JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 11, 2000

• 1541

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call the meeting back to order and look forward to a continued illumination.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): That's fine.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I thought that Mr. Bellehumeur had finished.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Listen here... Pardon me?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: You were wrapping up when the meeting adjourned.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I had scarcely begun the introduction.

To put ourselves back in the context, Mr. Chairman, in a much more... This is serious. We were discussing a motion I had tabled on April 5 and that I am presenting this afternoon. It reads as follows:

That clause-by-clause study of Bill C-3, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be postponed until Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Why Mr. Chairman, am I presenting this motion at this point in the process? I am responding to a series of amendments tabled by the Minister that we are to review today when we move to clause-by- clause study.

Before we do this, I sincerely believe, and this is based on discussions I've had with certain members of the government and opposition parties, mainly the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Canadian Alliance—although I have had discussions with fewer members of this particular party—, that the methods used in Quebec are probably misunderstood and poorly known. All things being considered, by presenting this motion I am giving the Committee an opportunity to postpone clause-by-clause this morning in order to give the members opposite a chance to mull over what I have said and, more specifically, to obtain a copy of the 1995 task force report. By postponing clause-by-clause to March 2, 2000, we would have the time to do this.

I see that Mr. McKay is present. I do not know whether I should start from the beginning or whether he will read my notes in order to understand what I said this morning. At any rate, he will be able to catch up during the course of the afternoon, because I will be going back to each of these points in very succinct fashion. I know that the entire issue of juvenile delinquence is of concern to him. Accordingly, he will no doubt be pleased to read what I said in order to gain a true understanding of what is going on in Quebec.

Mr. McKay will want to know, in particular, what a task force established by the Associate Chief Justice of the Youth Division of the Court of Quebec, Justice Michel Jasmin, and other people working in the field wrote in a report entitled Les jeunes contrevenants: au nom et au-delà de la loi. This report was published in 1995 following a two and a half year study of the entire issue.

For the people who will have to vote on each of these clauses, this document will enable them to understand the Quebec approach and may cause them to view the amendments proposed by the Minister to Bill C-3 with fresh eyes and a new perspective. Perhaps they will, in the end, see things my way and ask the Minister to propose a clause or an amendment that would enable Quebec, or any other province, to continue enforcing the Young Offenders Act as it currently exists.

As I said this morning, the Young Offenders Act is by no means perfect, but there is no other remedy for crime and I very sincerely believe...

[English]

The Chair: A point of order, Monsieur Bellehumeur.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you.

I understand that Mr. Bellehumeur is intervening on the question contained in his motion, which is to postpone clause-by- clause to May 2. Is this, in fact, what this is all about?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We are discussing the following motion:

That clause-by-clause study of Bill C-3, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be postponed until Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

I am at the point in my argument where I am trying to convince you to vote in favour of this motion and, pursuant to section 116...

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Point of order by Mr. Saada.

• 1545

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Am I to understand, further to this motion, that clause-by-clause would begin as early as tomorrow if we were to adopt the motion? Is that what this means? I merely want to ensure that we understand the same thing.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It means that by May 2, 2000, if the motion were to be adopted today, each government member would, I presume, do an in-depth study on the situation in Quebec and obtain certain documents. On Tuesday, May 2, we would then be able to review the entire issue and decide whether or not Quebec could be excluded from enforcing Bill C-3.

If the member's question is to find out what is going to happen on May 2, I cannot answer him. What will happen during the two-week Easter break? What will the government and opposition members have learned? What questions are they going to want to ask? There is also the possibility that, on Tuesday, May 2, another motion will be tabled to postpone clause-by-clause to September.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Oh, I see!

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It's not a question of “oh, I see!”. I...

Mr. Jacques Saada: I should tell you that I am pleased that asked the question.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Either you did not understand me or you were not listening to me this morning, because I read it word- for-word, Mr. Saada. I read it word-for-word. And I even expressed a hope that the Chair himself would ask that clause-by-clause be postponed until September, to give us a chance to look at the situation in Quebec properly.

I do not understand you, Mr. Saada. Have you dropped out of the sky or what? You appear to be surprised, I appear to be surprising you. And yet, in everything that I said this morning, and many people who heard my very eloquent plea can confirm this, it was very clear that, between now and Tuesday, May 2, I could not know what was going to happen to this study and that there may be another motion.

If you have finished, may I continue? Yes? Fine.

Mr. Jacques Saada: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's right. This has to be really clear.

A voice: Exactly.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I know that the government opposite really likes clarity. We saw evidence of this in the comments made by the Prime Minister in Israel. He too is very clear. We will, therefore, continue with this same clarity. We will focus directly on the motion, Mr. Chairman. I will repeat it and I would invite Mr. Saada to pay careful attention:

That clause-by-clause study of Bill C-3, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be postponed until Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Without any reserve.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Indeed, vote in favour of the motion and we will see what will happen to the “without any reserve”, or without any other thing. Moreover, I cannot guarantee, in the light of what may occur this afternoon, during the course of this week or next week, that there will not be any other motion from another party, even from the Bloc Québécois. Let's agree on that.

I am therefore, Mr. Chairman, trying to convince the government members, including the members from Quebec, including Mr. Saada and company, who is fully aware that a consensus has been reached over the years. Later on, I will remind him about some very important briefs tabled in order to shed some light on the matter, or rather, to put the issue back on track and make him realize that the government has gone off in the wrong direction.

It is, in my mind, deplorable that it is up to the opposition to do this. The members opposite often brag about the fact that, since they are in power, they are better able to represent the people of Quebec. If so, let us see clear evidence of this with Bill C-3. Let them stand up and denounce the approach advocated by the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

This morning, in my efforts to convince them, I said that broad terms about a very important document, Les jeunes contrevenants: au nom et au-delà de la loi, which was written in Quebec in the 90s and which takes a look at all aspects of the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act.

When I asked whether or not we had quorum, noting that there were fewer and fewer colleagues present and that I was talking to the walls, I had just dealt with the question of measures, and more specifically, probation, Mr. Chairman.

• 1550

For the benefit of those who were not here, such as Mr. McKay, I would remind you that—and I would invite Mr. McKay to read about this in the document—I had referred to these ideas before we had even begun examining the very basis of the legislation. I refer here to a myriad of issues such as delinquency; the protection of society; the seriousness of the offence, the responsibilities and rights of young people, the needs of young people, victims and parents, the speed at which interventions take place, an extremely important point, cohesion between the various responsibilities of each stakeholder, decision-making taking into account the young person's entire situation; an extremely important aspect and one and which I would repeat for Mr. McKay, who was not present this morning; and finally, the entire question of prevention and types of prevention, primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, for those of you who do not know. I will go into greater detail during the course of the afternoon.

Another aspect which is also very important is police intervention, including the taking of a statement, police discretion, release or detention before appearance. Since Mr. McKay is a lawyer, he is no doubt aware of all these things. However, it is important that at least one member of this committee remind him of these things since the Young Offenders Act or the amended Bill C-3 is something which must be read as a whole.

