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]

Wednesday, April 12, 2000

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. We're presently in consideration of Bill C-3.

The chair recognizes Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Just a moment, please.

[English]

I'd like to also recognize in the room today members of the Forum for Young Canadians. The one waving is from New Brunswick. Hello. Mr. Bellehumeur, I'm sure, will take the opportunity to illuminate you on exactly what's going on here.

With that subtle suggestion, I turn the floor to Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Well, the fact is that since yesterday we've been discussing an extremely important motion that was tabled within the prescribed time period and which is worded as follows:

That the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, entitled 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. Chairman, I table this motion to give government and opposition members time to study the issue in greater depth before beginning the clause-by-clause study of the bill. As everyone knows, the bill is extremely complex, particularly as the result of some of the amendments tabled by the government.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I spoke on this motion for close to five hours, and I was surprised to see that some members were still present to ask me questions at the end. That shows that what I am doing today is relevant and must be done. We have never taken the time to do it, Mr. Chairman. One member asked me to give him a quick history of the Young Offenders Act and to tell him why Quebec was so set on keeping it.

I invited him to read the document that I have so far just managed to touch on since yesterday. The report was written by a task force chaired by the Assistant Chief Justice of the Quebec Youth Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Jasmin, who studied the whole issue of young offenders, which has many facets. We cannot consider just the legal aspect or the point of view of the federal Parliament in the case of legislation that will be enforced by the provinces. A series of steps have been taken by the province, Mr. Chairman.

The NDP member asked me an excellent, highly relevant question. Why is Quebec so set on keeping the Young Offenders Act, Mr. Chairman? The reason is that the Act is based on a long history. It is the result of a number of years of evolution. The Act has had different titles, Mr. Chairman.

We know that the Young Offenders Act was passed in 1982. It did not come into effect until two years later. Initially, it was not exactly the same as the legislation it later became. There were changes made to it, as we all know. But it first came into force in 1984 under the title of the Young Offenders Act.

The Act has evolved since that time, and we now have the YOA in its present form. In order to understand the Young Offenders Act, we have to understand its history. Clearly, if a member asks me the question, if he had the honesty to ask me the question, that must mean that people do not know the answer.

Are we going to begin the clause-by-clause study of an important bill that will surely change a system that is working well and that has proved its worth in Quebec and elsewhere? Are we going to do the clause-by-clause study of such a bill without knowing the background? I hope not.

As a result of my motion, today I'm going to try to sketch the history of the Act to prove to you that it is important. I hope my comments will make you want to know more about the Act and its history.

Do you know when the first steps were taken toward having a special law for young delinquents in Canada? I'm sure the people from the department know. I'm not so sure that the government members know, however. The first reference to juvenile delinquents was in 1857 and it meant young people in trouble with the Canadian justice system.

• 1545

So a law was passed, namely the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which established the basis of a justice system for minors that developed over the years, more specifically during the 20th century. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed in 1908, and it provided for the creation of courts for minors. The judges in these courts were paternal and kind and, with the assistance of probation officers, dispensed justice in which consideration for the child's interests seemed to be the best way of protecting society.

Mr. Chairman, it was in 1908 that we started to realize that we had to deal with young people and problems of delinquency. Why? To protect society. That is nothing new. This is something we need to know when we are preparing for the clause-by-clause study of the bill. And I trust we never get to that stage. I hope I will convince you in the minutes and hours ahead to never pass this bill, and particularly, to take the time to study it carefully. People started to take an interest in this issue as early as 1908, with the specific objective of protecting society.

This was also the first time that the young person's responsibility was downplayed, and emphasis was placed on the fact that he needed treatment. This is most important. I think it has probably been forgotten, if not completely omitted in the bill we have before us. We must consider a child as having received poor guidance, in need of assistance, encouragement and support. That is how the young person was seen at the time. His liability was downplayed, and the focus was that he had received poor guidance and needed assistance, encouragement and support.

I am sure I will surprise the Liberal members from Ontario. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, which province was the first to call for setting aside the young person's liability and stressing rather his rehabilitation? Do you know which province was the first to see that a child who had done something wrong had received poor guidance and needed assistance, encouragement and support? Do you know which province called for that first? It was Ontario, Mr. Chairman. It was Ontario, acting in accordance with its way of seeing things at the time. We have to go back to 1908 and the years following. At the time, there was a call to provide more support for children. That came particularly from the Ontario ministry responsible for child protection in those days.

Times have changed. Today, the Mike Harris government and the Liberal members of Parliament from Ontario, who make up almost 100% of all Ontario MPs in the House of Commons, are calling for repressive, regressive legislation that will convict people... It was worse: the French version used the verb infliger (inflict) with reference to the sentences given to young people in difficulty with the criminal justice system.

I know that one of the proposed amendments is to change the verb infliger to imposer. However, the initial text has not been amended. I'm sure that there are some linguists, some people who study semantics in this department, who know very well that changing one word does not change the meaning and scope of the other words.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, the Juvenile Delinquents Act was gradually implemented in Quebec and Canada as districts could establish what were known as juvenile courts at the time.

I am a lawyer by training, Mr. Chairman. I remember in my arguments in adult court and youth court quoting decisions from the juvenile court. Our experience with young people goes back a long way, we have been working with them and we have developed over the years a very solid case law that reads very well.

• 1550

In Quebec, this court was responsible for enforcing the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Act concerning industrial schools. This goes back to 1910 or 1912. The Quebec members know what I am talking about. Little by little, we built the system for which we have to fight today to prevent the federal government from introducing legislation that would undermine the extremely important foundations we have established in Quebec through our hard work.

