14 years. Under other laws we define a child as anyone who is under the age of 16 years. Under other laws we define a child as anyone who us under the age of 18 years. There is a lack of synchronization and harmonization of our laws, not only federal but also provincial. There is a need all across this land for us to say that a child is anyone who is under the age of 18 years.
By doing so we would be saying to families and to society that they have a responsibility, mandate, role and objective to support children until they turn 18 years of age. It would then be society's responsibility to support a child from a broken family or an abusive situation until he or she turns 18 years of age. By doing so we would have each child either in school, in an apprenticeship program or in vocational training until he or she becomes an adult under the law.
That is presently not the case. When somebody turns 16 years of age he somehow becomes an adult but falls between the cracks. As a result we have to follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which is unequivocally clear that a child is anybody under the age of 18 years and that is the end of it, because it is well known that children need the support of their families, the support of society and the support of the community as a whole until they become adults. Only then can we treat children as adults and only then can we say they are on their own.
It is not fair for us as a society to look at somebody between the ages of 16 and 18 years who is falling between the cracks and crack the whip like some of my colleagues in other parties wanted. We cannot do that. We have to stand up to our responsibilities and our accountability to the people and to our youth. We must have a system whereby we can do all the necessary and important things to ensure fairness and justice in society and to ensure our youth are getting the support they need.
Then we would not have the 25% dropout rate we have in our schools now for youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Then we would not have the high crime rate that exists for our youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Then we would not have the high unemployment rate for youth between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Because they are not in the educational system and are not receiving the necessary support from the different levels of government in society they are falling between the cracks.
We have to commend the government and the minister on their initiatives in trying to put forward an approach that takes into consideration the need for rehabilitation and the importance of prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth five tons of cure.
It is not an easy situation. It is an extremely complex but we have to work collectively. We cannot hit a kid on the head with a two by four and say that he has to obey the law. We must have a cohesive and holistic approach. We have to balance the needs of the child and those of society. We have to deal with the needs of the child. We have to provide the support necessary for the child through the educational system, the family system and society as a whole.
I am delighted to see the family being asked to get involved when it comes to a child getting in trouble with the law. I am extremely excited about the fact that we can tell children through this act that we want them to go to school as part of rehabilitation. We want to make sure they do not hang around with gangs. We want to make sure they come home every night at 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock or whatever time the court may decide.
By doing so we are going to the root of the problem. In a sense that is rehabilitation at the highest level. We are required now to tell the child, in particular the one who is at risk, to go back to the educational system, an environment where he or she will receive the necessary support to build a better life.
That is why I have put over 32 private members' initiatives before the House asking the government to amend every piece of legislation at the federal level so we can harmonize our laws and change the definition of a child to be anyone under the age of 18 years. By doing so we will be sending out a signal saying that a child needs the support of his family and society until he or she is aged 18 years. Only then can we say that we have done what we have set out to do, and that is to continue to build a better society.
We have one of the finest societies on earth, but it could be and will be an even better society. It is not fair that every year illiteracy costs us over $10 billion on a regular basis in terms of lost productivity. It is not fair that over 25% of our population still has difficulties reading, writing or filling out application forms. It is not fair that we still have the highest level of unemployment in our youth population. It is not fair that we have the highest amount of crime committed by our youth, those between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are without the necessary support required from us collectively.
To that extent I just want to end by thanking the Minister of Justice for putting the bill before us and for once again putting forward something that is fairly balanced. Nothing is perfect and the bill will go before a committee. It will come back here at report stage. It will go through the consultation that is necessary for every bill. If somebody somewhere has a proposal, suggestion or amendment that meets the objectives of the bill I am absolutely confident the minister will be receptive to looking at it and if it fits the objectives we will deal with it then.