Parents and victims do, therefore, participate in the police intervention process. To claim that the Young Offenders Act does not take the interests of victims and parents into account is false. I heard certain members of the government and the opposition state that the Young Offenders Act had to be amended in order to give some consideration to victims. Indeed, this is important, but this is already provided for in the Young Offenders Act.

In order to vote on my motion in an informed matter, it is important that I talk to you, this afternoon, about the criteria contained in the Young Offenders Act. This will enable us, therefore, to hold an informed vote on the motion I have introduced to postpone clause-by-clause to May 2 and to wait and see what will happen between now and then.

I also spoke, and I say this for those who were not present this morning, about all of the alternative measure programs. I refer to these programs in very broad terms only given that I will be focussing on them later on. The alternative measures are very important.

Obviously, judicial intervention is the key aspect. In my mind, this is what has the biggest impact on federal jurisdiction. Since we are legislating at the federal level, let us look at what is of most concern to us. Judicial intervention concerns us directly. The time frame is crucial in the matter of the laying of charges, the provisional detention, the appearance, the communication of evidence, the pleas and the appearance. There is also the plea bargaining, the plea of guilt and the trial.

This morning, I merely skimmed the surface on this issue. What I'm talking about this afternoon is virtually new. These are, nevertheless, extremely important aspects which could have benefited from improvements made to the time factor, to the Young Offenders Act. We all agree on that. The stakeholders in Quebec, who reached a consensus with respect to the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act, readily acknowledge that this Act could be amended, but amended in a minor fashion. These amendments could include, for example, changes to the time factor in order to increase or improve the speed of interventions.

Everybody in Quebec agrees with that, but they do not agree with a major amendment to the Act, as proposed in Bill C-3. This Bill will completely change the approach advocated in Quebec, or even the approach taken in Quebec as a result of proper application of the Young Offenders Act. The justices who testified here told us this, Mr. Chairman.

The matter of the time factor is very important with respect to the appearance, the communication of evidence, the plea bargaining. Stakeholders have to know how to respond in instances where there is a plea of guilty or not guilty. As legislators, we must truly examine this issue before voting on anything whatsoever. We have to see what the provinces do.

For those who were not here this morning, I would go back to my initial comment where I referred to a comment made by Justice Michel Jasmin on February 22:

If I were a legislator, I would put the enforcement and review of my bill on hold for the time being and I would ask the provinces about how they enforce the current piece of legislation and their youth policies.

• 1555

Mr. Chairman, we will see these policies time and again throughout the judicial process that includes the appearance, the laying of information, the way police officers use evidence, the statements the police take from young persons, the way that social workers intervene in the file, the role of parents and the victim. It is the youth policy of the province that will determine how the Young Offenders Act is to be enforced. It is important that you know this before you vote on the motion that I am presenting today and which will be discussed this afternoon.

We must also consider the bargaining that goes on with respect to the plea of guilt and the trial. And then there is the decision- making involved with the sentencing. This morning, I focused on the pre-sentence report—a word I had trouble pronouncing this morning—and the sources of information, the content of the report, the tabling, distribution and forwarding of the report. Naturally, not everyone can get his or her hands on it. You will understand that there is this whole aspect of confidentiality that must be taken into account. We will go back to this later. There is also the psychiatrist's report, the decision on the measure to be taken, the review of this decision and the huge issue of transfer.

As I mentioned, certain things were amended in 1995, if I am not mistaken. I think this took place in 1995. It was precisely in 1992 and in 1995 that the federal government introduced the concept of presumption with respect to the transfer. However, the government did not even wait to see the results of the latest amendments before trying, once again, to amend the act, but this time from A to Z. Bill C-3 on young offenders, which is known as the Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, was tabled twice. I believe that it was known as C-68 in the previous session. Now it is known as Bill C-3.

We will also discuss transfer later on, because I think that when the Minister talked about the flexibility in Bill C-3, she was referring to certain aspects pertaining to transfer. Today, Mr. Chairman, I have an opportunity to explain, in detail, to the committee members opposite, why there is no flexibility, to explain why it is a mistake to say that the bill is flexible and why Quebec, in the end, will have problems pursuing the approach it has chosen.

At any rate, Bill C-3 contains several amendments. The principles have been changed quite significantly and there is barely any reference made to needs. In the first version, there are amendments—I will deal with these later on—that, because of the way that the courts will apply or interpret the new Act, raise significant questions.

The study done by Justice Jasmin and others in the 1990s talked about the problems with the process. Mr. Chairman, this is another reason why it is important to focus on this issue and to see what is done. I believe that this will convince the government and opposition members to vote in favour of my motion and have a bit more time to study this whole issue.

The time factor is extremely important. The young people really have to feel involved in the process following the offence, following the legal misadventures that begin with the crime and continue until the time of trial. The time factor is extremely important and it is problematic. Right now, Mr. Chairman, the time factor is a problem that will not be remedied by Bill C-3. I think that the problem will be aggravated. According to the many testimonies we heard, the process will take even longer with the amendments to Bill C-3.

Scheduling constitutes a problem. The longer it takes, the more complicated the scheduling becomes and the more it costs to administer justice, which comes under provincial and not federal jurisdiction.

• 1600

I do not think that there are too many problems associated with decorum during hearings. In addition, there are the rules of practice, the role that certain actors play in the court house, the role of the parents and the victims. Once again, reference is made to parents and victims.

I have spoken very briefly this afternoon, but I have a small summary of what I said this morning, for the benefit of those who were not present.

The task force chaired by Mr. Michel Jasmin, who is the Associate Chief Justice of the Youth Division of the Court of Quebec, has reviewed all of the measures, including custody. I think, once again, that it is important to give some thought to this issue and to understand what is done in Quebec in comparison to the other provinces in order to ascertain whether or not it would be worth introducing new penalties or extra-judicial measures, knowing full well, Mr. Chairman, that the provinces that currently abide by the Young Offenders Act or enforce it properly are obtaining results. I believe that there is some consensus, a Canadian consensus, and a certain degree of unanimity amongst those who have been federal ministers of Justice since I have been a member of Parliament, in readily recognizing that in Quebec, the Young Offenders Act is being enforced well. The legislation is being enforced, as it is. We invest in our young people rather than in concrete facilities, as certain other provinces are doing.

In our province, we have examined the entire issue and reached certain conclusions. Since then, since 1995, Mr. Chairman, we have, of course, improved certain things. We came to realize that there are several different types of custody: the designation of institutes as secure custody or open-custody facilities; mixed orders; discontinuous custody; distinction between custody in a closed facility and accommodation under the Youth Protection Act.

You understand that there are other statutes. We have a system that covers all aspects of the issue, and therefore the Young Offenders Act is not without support in the Quebec legal system. There are other statutes to support and complement it, so that we do obtain the results it is designed to achieve. These are set out in subsection 3(1)(a) of the declaration of principle, which states:

a) Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons...

To achieve such noble and specific objectives, the province must also pass legislation, such as the Youth Protection Act. The Young Offenders Act alone cannot solve every problem. I do understand that it is an area of federal jurisdiction; however, if we are to understand why Quebeckers are almost all in agreement in their violent objection to Bill C-3, we have to be aware of and understand the legislative tools that Quebec has established for those involved in the system. One of these is the Youth Protection Act.