The Quebec members of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice appeared before the committee one after the other. That was the message they gave us, and clearly, it was not understood. As recently as noon hour today, Mr. Chairman, I saw Mr. Jacques Saada on a television program. Listening to him, it seemed to me that even though the people from the Coalition told me that they had met with him, he understood nothing of their message. He was not defending the interests of the Coalition.

In fact, Mr. Pierre Lamarche, president of the Coalition, was discussing the situation with him and explained Quebec's position. It is all very well for him to laugh, but when he defends Bill C-3, which deals with something so fundamental, he is not defending Quebec's interests. This bill deals with something on which there is a consensus in Quebec. Did you forget that, Mr. Saada, when you spoke on television?

The Chair: Point of order.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—Laprairie, Lib.): I will just point out that it would be more decent of you to refrain from talking about me when I do not have the right to reply.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I will be a good sport, Mr. Chairman, and try to address my remarks to you. I will refrain from naming certain members of Parliament who defended their party's position on this issue. I will play fair, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, with all the practice, I'm sure you've figured out how to do this.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is correct. I will continue, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me.

So before this diversion, I was saying that Quebec enforced the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which was a federal law, designed by the federal government. However, we also had the Act concerning industrial schools to enforce. The thinking was that something should be done in the schools. That was beginning in 1908 and in the years following, Mr. Chairman.

Over time, the juvenile court became the social welfare court. Why social welfare? Because Quebec had established another ministry, Health and Social Services. Things continued to change gradually in Quebec, and finally youth courts were established. That was at the time I started practicing law, Mr. Chairman.

Later on, Quebec gradually developed a special law dealing with juvenile delinquents, because we wanted a court that was specialized in such cases only. Specialists in social or economic matters could intervene as regards institutions for the rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person. Police officers and all sorts of other specialists could be involved. It was given the name that is still used today, the Youth Court of the Quebec Court.

There was another change as well. Since the focus was to involve the government more and more in the young person's needs—always with the objective of protecting society—a new piece of legislation was introduced. The Act concerning industrial schools was amended to become the Youth Protection Act, a title we are still using today.

That was how it evolved during all those years. This evolution was driven, if I may say so, by the results obtained by the administration of that legislation and especially by the results we were getting in Quebec. We could see that each dollar invested in our children was one dollar less to pay elsewhere, to police services or in the concrete needed to build youth detention centres or in social aid and all kinds of other things. We saw that investing in our youth was a paying proposition and especially that the Young Offenders Act was quietly entailing certain obligations.

• 1555

Mr. Chairman, did you know that in 1961 a committee like ours examined this whole matter? A fellow named MacLeod was asked to examine this whole matter. He wrote an excellent report where I found very interesting passages when I read it. For those people who would like to consult this report during the two-week moratorium I'm asking for before we go into clause-by-clause, I'll point out that this is a justice department report entitled Juvenile Delinquency in Canada: The Report of the Department of Justice Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1965, better known as the MacLeod report.

After the publication of that report, Mr. Chairman, an attempt was made to change the law to make it progress. At that time also, the MacLeod report had already looked at what was being done in the provinces, including Quebec, and already, in reading this report, you can see that the Quebec approach had surpassed Ontario's desire to intervene with youth in taking steps to protect society.

You only have to read the MacLeod report to see that. Quebec quickly understood and decided to invest quickly to protect society so that during the 70s, a bill was tabled. That was Bill C-192 on delinquent youth, which also struck down the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. The first reading took place on November 16, 1970. It didn't go far. There was no agreement. All kinds of things happened, two successive governments took power in Ottawa and the legislative intent was pushed back and finally the young offenders bill was tabled almost a decade later, in 1981, and it was passed in 1982.

However, during that period, Quebec didn't twiddle its thumbs and wonder what to do with its youth. Extremely important bases were established that we can use today. A lot of money and a lot of energy were invested in the administration of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and, since 1982 and even more intensively, in the fair and equitable administration of the Young Offenders Act, as should be done, Mr. Chairman.

I would invite the members across the room, once again, as well as the members of the opposition parties, during those extra two weeks they have before Tuesday, May 2, as I am requesting in my motion, the one we are addressing today, to reread the declaration of principle in the Young Offenders Act and tell me after that where this is to be found in Bill C-3. The declaration of principle that you have in paragraph 3(1) of the present Act is extremely important. As I was saying yesterday, it took about a decade for the Supreme Court of Canada to really set down major guidelines and establish a narrow path for the administration of the Young Offenders Act.

I'll read an important paragraph to you.

Mr. Chairman, could you tell me if we have a quorum? What I'm going to read is extremely important.

[English]

The Chair: Eight.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. I'd like us to have a quorum because what I'm going to be reading is very important.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Grose has just left the room.

• 1600

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We'll wait. We'll wait.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how long we'll be waiting but if we don't have a quorum we're going to have to adjourn the meeting.

[English]

The Chair: I'm prepared to suspend until we get quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: How long will we suspend the meeting for, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: We will suspend until Mr. Grose comes back.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: How long, did you say?

[English]

The Chair: Until Mr. Grose returns.

• 1601

• 1604

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. The chair recognizes Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

One moment, please. There's a point of order.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would simply like the record to show that the Liberal representation around this table is higher by half than the delegation provided for and this isn't necessarily the case for all opposition parties.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'd like the record to show that the Liberals are walking around a lot. They're doing all kinds of things except listen to what is going on here.

Okay, let's carry on.

So, Mr. Chairman, I had reached an extremely important point. I was saying that after the MacLeod report, things were done in Quebec. We continued to make the law progress and we especially continued to administer the Young Offenders Act in such a way as to protect society but also with a view to what we could do for the young people. There were all kinds of things. This was the time of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec and everything had to be done all over again. Actually, we had to see what we could improve in just about every area including the whole matter of youth and justice.

• 1605

It is during this period, and during the 70s that we brought in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms with some provisions for justice in general, but also for youth. It evolved progressively. Many departments determined what they could do for youth, to increase safety for the public, for reintegration and for rehabilitation. In parallel, at the federal level, after general elections and some discussion, the bill on young offenders was tabled in 1981, passed in 1982, and became the law of the land on April 2, 1984.

At that time, Quebec was very happy with the Young Offenders Act. It was very happy with its drafting in 1981-82 and its coming into force in 1984. Why? Because the Young Offenders Act corresponded to what was actually being done in Quebec. Meat was being put on the bone, on the Quebec structure, and, in a manner of speaking, it was hoped that this would then be implemented all across Canada.

One of our guarantees in Quebec was the declaration of principle that is found in paragraph 3(1) of the Young Offenders Act. I understand that the Young Offenders Act of the year 2000, that we have today, that is still in force and which, I hope, will remain so—at least in Quebec—has undergone some changes. Everyone knows that. But they weren't fundamental changes. They weren't changes that modified the whole declaration of principle or changed the orientation of the legislation and, in fact, actually changed its enforcement, Mr. Chairman.

The declaration of principle found in paragraph 3(1) is very important. I'm sure there are not many members around the table here who know that clause. I'll only read three little excerpts and during the two weeks' delay I'm asking you to grant us before we go into clause-by-clause, I'm sure that you will go and read the Young Offenders Act to determine whether you would be able, in all conscience, to pass the changes in Bill C-3. Paragraph 3(1)a.1) which was added over the years, states:

a.1) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions;

Where can we find anything like that in the bill we are examining, Mr. Chairman?

3(1)(c) states:

c) young persons who commit offences require supervision, discipline and control, but, because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs and require guidance and assistance;

Where can we find anything like that in Bill C-3? We will see that the Minister finally tabled amendments, but we will also see that they were subordinate to all kinds of other conditions that don't exist at the present time in the Young Offenders Act. I dare hope that the members will confront the two texts, that they will verify what there is in the Young Offenders Act as compared to what there is in Bill C-3, that they will see that there really is a difference and that when we finally undertake clause-by-clause, they will know what they are voting on.

• 1610

Mr. Chairman, clause 3(1)c.1) states:

c.1) the protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible, of young persons who commit offences, and rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young person's offending behaviour;

You can see that the Young Offenders Act is centred on the young person, on the young person's needs and only after that does it address imposing penalties, imposing certain forms of treatment or putting the young person in contact with the specialists or the social experts he needs. Under the Young Offenders Act, you concentrate on the needs and not on the offence. How is public safety enhanced by treating the cases the way the department is proposing? You evaluate the offence, determine its seriousness and try to find something proportional: you did something wrong, we're going to hurt you too. You committed an offence so we're going to publish your name and brand you with a red hot iron. To what purpose? How will this serve to protect the public any better? Besides, under the Young Offenders Act, you look at the child's needs. Often, we're dealing with children and teenagers, people who have no families and who have had a hard life.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I stumbled upon—I hope I have it here, here it is—a most interesting text called Juvenile Justice: Winning the Race. Of course there are parts where God is mentioned and you'll understand why when I tell you who wrote it. I'm a believer, but perhaps not as much a believer as the individual who wrote this text. So I can't support it totally. But when he talks about young people in the new millennium, it's really a good evaluation of what is actually happening right now. An American wrote this during the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. It was a fantastic speech. I found it so good that when I listened to the cassette I got the paper copy that I can send you if you wish. This is what he said about young people, Mr. Chairman:

But the young people who have no existential philosophy, whose conception of life is rather materialistic and down-to-earth, who don't know that behind the scene and beyond the present situation you have eternity and the absolute, a factor that must be taken into account and gives a meaning to life, will be content with living always for the present instant, carried along by elementary motivation.

Before that he was talking about family. Finally, he said that this is the first time this happens, that we're the first generation like this. He says:

In truth, this is the first generation of children and youth in history whose existential vision is more restricted than that of the preceding generation.

That's the first time we have this kind of generation. He even says something about orphans with parents. This text was written by an American, a Baptist pastor. He often refers to God, but he does have a sound perception of today's reality, of what exists and what is done, and he has an especially good grasp of the problems young people face in American society and even in Canadian society, because we're very Americanized; you just have to walk around our streets to see this. He says that we're one of the first generations of orphans despite the presence of one or even both parents. To my mind, society is partly to blame.

It's like the chicken and egg situation: where does it start, where does it finish? I think we'd understood that full well when the Young Offenders Act was passed in 1982 and came into force on April 2, 1984, because the whole matter of crime prevention, protection of society, accountability for the young person and the importance of understanding the consequences of one's actions was very well focussed. Maturity was addressed very well. It said that you can't compare a young person to an adult. Finally, Mr. Chairman, there were two distinct systems set up: one for adults and one for young offenders, teenagers, that is unfortunately not found in Bill C-3.

• 1615

This isn't just a big bad separatist saying it. It's not just a member of Parliament from the Bloc Québécois saying it. We've heard many witnesses say this. All the members of the Coalition have said it. The judges also said it. One of the three major criticisms against Bill C-3 is that after the bill passes no more distinction will be made between the system for adults and the system for adolescents.

I hope that the NDP member will be reading what I said today in order to understand how all this has evolved. Amongst other things, Mr. Chairman, he will understand why Quebec is fighting so hard to keep the Young Offenders Act. It is precisely because there is an extremely important history behind all this.