The province has also established a myriad of health and social services regulations. It has also established social assistance regulations and developed instruments for social workers to take a preventive approach, as we will see further on.

Control of conduct while in custody is also very important, Mr. Chairman. As we vote on each clause of Bill C-3, we must all bear such factors as violent behaviour, escape and disciplinary measures in mind.

As I have already said, I am going over all these points so I can persuade my colleagues to support my motion to postpone clause- by-clause until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. This will give us an opportunity to see where we stand, and to ensure that during the Easter break the government does its homework and asks provincial legislatures the right questions about their youth policies. That is where we should start. In Quebec, that is what we did in the 1990s.

The role of rehabilitation centres in applying measures, the social reintegration of young people placed under custody and the transfer of young people to adult detention centres are all very important factors. These are all things that should be looked into, Mr. Chairman. They must be looked into before we vote on each clause of Bill C-3. I believe you are attempting to determine whether we have quorum, Mr. Chairman.

• 1605

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I do not know where Mr. Saada is, but I will continue—because if you interrupt me, I will have to start all over again when we have quorum.

This brings me to probation, the decision-making process for probation, probation order conditions, and unsupervised probation.

Mr. Chairman, I should point out one thing that is disturbing me somewhat. I believe that, here at the Justice Committee, we agreed that cell phones would either be turned off or taken outside. Perhaps Mr. DeVillers could take his conversation outside. I can hear him, and it is disturbing me. Could you...

[English]

The Chair: Has the justice committee made such a decision in the past?

The Clerk of the Committee: There is no official decision on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This is not official, but it is what we have always done. I am sure that Mr. DeVillers forgot. It's just that he is disturbing me a bit. I do not want to disturb him.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: A bit?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Just a bit, because I wanted to hear what you were saying. You might have been talking about me, and I would not like that much. Right then, let's go on, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, you can take some comfort in the fact that nobody noticed you were disturbed.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Very well. That's fine. So let's go on in the hope that one day we will have quorum.

I'm all confused now. I had got to the chapter on probation. There again, to understand the amendments presented by the Minister, we have to see what we were doing earlier. People seem to believe that this is a new approach and that extrajudicial measures, programs and youth probation have just been discovered.

So before we move to clause-by-clause, we should see what a province like Quebec is doing. I think that right now is an excellent opportunity to see what Quebec is doing. We can take a look at the report I am holding right here. I would invite committee members to read this report as quickly as possible, by May 2, 2000, so that we are all on the same wavelength.

The residence condition is also very important, Mr. Chairman, as are probation management tools, the pre-sentence report and probation itself—this is a new phase—transfer to an adult probation service, work schedules and monitoring.

We also looked carefully at community service, Mr. Chairman. Under the current legislation, community service is an option. There again, we find nothing new. Bill C-3 presents a new approach that raises some questions. Under the current Young Offenders Act, there are things we are able to do with young people, and government members must become aware of them.

Now let us move on to measures geared towards victims, the issues relating to measures, failure to comply with decisions on measures, and parental participation. There again, Mr. Chairman, Quebec involves parents in measures geared towards the victim. There is nothing new there either. We already do this in Quebec, Mr. Chairman. That is what I would like government members and even opposition members to understand.

Mr. Chairman, every good intention of the government and opposition parties can be implemented by means of the current Young Offenders Act. So why take the risk of making some of these objectives impossible to achieve by amending the legislation?

It appears we no longer have quorum, Mr. Chairman. Would you be so kind as to determine whether we have quorum?

• 1610

[English]

The Chair: I would seek a quorum. I think there are people just outside using the phone at your request, so we'll give them time to get inside.

We have quorum, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Very well. We will begin again, Mr. Chairman, though not from scratch—if we did that, we would still be at the beginning at midnight tonight.

We were talking about the issue of measures, Mr. Chairman, including failure to comply with a decision on measures and parental participation. That is where I had got to, Mr. Chairman. I have heard many members—particularly Canadian Alliance and some government members—say that parents should be more involved in some decisions. Parents have to see what their children are doing and children have to see that their parents have some responsibility. And the Young Offenders Act is being amended—or rather repealed and replaced—to achieve this.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that on examining the issue it becomes clear that Quebec is indeed involving parents. Parents can be involved under the Young Offenders Act, provided the Act is properly applied. Why does it have to be completely changed? Just to please the other provinces, do we have to toss out a statute that works very well in Quebec? This bill raises many questions and doubts in the minds of legal experts, judges, social workers, and everyone who works with the legislation every day. Is the game worth the candle? Should we be taking such a huge risk to solve problems that in any case can already be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act? I am telling you the game is not worth the candle.

I am asking you all to wake up—particularly the members opposite. I know that your intentions are good. I know that you care about what happens, and I know full well that you do not agree with some aspects of this bill. I'm asking you to speak up. Get your message across—you can begin by voting for my motion, which would give the Minister time to reflect. Let us hope that the Holy Spirit comes upon her like the Paschal dove, to help her find the way.

I may be joking, but nonetheless I do mean what I am saying. This is not a good bill, and I hope that the members opposite will understand that it is a dangerous bill. I hope that today, or tomorrow, or whenever, you will vote for my motion so that we can take advantage of the two weeks' break to think about it in greater depth. I'm hoping to encourage you to learn more and to read the report I have here. As I have already said, it is an excellent report.

My purpose is to make you understand that all these aspects must be carefully considered before we move to clause-by-clause. That takes time, and that is why my motion would postpone clause- by-clause until May 2.

There is another aspect that must be considered: the best way of applying the legislation. That is very important. Chapter 7 indicates that nothing is perfect, as I was saying earlier, and as we know full well. The Young Offenders Act does not meet 100% of our expectations. We are not saying that the Young Offenders Act cannot be amended. Of course it can be amended; minor amendments could be made with the agreement of Quebec and all stakeholders. Some of these minor amendments are outlined in the report, and we could go into further detail later. This is a very important chapter. It will help you to see that the Young Offenders Act can be amended without introducing an entirely new bill to replace it like Bill C-3.

• 1615

We can talk about cooperation, training and specialisation among workers in the field. This is a long-term project, not something that can be done overnight. But you do have to know that it has been done somewhere. It is because Quebec has invested in this for 30 years that our success rate is good and we have the lowest youth crime rate in Canada. We have been investing in this for many years, and have developed a great deal of know-how and many tools. We have provided specialists and workers in the field with excellent training.

I will also touch on the research and information systems we use to compile our statistics. We have to see where we are coming from to know where we are going.

I will also be touching on the issue of informing the community. One group tabled a very significant brief on this issue, and raised some important points. This may be one role that the federal government has dodged. Instead of amending the Young Offenders Act, the government could have launched a public information and awareness campaign to put everything into perspective. When a minor kills an elderly person, that is an appalling act. It is an act I myself consider frightening and appalling. However, it is no more appalling than if an adult had killed the elderly person. But what we do is put the minor's case under the microscope and talk about it for weeks and weeks, monitor the process and disseminate misinformation. Members from one party in the House of Commons will do their grandstanding with statements under Standing Order 31. It will be appalling and frightening. Yes, of course it is frightening, but remember that many aspects of the adult justice system are very frightening as well.