Despite the fact that we've invested, despite the fact that we've adequately implemented the legislation, despite the fact that many departments have intervened, despite the fact that there was a slew of National Assembly committees that were set up to study this problem to try to invest more where it's needed, despite all we did during all those years, we set up a committee chaired by Justice Michel Jasmin to answer a question. And this question, Mr. Chairman, was raised again before this committee by the same justice whose terms of reference were given him by the National Assembly.

I'm not an historian, but I like things to be clear. Once again, I would remind those who weren't there that when Justice Michel Jasmin was given his terms of reference, it wasn't the PQ that was in power in Quebec City, it was the Liberal Party. However, when the report was tabled in 1995, the government had changed in Quebec City; at that time, Jacques Parizeau's government was in power. But that doesn't change anything in this whole matter of young offenders.

At the time, in the 90s, there was consensus and unanimity. You still have that consensus and unanimity in Quebec. I'll come back to that later when I talk about the debate that went on in the National Assembly. I'll remind you about it just so you'll read all that during the two-week Easter break and you'll be better informed when you come back and when we look at this matter again next May 2.

Justice Jasmin, the one who is mandated by the Government of Quebec, came here as a witness. He put the same question exactly again, or rather, the question that he would have liked the federal legislators that we are—the House of Commons is the federal legislator—to put to all those who administer the Young Offenders Act in the other provinces. This question is the one that you will find in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights record of the proceedings of the meeting that was held on February 22, 2000, on page 26. It was 4:56 p.m. when the Judge put this question:

You're not addressing the real problem, then.

He said that to the members of the committee, all those who were around the table: you're picking up the baby by the wrong end. Anyway, that's how the Quebec expression translates.

If I were the federal legislator, I would suspend my bill for the time being...

He is not saying to do nothing more concerning the Young Offenders Act. He is not saying not to touch it. He is saying:

If I were the federal legislator, I would suspend my bill for the time being and I'd ask the provinces how they administer the present Act and what youth policies they have.

• 1620

That's where you have to start. You can't try to solve problems that you imagine exist or try to solve problems that you've created.

I think the government across the room has created some problems. Maybe they were helped by English-Canada's right wing. When you overemphasize situations involving young people, it's clear that you start creating the circumstances which mean that everyone thinks that the young offender situation is most serious.

It only takes one case and they're talking about it from one end of the country to the other. Of course it's horrible. Of course it should never exist, but there are certain things that unfortunately do exist.

So before touching the Young Offenders Act, we should first ask the provinces how they administer it and what their youth policies are, assuming they have any.

Despite everything we've been doing in Quebec for years, since 1908, the Liberal government, in the National Assembly, in the 90s, gave a committee the mandate to study two questions which were: "How do we administer the Young Offenders Act here? Do we have any youth policies?"

In answer to both of those questions, the task force on the Young Offenders Act submitted a report titled Young Offenders: In the Name of the Law and Beyond. Those questions were put to everyone who was part of the process from the commission of the offence until the youth was set free after going through all the steps and the whole system, after having had a file made up, an appearance, a trial, a sentence, a penalty, a stay in a half-way house and so on. These are the questions that were asked: "How do you administer the Young Offenders Act? What are our youth policies?"

They went to see the police officers and they were asked: what do you do when you arrest a 12-year old who's just done something wrong? How do you treat him? What questions do you ask? Where do you take him? What do you do with him?

The same was done with the social workers. The same thing was done with the different departments. We did that for our own system even though we know we enforce the legislation and that we invest a lot of money in it. We looked at the question although we know there are provinces who don't enforce the legislation at all, or who do so very badly.

You are going to change the law to please them and you won't even take the time to ask them how they administer the Young Offenders Act right now, how they administer it on a day-to-day basis and whether they have youth policies for their young people who are having problems with the justice system.

But of course not. You want to please a certain category of voters and try to go and play on the same rink as another political party. It is so easy to play politics on the backs of our youth and it is so easy to sell in western Canada that you're going to change the legislation without even asking a single question. Now, you are the ones with the chequebook. You made the cheques. You gave the money for the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act. I'll never repeat often enough that you owe $77 million to Quebec because in Quebec the legislation is being enforced. Everyone knows that in Quebec that law is enforced.

We have even had ministers of Justice who, since I've been an MP, since 1993, have recognized that in Quebec it is properly implemented and it's even a model to be followed. They have recognized that the existing program does not favour Quebec because we're enforcing it and we're investing in our young people rather than investing in bricks and mortar. The way the program is designed, it's more generous for a province building jails and buildings to throw young people behind bars than to invest in people and try to reintegrate and rehabilitate them. And that is the naked truth.

• 1625

Despite all that, Mr. Chairman, we did dissect the whole experience to see if it were possible to improve even further the administration of the Young Offenders Act and all the links in the chain, the chain being all the steps in the justice system for the young offenders. Could the system be improved?

There was a report, Mr. Chairman. Quebec wrote a report which was tabled in 1995 and given to the Minister of Justice of the day, Paul Bégin, and the Minister of Health and Social Services who, at the time, was Jean Rochon.

As to the enforcement of the Act, what were the conclusions? You can find the conclusions that were drawn in those three little lines on page 5:

The work we have done over the last two and a half years...

It took two and a half years to examine the whole question in Quebec, to question the stakeholders and all the people administering the Young Offenders Act on a day-to-day basis and whose duty is to work with the young offender in question to reintegrate and rehabilitate him, to make that young person into a citizen like all the others. They studied the matter for two and a half years. And they say:

...has convinced us that the Young Offenders Act is a good piece of legislation. We were, in fact, struck by the consensus existing in the different Quebec areas of intervention on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, two years after the writing of that report, published in 1995, it was seen that there were still a lot of things to do and that they should continue doing them. Have any other provinces questioned themselves to that extent, Mr. Chairman? Please tell me. I may be wrong. I've read a lot of things, but I must admit that no one can do more than what he can do, and there may be things that I do not know.