What we are not being told is that only a very small percentage of young people do that. Not all young people are holdings, thieves or murderers. That is not true. I have young children and I have confidence in their future. I am sure that you have confidence in the vast majority of young people you know. But the laws are not for them; the laws are for those people who deviate from socially acceptable behaviour. But that does not make all young people criminals.

Sincerely, Mr. Chairman, when I look at the prison system for adults, the Act, the Criminal Code, and its application for adults, I do not understand why anyone would want to use that system as an example and apply it to young offenders, since it is a failure. Everyone agrees that it does not work. So do not make the mistake of applying the adult system to children, to young offenders. A distinction must be made. There must be two parallel systems, two systems that in some ways could complement each other, for example with respect to issues regarding transfer, as is currently the case with the Young Offenders Act. There must be two parallel systems, and not a little Criminal Code for young offenders and a big Criminal Code for adult offenders. We must have two parallel systems that are similar to what we currently have with the Young Offenders Act on one hand, and the Criminal Code and the adult system on the other. That is one of the three main concerns, as you all know, raised by the Quebec Coalition for Juvenile Justice. One of the three main concerns at present is having two independent parallel systems which, quite obviously, we will not have once Bill C-3 is adopted, if that unfortunate outcome occurs.

• 1620

I am not the only one saying this, Mr. Chairman. I was perhaps one of the first to say it, but I do not really deserve credit for it, since I have been attending meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice since February 1994, and I participated in several exchanges when Ms. Cohen was the chair and we studied the issue as part of the mandate given to us by the Minister of Justice.

I knew full well that the objective had already been determined by the Minister. All you had to do was read the Red Book published during the last election campaign to know that at the end of the day the Young Offenders Act would eventually be toughened up.

So for me, this was not surprising. When I leafed through Bill C-68 or Bill C-3, which are identical, my immediate reaction was: the government is taking a tougher stance. It is not true to say that there is some flexibility. Of course the Minister, as a good snake charmer, managed to get one or two groups in Quebec on board. But since then, they have woken up. The best example of that is the former president of the Quebec Bar who said that if there were flexibility and if the Minister could guarantee that there would be flexibility, he would not have a problem with it. I have been closely monitoring the career progression of the former president of the Quebec Bar. I am sure that he will be appointed a judge someday, in recognition for this good service.

But since then, the Quebec Bar has completely realigned its position, which is clearly indicated in its brief. I will refer back to some very important sections, including one that is directly linked to what I just mentioned. I invite committee members to consider this issue when they say that the problem is not the Act, but its application.

You will see that, Mr. Chairman, on page 16 of the brief presented by the Barreau du Québec, on February 29, 2000. A little later, I will give you a bit more detail on the general comments, because they were very well explained, and in my opinion, they will make members of the committee aware of the care taken by the Barreau du Québec in drafting its brief. It will surely encourage you to study the motion I am moving this morning, to agree with me and to vote with me to postpone clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill until Tuesday, May 2.

It says on page 16, as I was saying earlier, after having conducted some analysis:

The Barreau du Québec believes that the problem lies not in the Young Offenders Act, but in the manner in which it is applied.

As you can see, not much has changed. It is now February 2000, and I remember having repeated that several times in 1995-96, during meetings of the Justice Committee. That is one of the main conclusions of the report I have been quoting from since this morning: do not touch the Young Offenders Act. The problem is not the Act but the manner in which it is applied.

Even Quebec reached that conclusion, and it was applying the Young Offenders Act. In saying that the problem is with respect to its application, the reference is to a lack of money. There is a $77 million amount that has been on the books for a long time now. Quebec nevertheless continues to apply the Act correctly and is not waiting for the cheque to arrive to do so. They're still applying it, and I think we can say that they are applying it correctly, because the success rate is still appreciable.

Mr. Chairman, you know that until we have a zero youth crime rate, the situation will be unsatisfactory for us. Ideally, in an ideal society, there would be no criminals and no young offenders. But is that possible, Mr. Chairman? No. We must however continue to work so that there are as few young offenders as possible. Our effective application of the Young Offenders Act has yielded good results.

If the government has something to do, it is not amend the Act, but instead look at how it is being applied in Quebec. We must try to convince the other provinces to adopt this approach. Tell them that you will not give them any more money to build prisons and that they can no longer invest in incarceration. You will see that they will be much more inclined to listen to what Quebec is doing and to examine what can be done to improve the success rate with respect to young offenders. It is not all that difficult.

• 1625

It is not by amending an Act which, quite clearly, must have been poorly drafted since the Minister... This is the first time since 1993 that I have seen such a bill have more than 100 amendments that make it even more complex. I have seen several pieces of legislation here, and some of them were not fun, nor very funny, which involved a lot of issues. But when the Minister introduced something, she had done her homework and knew where she was going with it. We cannot say that she was unaware of the position of workers in this field in Quebec or Canada, because a study had already been conducted that cost thousands of dollars and a report had been tabled. The Minister and the entire Department were aware of the general thrust we wanted and that which we rejected. They knew what Quebec wanted. The Department knows full well that Quebec does not want any changes. So don't come and tell us that these amendments are in response to issues raised by witnesses from Quebec when they appeared here. Don't come here and tell us that, because you knew their position before tabling these amendments.

So Mr. Chairman, my motion today is not directed at the Minister of Justice nor the people from her department. I understand that you have one master and that she is your Minister. You do what the Minister tells you to do and I don't hold it against you personally. I am sure that you are all good people. My motion is not for the Minister, because she knows what she wants. She is protecting herself and is probably thinking about herself, but not about what is best for Canada. I am thinking what is best for Quebec.

I am speaking specifically to the members who have been following this matter for a long time. I see members opposite who have been aware of Quebec's position for a long time now and who know full well just how particular Quebec is about its application of the Act. I see members across from me who are very much aware of the distinct way in which Quebec applies the Young Offenders Act. I am speaking to you.

Let's take an extra two weeks and we will see on May 2 what we can do. But for goodness' sake, give yourself a little time to take a hard look at the Quebec position with respect to the Young Offenders Act, to know how you are going to vote during clause-by- clause consideration. This bill is extremely important, and the minister said that on several occasions when she appeared. To do a good job, you must at least know what is happening in the province that applies the Young Offenders Act properly.

I have strayed a little bit from the general thrust of what I wanted to say this afternoon. I was talking about public information, and I think we all agree that it is extremely important.

There is also the issue of resources, which I mentioned in passing earlier on. During a 1996 meeting between the federal Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, and his Quebec counterpart, Serge Ménard, if I remember correctly, Mr. Ménard presented a bill, which highlighted the underfunding and lack of resources in Quebec for the application of the Young Offenders Act. He did an excellent job of pleading his case and Minister Allan Rock, Minister of Justice of Canada, had no choice but to say that he was right, although he pointed out that the discussion was not the purpose of their meeting at the time. He did however say that they would talk about it again, that they would negotiate and that they could undoubtedly reach an agreement.

• 1630

Ministers of Justice come and go, but do not resemble each other, Mr. Chairman, and as a result, the $77 million amount that we called for in 1996, and which is definitely more today, because Quebec has continued to apply the Young Offenders Act, as it is required to do, is still outstanding. Since we do not invest in building prisons, we are penalized by federal programs. Although the federal government has still not settled the outstanding $77 million amount, we continue to apply federal legislation. If you do not want to pay or if you are bad debtors, at least let us apply the Act we want. We want to continue applying the Young Offenders Act and continue with the approach we adopted at least 15 years ago, but towards which we have been working diligently for at least 30 years. As I pointed out this morning, we worked on this issue as a team, so that we would have a solid chain, where each link is aware of the approach and the powers conferred upon it by the Act. Everyone works together towards the same single objective: reintegrating and rehabilitating the young person, which at the end of the day, will protect society in the long term, in accordance with the statement of principles which is in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act and which requires this of us.

It is extremely important that people be well informed. In my opinion, the federal government could have invested to ensure that people were well informed, so that we can prove that the Act is properly applied and convince the people of that. How can we convince the other recalcitrant provinces of the advantages linked to applying the Young Offenders Act? You can do it with your cheque book, with the money that you send them. You can do it with resources.

I will now deal with services for young people from cultural minorities. There is a problem in this regard, and the report covers some of the problems facing certain Aboriginal communities. These communities came and spoke out against certain provisions in Bill C-3 and its approach. They have shared their concerns with us.

There is the whole issue of the double designation, PD and YPB, the Provincial Director and the Youth Protection Branch, which is a problem that is much more frequent at the provincial level. That must be studied. It is all linked and logical.

This report also examined legal aid, the transportation and detention of young people at the court, as well as interprovincial agreements. I think we need to examine all of these aspects.

When Mr. Justice Jasmin was asked about youth policies, he acknowledged that they go beyond federal jurisdiction, but that it will only be possible to identify the shortcomings once we have the general picture.

This study, which I have before me, examines the Commission de la protection des droits de la jeunesse, another commission that came out in support of the Young Offenders Act and the Youth Protection Act. The Commission was set up in accordance with the Act and it is designed to help young people, to protect their rights and inform them of their obligations. The study examined the mandate, the appointment of members and all related issues.

Mr. Chairman, I have provided an overview of what this document contains. There are other sections in the document that deal with the application of the Young Offenders Act which are extremely important and that I would like to tell you about this afternoon. You see, Mr. Chairman, that before moving to clause-by- clause consideration and the votes, members of this committee must at least be aware of what is happening in Quebec with respect to the application of the current Young Offenders Act.

If we want to be fully informed before moving to clause-by- clause consideration and before adopting these amendments, even though all people working in this field in Quebec told us that they do not want this new legislation nor these amendments, the government members and opposition parties that are prepared to vote in favour of certain clauses in the Bill must be aware of what is happening in the other provinces, including the province where the Act is being properly applied.

The introduction of the Jasmin report, on page 5, deals with the application of the Act. I will quote a very short but important excerpt which, I think, clearly shows the scope of this study. It reads as follows: “The approach that we have been using for two and a half years...”.

• 1635

So we can see that the members of the task force conducted an extremely important study. I am aware that the extra two weeks will not enable the provinces to conduct a similar study, but I would hope that we will come back, on Tuesday, May 2, with some good intentions and that the Chairman himself, as I was saying this morning, will ask to postpone clause-by-clause consideration until September to allow...

If you make me lose track of where am I, I will start over, Mr. DeVillers.

So with respect to applying the Act, Mr. Chairman, the report states:

The approach that we have been using for the past two and a half years has convinced us that the Young Offenders Act is good.

This report was not signed by just anyone. It was signed by the Associate Chief Justice of the Quebec Juvenile Court. It is important to reiterate that this document was written in 1995, and that this statement still holds true today, in the year 2000. That reinforces the following statement:

We were struck by the consensus in this area that exists among the various people who work with young offenders in Quebec.

That was true in 1995, and it is still true today, Mr. Chairman.

It must be pointed out that Quebec has developed a tradition in its work with young offenders.

We talk about a tradition, Mr. Chairman, so we have been investing in this area for a long time. You cannot create a tradition in six months.

The pioneer efforts that, in the 1950s advocated more humane, professional services have borne fruit which, at the time, seemed unthinkable. The idea was to go beyond simple repression and focus on educating and rehabilitating young people.

Does Bill C-3 go in that direction? No. Does the Young Offenders Act go in that direction? Yes. Why change it?

The idea was to go beyond simple repression and focus on educating and rehabilitating young people. Much has been done to achieve that. It was necessary to develop and experiment with new approaches, learn lessons from them, realign our sites, and more than once, start over. That was not possible without huge investments in well-trained staff, which remains the ultimate guarantee of the quality of these measures.

Bill C-3 must not be examined simply as if it were a text that reads like a novel. You must look beyond the words at who will apply it. Who are the men and women who will apply it? Do they have the expertise to do so? Do they have the desired approach? Do they know what approach we want them to use to achieve a very specific objective? These measures must be monitored. You cannot have an Act that leaves the door open to interpretation. You must not have a complex Act that each person involved can interpret as he sees fit.

For the statement of principles in the Young Offenders Act alone—all members siting around this table will agree with me—the Supreme Court of Canada needed about ten years to come up with a clear definition. Fortunately, the briefs I have before me deal with this issue. A little later on, if I have time, I will say a bit about these briefs that raise the important issue of the case law. It took ten years. That is not something to be scoffed at. It took ten years for the Supreme Court justices to provide clear guidance on all the principles, and you want to amend that for a mess of pottage (something worthless), in my opinion. I'm going to use that term, because it is very polite, although I am tempted to say something else.

So we can see that people who work with young offenders have an extremely important role to play in applying the Act. Earlier on I mentioned that delinquency was an important issue. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, delinquency exists.

• 1640

I think we notice it regularly. Is there anything we can do to remedy the situation? The working group chaired over by Mr. Justice Jasmin examined delinquency. The bold text in section 9 highlights its importance:

Juvenile delinquency is a worrisome phenomena that must be taken seriously. It must however be looked at realistically, without being overdramatized as it too often is. To be adequate, policies and practices must be based on a fair perception of the problem they are designed to address.

For the majority of young people, committing an offence is an occasion to test and internalize community standards; the reaction of their peers and society helps them integrate the standards that they have transgressed and learn respect for the law. This phenomenon cannot be considered abnormal.

The problem is different for the minority of young people who, to varying degrees, get more involved in delinquent activities. More often than not, they are the ones who face police, social and legal action.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred not reading that and not reading each of the numerous recommendations and conclusions that are important. I would have liked committee members to have that in mind and to have already been made aware of these issues. But sincerely, I feel obliged to go over this study with you. I will at least have the personal satisfaction of telling people in Quebec that I did my best to get you to listen to reason. I even quoted major excerpts from a document that has stood the test of time and that is a reference document for many countries. This document, which has enabled them to learn about Quebec's approach to young offenders, has been translated into several languages.