Did Alberta ever do that kind of study? Are there any important conclusions I should be told about? Please tell me. It would be a pleasure for me to read them during the coming two weeks in order to be ready on May the second when we start clause-by- clause, if my motion is accepted. However, I think not. I think not.

In Quebec, we looked at these matters, Mr. Chairman. I invite the members, before passing Bill C-3 clause by clause, to read these useful thoughts that the members across the way should consider before voting on each one of the clauses in Bill C-3.

In Quebec, Mister Chairman, we have examined the entire issue of delinquency. The Jasmin report concludes as follows:

Juvenile delinquency is a troubling phenomenon that must be taken seriously. However, we must look at it realistically, without dramatizing it as is too often the case. In order for policies and practices to be adequate, they must be based on a fair appraisal of the problem they're designed to address.

For most young people, committing a crime is an opportunity to test and to internalize social norms: the way that their entourage and society reacts helps them to integrate the norms they have transgressed and teaches them to abide by the law. We could not say that this phenomenon is abnormal.

The problem is different for the minority of young people who, to varying degrees, become more involved in criminal activity. These are usually the ones requiring police, social and legal intervention.

Mr. Chairman, very significant aspects of delinquency became apparent, even in Quebec, further to all the work that was done. Important conclusions were reached.

• 1630

Young people who commit crimes are in the minority. This is a problem that pertains to a minority of young people, to varying degrees, Mr. Chairman.

Today we wonder whether or not all of these aspects of delinquency were taken into account when the Minister's bill was drafted. Should we be viewing teen delinquency as a phenomenon that is necessarily abnormal, particularly amongst boys, Mr. Chairman?

Various studies on self-declared delinquency reveal that 90% of young people annually commit acts that could result in their appearance before a youth court. We know that, but we also know that if they are caught in time, if we set in motion all kinds of measures to predict and prevent such activities...

These studies indicate that such measures do exist, that there are some things that we can do, Mr. Chairman, to eliminate delinquency as much as possible, and especially its consequences. In 1995, we were asked a question and we gave an answer which, today, shows that we were right. Is juvenile delinquency on the rise? In 1995, we had statistics. When Bill C-3 was tabled by the Minister, we had other statistics.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the Minister views her work the same way I do. Personally, I intervene in a file or in a sector when I know that it is important to do so, when I know that I am meeting a need, Mr. Chairman. When confronted with a tougher piece of youth legislation, legislation that is trying to control youth crime through radical means, I interpret this to mean that there is, in all likelihood, a rise in youth crime and that the Minister is trying to meet an extremely important need. Perhaps I am living in a glass bubble in Quebec, because this is not what I see happening.

I have here the technical information that the Minister tabled along with Bill C-3. I think that she probably made an error because she does not appear to have seen the contradiction that exists between her bill and the statistics that she herself provided and quoted.

What about the crime rate amongst Canada's youth? This is something that the members opposite should bear in mind when we move to clause-by-clause. I hope that they will take the time to read the statistics carefully during the two-week Easter break.

Listen carefully to what is said about the youth crime rate in Canada:

Across Canada in rural and urban neighbourhoods, the overall youth crime rate is declining. Between 1990 and 1991, the charge rate for young people dropped from 643 to 495 per 10,000 youth in the population, a 23% decrease.

Could the officials from the department tell me whether or not what I'm saying is accurate? Am I quoting the Minister correctly?

The decrease was mostly in property crimes. The rate of young people charged with violent crimes...

This area is what we want to focus on and one where we feel the need to intervene, because violent crimes are intolerable and there will always be too many. But is the timing right? Does that justify intervening right now? Let's take a look at the statistics.

The rate of young people charged with violent crimes increased over this same period from 83 to 91 per 10,000 youth. However, since peaking in 1995, the charge rate for violent crimes amongst youth has decreased by 3.2%.

• 1635

Perhaps we should determine what occurred over this same period. Was it only among young people that the crime rate increased from 83 to 91 for 10,000 youth during this same short period? Up until 1995, the crime rate appears to have increased somewhat. During this same period, did the crime rate decrease among adults? During this same period of time, it increased as well.

In society, certain harmful effects that we cannot foresee occur in response to I do not know what. If this increase occurred only among young people and declined among adults, we could call into question the application or objective of the Young Offenders Act. However, this increase occurred both among young people and adults. What sociological occurrence took place during these years? Search me.

While there was an increase in adult crime, as of 1995, there was a 3.2% decrease in youth crime. These are not my statistics, but statistics provided by the Minister of Justice.

There is even a study on the types of crimes committed by young people:

Only a small number of youth are involved in serious and repeat criminal acts, particularly acts of violence. In 1997, 82% of charges laid against youth were for non-violent crimes like theft, drug possession and contempt of court orders. Eighteen percent were for violent crimes—a 2% drop from the previous year. Over half of all violent crimes were minor non-sexual assaults; another one quarter were for more serious non-sexual assaults.

The majority of charges against youth are for non-violent property offences. About one-half of these are for theft under $5,000. In 1997, the rate of youth charged with property crime declined for the sixth consecutive year. The rate of youth charged with stealing, car theft and breaking and entering has fallen by as much as 35% since 1991.

Have I just painted the picture of an intolerable situation? Have I just painted the picture of a situation that requires the Department of Justice to make radical changes to a statute that may have some shortcomings but which, in the final analysis, has produced positive results, Mr. Chairman? These statistics apply to all of Canada.