I would have preferred to not have to read that, but I think it is important. It is important to try to convince my colleagues opposite that the motion I am moving this morning is not a futile one that I am tabling for fun. I sincerely want the people opposite to have an additional two weeks to think about this extremely important issue, and that is why I am asking you to postpone the clause-by-clause consideration until 9:30 a.m. on May 2, 2000. That extra time will enable you to familiarize yourself with what I just mentioned on delinquency, for example.

But this report has also raised some other important issues. I will not read them all, but I am going to read one that is important: is juvenile delinquency on the rise? The answer to this question in 1995 was more or less the same as the answer in the year 2000. Is juvenile delinquency on the rise in Quebec—, because the report deals with Quebec? I think we must answer that question before looking at whether we need to amend or repeal the Young Offenders Act. It says on page 10:

We often hear that juvenile delinquency continues to be on the rise. However, we do not have specific data to verify that statement.

The only data that will enable us to make a comparison over time are police force statistics. We cannot take for granted that this data provides an accurate picture of delinquency. Many victims do not lodge a complaint with the police, which means that many offences do not appear in official statistics.

People who say that we in Quebec are living in limbo and that we do not really know what is going on are wrong. We realize that statistics do not take into account people who have not lodged a complaint. We also know that the way our police officers deal with an offender is different from the approach used by police officers in other provinces. Moreover, since they are less likely to go through the courts, the statistics are also influenced by the approach that is advocated in Quebec. We are aware of that and also take it into account. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the statistics clearly show the opposite of what we often hear. The text continues as follows:

• 1645

In this respect, the victims' reactions may vary over time. Incidentally, when one wants to identify specifically those offences minors are responsible for... one must limit oneself only to those offences for which the police have identified a perpetrator, in other words, in the case of the Criminal Code, three offences out of ten that are reported to police.

Police statistics thus give us a picture; however, it's not that of “delinquency”, but rather that of the minority of delinquent acts citizens have complained of to police and for which the police have identified minors as the perpetrators.

We're far from the major crooks and criminals for whom Bill C- 3 seems to be so useful. I continue with my quote, on page 11:

These figures can be influenced by a number of factors: delinquency itself, of course, but also the number of police officers, the priorities and the efficacy of police forces in matters of investigation, the trust victims have in the possibility that an investigation will lead to results and so on.

The whole approach suggested in calculating delinquency is very important. You have to know reality to see whether Bill C-3 is a good Bill or not. When you look at the 1979 to 1993 statistics—it's too bad I don't have a big chart here, because I would have shown them to you—you can see, for the information of the people with me and listening to me religiously, that for offences against federal legislation where the police forces have identified the perpetrators, there are fewer and fewer young people having problems with the justice system. The curve shows just about the same trend as for adults although we should point out that the number of offences for which a minor was found to be the perpetrator is very much lower. In 1991, there was a slight increase in the ranks of both young persons and adults. In 1992, there was a slight increase in the number of young persons although there was a greater increase for adults.

You can see that it's not just the delinquency of young people that has increased radically, as some are trying to lead us to believe. We should also note that during this same period serious crimes were committed. Even the Department of Justice says I'm right. When you look at the document it published when the major amendments to the documentation on the Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons was announced, you'll see that even the Minister says we're right concerning the percentages of recidivism and young persons in trouble with the justice system. There's a decrease, Mr. Chairman, which is confirmed by the statistics the Department has compiled on the profile of young people appearing before youth courts.

In the Minister's document—and I get the impression that the people opposite don't have it—it says that of some 110,000 cases heard by the courts in 1996-97, 24% of the young people appearing were 17; 24% were 16; 22% were 15; 15% were 14; 8% were 13; and 3% were 12 years of age.

When you compare the crime rate with that of other years, you can see that it's not in free fall but it is decreasing, nonetheless. Even more surprising, Mr. Chairman, in the case of violent crime—the reason for which a bill like Bill C-3 is being presented—you can also see a decrease. And I'm not the one saying so, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice said so in the documents she gave us to justify the amendments. I think that she didn't notice that her statistics don't justify these changes, on the contrary. They confirm the Bloc Québécois' position which is that the Young Offenders Act should not be touched.

• 1650

If we look at the situation from coast to coast—and it is even more true in Quebec—we see that the crime rate is dropping in all provincial courts. And here we have a Bill to deal with serious crime, the rate of which is dropping as well.

Obviously, when a serious crime is committed by adolescents, it makes the headlines of a number of newspapers for three weeks. The media follow this young person from the time of the arrest with a bag over his head so that he won't be recognized, until he appears, very contritely, at the Court House for the first time. Then we see him with the police at various stages of the investigation. A new crime has not been committed every time we see the young person—we are still talking about the same crime.

If I had established these statistics, you might have some doubts, but they come from the Department of Justice and demonstrate beyond any doubt that the crime rate among young people is dropping. The rate of violent crime is dropping as well. How do these facts square with all these amendments?

I should eliminate the word “amendments” from my vocabulary. This is a new piece of legislation. And what is the justification for that when the statistics show that the crime rate is dropping? It makes no sense.

It is also been said that the Young Offenders Act is being amended because it is unclear. Oh boy! I don't know who drafted this Bill C-3, but it leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity. I would not describe it as “very clear”. When it takes about ten specialists to understand one clause, the situation is quite alarming. You need only look at the number of officials who come for the clause-by-clause study to realize that this is a very complicated Bill. Otherwise, one member of the opposition and one representative from the Department would be enough. Rather than that, a number of specialists in various fields will be coming to state that this is a good Bill and that it must be passed.

We will come back to the issue of clarity, which is an important point, because the Bill before us is far from clear. I would like the government members to reread the information provided by the minister when she announced her new approach, which is reflected in Bill C-3. I would like them to reread the information and all the briefs we received throughout our hearings.

If my motion is accepted, you will have two weeks to review all that material. I am quite sure that on May 2, we will try to find some time to do an in-depth study of the whole issue, because it is very important.

There is something else we should be doing to really understand the Young Offenders Act properly, and particularly to determine whether it deserves to be trashed in favour of a new bill with a different title and a very different approach. I'm referring to the protection of society. Paragraph, 3(1)(a) of the statement of principles in the current Young Offenders Act states:

(a) crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviour in the future;

We see, Mr. Chairman, that the Act that is currently in force, and which is called the Young Offenders Act, refers to the protection of society in paragraph 3(1)(a). This is not insignificant. It is quite important. Are we ensuring the protection of society by amending the Act as proposed or rather by introducing a new piece of legislation that would mean that young persons qualify to be tried in the criminal justice system? I don't think so.

• 1655

I will read you a quote, printed in bold letters, from page 15 of the report of the task force chaired by Judge Jasmin. I won't read it all, but it says:

Protecting society is at the heart of the measures taken pursuant to the Young Offenders Act. The youth justice system strives to meet these objectives primarily through education and rehabilitation.