If we focus solely on Quebec's statistics, it becomes apparent that this province has the lowest crime rate in Canada. Is that not a funny coincidence? This is the situation in the province where the Young Offenders Act is being applied. Funny that, in the provinces where the legislation is not being applied, or is being applied poorly or very little, the crime rate is higher!

Mr. Chairman, obviously, if I were a member of the Liberal government, I would not like to hear what I'm saying. I really like Ms. Carroll, an intelligent individual who fully appreciates the consequences of all of this. She is gesturing as if I were talking to hear myself speak. And yet, when I'm finished, Mr. Chairman, I will have, in both my heart and soul, the feeling that I gave 150% of what Quebeckers expect from me.

I am here to provide adequate representation for Quebeckers. Everyone who has followed the debate on Bill C-3 since the beginning, everyone who heard the witnesses from Quebec and even some witnesses from Ontario—I would invite Ms. Carroll to reread the testimony given by certain individuals from Ontario—are going to see that the work I am accomplishing today is certainly not futile.

I believe that an opposition member will be reporting to his party. We will see what he will do, but I do think that I have convinced a member sitting at this table to take a second look at Bill C-3.

I have no illusions; I am fully aware of the fact that I am not going to convince the members opposite. They have been given a very specific mandate, namely, to pass the bill, and that is that.

• 1640

Which members opposite have read Bill C-3? I have no wish to insult them, but who understood the complexity of the bill? I have read the bill ten or so times and I can tell you that I am incapable of explaining all of the clauses because they are too complicated. I have legal training and I know several lawyers in Quebec who studied the issue in order to answer some of my questions. Mr. Chairman, several of these lawyers did not interpret the bill the same way.

I dare to hope that during the two-week postponement that I requested, the government members will at least take the time to consult with lawyers and to ask them how this bill will be applied, how they understand such and such a clause, how they interpret the sanctions, the measures, the extrajudicial measures and that they will ask them how they see the needs of the child being integrated into Bill C-3, even with the amendments.

I dare hope, Mr. Chairman, that during these two weeks, the members opposite will think about this issue. The appearance of the Minister of Justice was very brief. She was in a hurry when she came to give her testimony. We wanted her to stay a bit longer, but she did not want to. The Minister herself, when she was sitting on the other side, stated that this was, in all likelihood, the most important piece of legislation that we would be dealing with, that it was an extremely important bill.

I am doing my work conscientiously, and I have put as much thought as possible into it, trying to be as impartial as possible. But at this stage, I think that, at one point, I have to do what I think is required. I sincerely believe that what I am now doing is useful, because I would like to convince you that you were on the wrong track.

Perhaps there are some things that you have never heard talked about. Perhaps there are some things that are done in Quebec that you don't know about. I will try to talk to you about these things. I will try to explain them to you. I will try to motivate you to pick up your phone and call Justice Jasmin. He invited all of us to do this. He told me this. Call him. If you want his telephone number, call me, I have it. He is prepared to see all of you at the court house, and to show you, from A to Z, what happens to a young person as soon as he sets foot in the building, at any time. Vote in favour of my motion. We could unanimously agree to change the date if you want to have more time to visit the place. There would be no problem with this. We simply have to postpone clause-by- clause until June 22, 2000, if you would like, so that we could go and see for ourselves what happens there. I know, Ms. Bennett, that you disagree with what is currently happening in Ontario, under Mike Harris, I know, by the questions you asked, that you have some reservations about the way Harris is dealing with young offenders.

But did you know, Ms. Bennett, that Bill C-3 is saying that the Premier of Ontario is right? You may shake your head, but for the people from Quebec who came here to testify, there is no doubt that the Right has been proven correct. We won't get in to any arguments about who is more to the right, but we do know that Bill C-3 is a move to the right.

I briefly interrupted my explanation because Ms. Carolyn was making gestures to indicate that I was playing the violin, but I will get back on my feet, Mr. Chairman, to talk about an extremely important aspect: the protection of society.

As you can see in the declaration of principle in the Young Offenders Act, Section 3 talks about the protection of society. Protection of society was one of the points covered by the committee in Quebec. On page 15, we read:

The protection of society is a key concern in deciding on the measures taken under the Young Offenders Act. The judicial system tries to reach youth by taking measures that are based first and foremost on education and rehabilitation. These measures must promote a two-way integration process. The young people must integrate the norms of society which, in turn, must integrate these young people so that they become responsible citizens.

• 1645

I would even add to turn them into anonymous citizens.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and greet the students, the young Canadians who are visiting this committee. They have seen how interesting justice work can be. I do not want to waste time. I have too much to say and I want to ensure that I convey the entire message.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, this study reveals that the protection of society is an important aspect. This is stated in the document, and I would like the members opposite to examine it and reed these very important things. They will have two weeks to do this, Mr. Chairman. They should set aside, during these two weeks, five days to study this issue. The importance of this issue warrants this.

The declaration of principle in the Young Offenders Act states that "society must... be afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour"; the protection of society has become the criteria that can be used to warrant restricting the freedom of the young person—although other factors must be taken into consideration that we will examine later on—just as the declaration requires that the protection of society be taken into account when deciding to use alternative measures.

Mr. Chairman, in order to use alternative measures, the province must have established such measures. With respect to this study, another province cannot reach the same conclusions as Quebec if it has not provided alternative measures. Consequently, the protection of society is an aspect that must be studied in an in- depth fashion.

Whether court-ordered or agreed to by the young person as an alternative measure, the measures that punish the perpetration of crime are amongst the most visible and most significant tools that society has created in order to protect itself. This objective can be obtained in several different ways.

We may try to protect society. It is very important to bear this in mind.

We may try to protect society through measures designed to prevent delinquency amongst citizens. Through general dissuasion, we try to dissuade people from committing crimes by making them fear unpleasant punishment. By reaffirming and strengthening the law that was broken when the offence was committed, we denounce the offence as unacceptable behaviour, thereby affirming the rule of law and the force of law.

We may also wish to protect society through measures designed to prevent the delinquent from committing a repeat offence.

These are all things that we must bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, before we examine or before we seriously embark on the study of the issue, and more specifically, on the protection of society. We must see what is happening and determine whether or not society is being protected, whether or not Quebec, through its programs, is abiding by the declaration of principle.

All that I have said, therefore, can be viewed as some observations to gain a better understanding of the situation in order to determine what is essential or what should be taken into account to determine whether or not the objective is being reached or whether we are truly focussing on the objective of protecting society.

We must consider various avenues in determining whether or not we are meeting this objective. Furthermore, youth justice and adult justice do not give the same weight to these various avenues. We will eventually understand each other, Mr. Chairman.

We also focussed on the offence. After dealing with the protection of society, we looked at the offence so that we could properly assess the situation. We looked at the nature of the offence and we concluded that it should enable us to set parameters for selecting and implementing educational and rehabilitation measures.

• 1650

We already take the nature of the offence into account in order to help the young person, to put him on a different path or try to help him reintegrate society. We examine the nature of the offence, the reason behind it, etc. We look at the whole issue.

We have not often reviewed this issue in a committee and, particularly, Mr. Chairman, we did not look at what the Supreme Court had to say on any other topic.

Mr. Chairman, do we have a quorum? We don't have quorum.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to await Mr. Saada's return. If you wish to continue or not, that's up to you, but since we know where he is—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, my frequent questions about quorum are unpleasant, however, if the government is not interested in having this committee run properly, we should adjourn and continue tomorrow. Perhaps the members opposite are tired.

Let's adjourn, Mr. Chairman, and we will start over tomorrow morning, because we need to have quorum. Since we don't have quorum, I cannot continue, Mr. Chairman. You have noted that there is no quorum.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, as you mentioned yesterday, when someone's phone rings, you would prefer that they step out of the room to take the call, which is exactly what Mr. Saada has done. Now he's returned to the room to take the call inside, also to satisfy your request. I think we're being particularly helpful here.

Please continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I have a cell phone as well. Technology has also made its presence felt in the riding in Berthier—Montcalm. I know that these phones ring from time to time. I press the button and forward my calls to my voice mailbox. I will telephone these people when I leave here. I would like my colleagues to do exactly the same thing as I do if they care about the work we do here in committee. If they don't care about the work that's done here in the committee, that's another story.

Do you mean that the individual talking at the back of the room right now is part of the quorum?

A Voice: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is that the Standing Order?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Saada is a part of the quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: He is very productive. We can see how you Liberals work. You are very productive. You can chew gum and walk at the same time, but sometimes you don't see all the obstacles.

Now that I know that you're going to pay careful attention to me, Mr. Chairman, I will continue.

I was talking about the offence.

When I intervene like this, you will understand that at times I hit my cruising speed. If I have to stop, I have to start over and warm up. This is more difficult for me.

We are talking about the offence, Mr. Chairman. The nature of the offence should enable us to set the parameters for selecting and implementing educational and rehabilitation measures.

I was saying that we rarely quote from Supreme Court judgments on all kinds of issues pertaining to the Young Offenders Act. I will try to do this a little bit. I have a few documents to help me quote from Supreme Court judgments that shaped the Young Offenders Act, judgments that showed whether or not the Young Offenders Act was being enforced in an acceptable manner either in Quebec or in any other province. This helped us understand certain things, and in particular, the Supreme Court justices clarified or further defined the declaration of principle and the way that courts in Quebec or in other provinces operated.

As far as the offence is concerned, the Supreme Court ruled on the matter in a judgment. For those of you who would like to read the decision I am referring to, it is R. versus M., found in Volume 2 of the Supreme Court Reports, on page 421.

Since I know that the officials from the department are noting everything down, I will give them some help, Mr. Chairman. I will even tell them that I will quote a paragraph found on page 431 and which continues at the top of page 432.

• 1655

The Supreme Court of Canada has, then, in more general fashion, expressed its position on the topic:

It is true that for both adults and minors the sentence must be proportional to the offence committed. But in the sentencing of adult offenders, the principle of proportionality will have a greater significance than it will in the disposition of young offenders. For the young, a proper disposition must take into account not only the seriousness of the crime but also all the other relevant factors.

What were the Supreme Court justices referring to when they talked about other relevant factors? They established a direct link with the declaration of principles, the needs of the child, the fact that the child is not a fully-grown, developed individual and, as I was saying earlier, the fact that his or her degree of development and maturity requires special measures.

However, the proportionality provisions found in Bill C-3 are not useful since we were already applying proportionality to young people in a different way than we did for adults before we even thought about amending the current legislation. We are told that the bill is merely stipulating what is done in practice; this is a half-truth. Yes, this is being done, but in a context that differs significantly from the context that Bill C-3 will force on us. It is very different. The 1993 Supreme Court decision clearly states that the proportionality of the sentence is to be taken into account, but in a different context. In the case of a young person, in order to establish an appropriate sentence, a myriad of other factors have to be taken into account.

We are already doing this. Why try to destabilize a system that works well by introducing such amendments, Mr. Chairman?

The Jasmin report also mentions the following:

Choosing a measure must not be akin to an automatic application of a rate whereby such and such an offence results in such and such a punishment.

The way that Bill C-3 has been drafted, I can tell you that, even with the proposed amendments, it's starting to look more and more like a rate. It's like a huge sentence vending machine: you insert some data, as you would put in quarters, you press on the button matching the offence that the young person has committed and the results roll out at the bottom. You read the sentence and say: Listen, young person, we're going to impose such and such a sentence on you, such and such a punishment.