That is good.

The youth justice system strives to meet these objectives primarily through education and rehabilitation.

To meet what objectives? The protection of society. Is that not an objective that should guide all of us, both Bloc members as well as Conservatives, both members of the Canadian Alliance as well as the NDP, or the Liberals? I think so. But society can be protected only if the Young Offenders Act is properly enforced.

When we say that in Quebec, we have the lowest youth crime rate, it means that we have met our objective to protect society. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, the youth crime rates would be higher.

It also says:

These measures must encourage a two-pronged integration process: young people must be integrated within the standards of a society that, in turn, must integrate these young people so that they will become responsible citizens.

In the example I gave earlier, Mr. Chairman, about the person I know who committed a double murder and who is today an ordinary citizen, we can see that the objective to protect society has been met. This individual is now a taxpayer, he has a child, everyone thinks he is a wonderful young man, who respects the law. He doesn't wear a sign that says that once a upon a time he made a mistake.

I think that society is much better protected when we re- educate, when we reintegrate and resocialize a young person who has made a mistake. Society is much better protected in doing that rather than incarcerating a young person for ten years, without giving him what he needs to become rehabilitated, without giving him psychological help, or help to adapt to society,... We don't know what kind of past the individual has had, we don't know what kind of family life he experienced, etc. We have to adapt the measures to the individual.

What I object to in this bill is that it attempts to provide a one-size-fits-all miracle solution. That is why the needs of young people are not addressed because there is an attempt to find a universal miracle solution. But it does not exist.

It isn't like a vending machine that contains data, and that would simply spit out a solution for a young person. Nothing is simple, Mr. Chairman, and that is what I want the members opposite to understand over the next two weeks. Yes, this whole matter of young offenders is complex. It's an extremely complex area because a whole host of elements come into play, all kinds of things, and people with various qualifications may become involved.

But a complex subject does not necessarily require complex legislation to solve the problem. I hope that over the next two weeks, people will come to some understanding of the issue. As regards protecting society, I think we have met that objective, Mr. Chairman.

In what I termed some useful comments to help understand the Young Offenders Act, and even in the approach taken by Bill C-3 that we have before us, the offence is a central issue. It has been examined.

I am moving through this rather quickly because the document that I would really like you to read, over the next two weeks, is quite complex. We can revisit this on Tuesday, May 2, before adopting anything. We will then see whether you would like extra time to study the issue. You will understand that I would be very open to that approach.

• 1700

With respect to the offence, it says on page 17:

@ti The nature of the sentence must allow for the setting of reference points within which educative and rehabilitative measures must be chosen and carried out.

For each of the subjects studied by the judge and his group, we always find the same main points, that is, educative and rehabilitative measures. The needs of the young person always come first. That is the new way of looking at it. I understand that some members who have never examined the issue might think that I am some kind of alien from outer space because of what I am saying this afternoon and they probably feel, deep down inside, that Bellehumeur is wasting their time.

However, when I defend Quebec, when I defend all of those who have appeared before the committee to help the Minister understand that she is on the wrong track, when I do my job as a member of Parliament for Quebec, someone who strongly feels that the federal government is ignoring the Quebec approach, then I am not wasting the time of the committee members. I tell you, in all sincerity, that I believe that I am doing the work that the people of Quebec are expecting me to do.

I would ask the members who seem to think that I am wasting my time to organize a debate in Quebec on the Young Offenders Act and Bill C-3, in any Quebec venue. You can decide. I am sure that you will see that what I am defending today is the Quebec approach. I hope that after today, you will understand that you are on the wrong track and you will vote in favour of my motion. We will have two weeks to think about it, after which you can go to see the Minister of Justice to tell her that this makes no sense, that Bellehumeur is right, that we can't adopt Bill C-3 which goes against what is being done in Quebec. We must turn around and go back.

This morning, Mr. Chairman, when I began to speak, I had nothing planned and I didn't want to go into a lengthy explanation as I have done, because I felt that it would be useless.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers has a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I simply want to say that I'm very impressed by the speech that Mr. Bellehumeur is making, so much so that I am prepared to support his motion and grant him the two weeks that he is requesting, as long as he undertakes to allow us to proceed to the clause-by-clause study of the bill on May 2. He is asking us to give him two weeks. I undertake to read the report that he is quoting from. I am prepared to support his motion.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I think that Mr. Saada said something similar a while ago, something which is quite legitimate and something that I understand. However, you will no doubt agree that anything can happen in two weeks.

I believe there might be contacts between the coalition, the people of Quebec, the judiciary, or others, and I can't guarantee what will happen on Tuesday, May 2, Mr. Chairman. Something else might happen. Maybe you, Liberal members, will ask for time to study the entire issue. I think we will all agree on this, because it's a very important topic.

It is important if for nothing else but the amendments. How much time did it take to draft them following the appearance by the Minister of Justice, without accounting for everyone's time, the time spent by hundreds of lawyers working for the department. They drafted the amendments that were submitted to us. Do you really think that those who appeared before the committee took the time to read, scrutinize and analyse all of the amendments and their effects on Bill C-3?

Within the next two weeks, I am sure that I will be in touch with those who have appeared before the committee. That will no doubt also be the case for some people from the Liberal Party. Can I promise today to do something on May 2, without knowing in advance what those people will have to say? I can't do that, and quite honestly, you can't either.

• 1705

What we can do, if you want to adjourn the meeting today, is to reconvene on Tuesday, May 2, 2000. At that time we will see if someone, somewhere, has enlightened us. We will see if there is a different approach or if something remains to be done, if all our homework has been completed.

I wanted to quote a number of excerpts from important briefs that confirm the approach I have been advocating for some time now. So be it! If you tell me to stop today, that you will vote in favour of my motion and that we will reconvene on May 2, that's great. We will see each other again on May 2. But I can't promise you that on May 2, all will be well and we can begin the clause-by- clause study. By that time, I am sure I will have received comments from people who have appeared here. I'm convinced that there are people who are closely following what is happening here. It's much too important.

Mr. DeVillers, would you like to vote in favour of my motion, after hearing my comments?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Only if you undertake to allow us to proceed to the clause-by-clause study on May 2.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This Tuesday?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: May 2.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. I can't commit to May 2.

We must continue. I'm ready. There is no problem. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will continue. We were dealing with the offence. I said that all of the stages are very important, etc.

We can read, on page 17:

The nature of the offence must allow for reference points within which educational and rehabilitative measures must be chosen and carried out.

Once again, education and rehabilitation are mentioned. Our theme, our ultimate objective is to resocialize young people.

It says:

It is after an alleged offence is committed that the legal process comes into play. The offence is the starting point and must always be the main reason for the interventions.

Some provisions of the Young Offenders Act explicitly state that the severity of the offences represents a criterion for limiting the court's decisions. That is basically how the Supreme Court of Canada expressed its position on the issue...

We haven't paid much attention to the decisions and case law from the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Chairman, since we began studying the Young Offenders Act. Nevertheless, I would say that the Court did a terrific job in its interpretation, in its approach, and in its understanding of the objectives and the means required to meet the objectives of the Young Offenders Act.

We don't deal with that very often, but it's important. I'm sure that if my colleagues opposite, the Liberal members, had before them a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on, among other things, the declaration of principle, the objectives of the Act and the way in which it is enforced in Quebec or in other provinces, they would better appreciate the Quebec approach.

With respect to the offence, I would like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada in R.vs.M., in 1993, volume 2 of the Supreme Court reports, page 421, and more specifically, the paragraph that I will quote can be found on pages 431 and 432:

It is true that, for adults as well as minors, the penalty must be proportional to the offence committed. But the principle of proportionality is more important in sentencing adult offenders than it is in the case of young offenders. For young people, an appropriate decision must take into account not only the severity of the offence but also other relevant factors.

I think you know where I am heading. When Bill C-3 deals with proportionality as a main principle, we don't need that type of text, because according to the Young Offenders Act, according to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, that is something that can be taken into consideration. I should say, rather, that it is something that must be taken into consideration, in keeping with a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

• 1710

Do we need a new act to do that, Mr. Chairman? No, we don't need a new act. That is why I continue by saying:

There is no question of basing the decision on an automatic application of a “tariff” according to which a given offence would result in a given penalty.

That is what the bill is seeking and that is, in my opinion, something that we would be blamed for if we were to do it because of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

Such a position would go against what was said by the Supreme Court. The degree of intervention must be based on the severity of the offence.

Yes, it is important to consider the severity of the offence, but that isn't the main criterion for determining the sentence. There are things that can be considered with the present Young Offenders Act. That's what I want the Liberal members opposite to understand.

We must set out guidelines to determine the intervention according to the severity of the offence. In that way, we preserve the link between the offence and the steps that will be taken. These steps may appear fair and equitable, in a way that will be understood by the young person involved.

If we want the young person to understand what is happening, then he or she must first of all understand the Act and the reason why he or she has come before the court. The young person must above all be able to establish a relationship between the offence that was committed and the sentence that will be served. I am not sure that Bill C-3 will allow this to be done quickly and clearly, Mr. Chairman.

There is something in here that I find appropriate, when I think of the Liberals who will have to vote each individual clause, and that applies to the proportionality of the sentence. It is mentioned in this document:

For many people, proportionality is related to the sentence: the penalty applies in proportion to the severity of the offence. That is no doubt how it was introduced in criminal law. This process seems rather narrow, however, when it applies to young people. Punishment alone is not an objective for youth justice. We want the penalty to have an educational value...

I hope that you truly understand. Even with respect to the relationship between the offence and the sentence, we want the sentence to have an educational value, to help young people to fit into society so as to better protect society. All of this is closely related, it is all closely related in the Quebec approach. That's what I would like you to understand, over the next two weeks, if you vote in favour of the motion to reconvene May 2 with more information before proceeding to the clause-by-clause study. We will see on May 2 if everything has been understood, we will see, at that time, whether more has to be explained, Mr. Chairman.

Indeed this is what we are hoping. By stating that the degree of intervention—we are not saying degree of punishment—...

You see that the language used, Mr. Chairman, is very different in the Quebec approach as compared to what we have in the bill before us. You see, they used to use the word “infliger”, inflict, in French; that was serious. Now they talk about imposing. But that changes neither the approach nor the paragraph in which the term “inflict” was used in relation to a sentence.

In stating that the degree of intervention—we are not saying the degree of punishment—must be set out according to the seriousness of the offence, what we mean is that, in the context of what is determined, the justice system must seek the protection of society, inasmuch as possible, through educative measures intended to help young people adapt.

This starting point is extremely important. That is the reason why that particular chapter was entitled “Some useful comments on the Young Offenders Act”, before even studying the basic elements, before even going any further, before even seeking to determine whether or not amendments should be brought to the Young Offenders Act. We had to see, Mr. Chairman, what it was all about and if the great declaration of principles and the objectives of the Young Offenders Act had been properly addressed.

• 1715

Since this is so important, I will continue, Mr. Chairman. There is another paragraph. I really think the Minister should read this chapter. It says:

In view of the serious nature of the offence, it gives people more confidence in the justice system, whether they be victims or other citizens. It prevents possible abuse, which means that, if a young person found guilty of a minor offence has certain needs, an excessive sentence will be imposed.

You see, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing once again with needs. That is what should always guide us: the needs of the young person. And we will end up protecting society.

This better ensures the legitimacy of the measures that are imposed, that is to say, their fair, equitable, and reasonable nature, particularly for the young people involved and for their relatives.

We must also take into account the interests of the young person and of his or her relatives.

The research undertaken over the past few decades has shed light on the fact that, when a young person is sentenced, there is no guarantee that the measure taken will protect society by adequately preventing recidivism.

One of the objectives of the Young Offenders Act is to prevent repeat offences. We must attempt to reintegrate the young person, so that he or she will become resocialized, an ordinary citizen. And why do we want this young person to become an anonymous citizen? Because we don't want him to re-offend. In order to do that, since everything is tied together, once he has been given a sentence, we must ensure, even at that level, that the needs of the individual are met so that, when all is said and done, the young person will not necessarily re-offend.

In resorting to the seriousness of the offence to justify the degree of intervention, the legitimacy of this intervention becomes much more solid than it would be if an uncertain objective were sought.

The seriousness of the offence allows us to situate the intervention within a given “corridor”. Within these reference points, the choice of the nature and length of the intervention must be individualized so as to respond to the needs of the young person as well as the victim and to protect society.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that you are aware of the enormous gulf separating Bill C-3, that we have before us, and the Young Offenders Act. Both pieces of legislation do not necessarily share the same desirable objectives. And yet, once again, we have achieved good results in Quebec. Don't touch the Young Offenders Act; that isn't where the problem lies, Mr. Chairman.

As to the sentencing provisions in Bill C-3, the Minister told us, when she appeared before the committee, that these things already apply with the Young Offenders Act. That is stated quite clearly in the document. After having studied the entire matter at length, they stated that the seriousness of the offence allowed for the establishment of a “corridor”.

The seriousness is taken into account at the present time. It is taken into account. The seriousness of the offence is considered in establishing a type of corridor within which a young person is sentenced.

... in the “corridor” within which the intervention must be located. Within these predetermined reference points, the nature and the length of the intervention must be individualized...

This isn't a case of one-size-fits-all. That's what the bill is seeking to do with all of its amendments, all of its extra-judicial sanctions, and its very repressive approach.

The members opposite must realize this before we proceed to the clause-by-clause adoption of the bill. We have to at least examine these issues when we vote clause-by-clause, Mr. Chairman. That is what my motion is intended to do. We don't want to proceed to the clause-by-clause adoption immediately, without having taken all of those facts into account. It's extremely important.

• 1720

I will continue with this chapter. I'm almost finished. I don't want to create false hopes.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur, I'm certain you're as interested in exercising your franchise as we are. Understanding that you have the floor, I would propose that we adjourn the meeting and make our way to vote, and we'll be back tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: At 3:30 p.m.

[English]

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.