I think that runs counter to the Quebec approach and even counter to the approach of some courts outside Quebec.

It even says:

Such a position would run counter to that of the Supreme Court. However, guidelines for the type of action must be set in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. That way, the link between the offence and the measure does not disappear. That can appear fair and equitable, in a way that can be understood by the young person who is subject to it.

One of the objectives of proportionality—and this is what we concluded when we examined the matter in Quebec—is that the sentence must be consistent with the offence. But if we want the young person to understand that what he has done is bad, we must also try to help him understand why he is in court. The young person must understand that.

The report says:

That way, we can avoid situations where a young person might be subject to an important measure following an offence that is not serious, which could lead him to feel that he has been treated unfairly.

From that point on, the entire justice system loses credibility in the eyes of the young person. Bear in mind that this young person is only 14. He will be part of society for a long time. If he feels that he has been mistreated or treated unfairly by the courts when he was young, for his entire life, he will perceive justice in a bad light. That is extremely important.

• 1700

The opposite is also true, Mr. Chairman. We avoid imposing too lenient a measure following a serious offence, which would give the young person the impression that his behaviour is not being taken seriously enough. That is what the issue of proportionality is about. But we do have the tools to apply the issue of proportionality adequately; they may make it possible to impose adequate punishment or sentences. Proportionality is necessarily associated with punishment.

Under the Young Offenders Act and the way it is applied in Quebec, young people are punished proportionately to the seriousness of the offence they have committed. Is it necessary to change certain sections of the Act without knowing how they will be interpreted?

In examining Bill C-3, you can see that it contains clauses, sub-clauses, paragraphs, etc. Since there is a principle in law according to which the legislator must be precise and clauses are interpreted based on what precedes them and what follows them, you cannot look at a sub-paragraph and interpret it without taking into account the entire Act. You have to look at what the previous paragraph contains and look at the general thrust of the clause and the sub-clause dealing with the same topic.

So with respect to offences and sentences, we must look at what already exists in the Young Offenders Act. You can see that it is possible to hand down a sentence that is in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. You can also see that there are different factors that come into play to influence the judge, to help him hand down a sentence that is proportional and that meets the young person's needs, so that in the end, society can be protected.

In my opinion, that is a very important starting point, that the Minister understood a little bit late and, above all, that she misunderstood. She is proposing amendments to a poorly-prepared, poorly-drafted and complex Act. This Act is a gold mine for lawyers. If I were still in private practice, I think I would specialize in the Young Offenders Act. I know that I would make a fortune.

Why draft such an act, Mr. Chairman, when we already have the tools we need? Before moving on to other sections of the Young Offenders Act, I would point out that the reason why I am introducing this motion, which aims to enable members to understand the importance of the debate and to be in a position to vote on each of the clauses, is because they must be aware of the ins and outs of the situation. They must know what has been done in the past.

There is also the issue of youth accountability. We seem to be saying, in Bill C-3, that this is a new direction, that youth accountability is important, etc. It is as if nothing is being done under the current Young Offenders Act with respect to the accountability of young offenders. That is untrue. But to be in a position to be able to say if it is true or false, we must study the issue. The matter must be examined. Mr. Justice Jasmin's questions must be answered: "What are the youth policies in your province? How do you apply the Young Offenders Act?"

• 1705

In Quebec, following the study, we made the following comments with respect to youth accountability:

Given his age and degree of maturity, a young person must face the consequences of the offence he has committed, particularly for the victim. Moreover, assuming his responsibilities can gradually help make him more responsible.

It's well said, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? That is the essence, the understanding. There is a lot of talk about making young people more accountable; it seems to be a new discovery. And with Bill C- 3, young people are going to be even more responsible and will better understand their responsibility for their actions.

Mr. Chairman, we studied the Act as it is applied in Quebec, with its strengths and its weaknesses, which are many, as well as the amendments that have been made over the years, including the most recent amendments, which naturally, were not part of that study, as since 1995, amendments have been made, namely in the area of transfer, which is an issue, Mr. Chairman, that I will go back to later. How is it that as early as 1990-95 we were already talking about youth accountability and even saying that it was so important that it could help the young person to gradually become more responsible, be rehabilitated, Mr. Chairman? So it is something that exists. We did not dream it up, Mr. Chairman. We simply looked at what was happening.

We were able to count on good co-operation from all workers in the field. When we asked them how they applied the Young Offenders Act and what their youth policies were, they responded as honestly and as precisely as possible. Mr. Chairman, we reached the conclusion that a young person's age and degree of maturity must be taken into account and that he must face the consequences of the offence that he has committed, particularly for the victim. It is his responsibility that will help him when he's being assessed, when we get to him in time, when we study the issue and determine the young person's needs and make him aware of what he has done. That will help him to gradually become more responsible.

But when you talk about responsibilities and obligations of young people, you must not forget their rights. As we saw earlier on, Mr. Chairman, when the MacLeod report was adopted in 1965, we did not sit idly by. On the contrary, we had examined some of the problems of the justice system, for young people and adults, and we noted that during the entire Quiet Revolution—because we were starting in 1965—some tools were missing, namely a charter of human rights. It was at that time that we started thinking about the issue. In the 1970s, we saw the results of our reflection in this area with the advent of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

As I said earlier, during our study, although we examined almost everything that is being done in the legal field, for both adults and young people, we focussed primarily on young people. We realized, and that is when we took note of it, that young people have responsibilities, but that they also have rights, Mr. Chairman. What did we conclude with respect to young people's rights? For all citizens, whether they be young people or adults, the Act recognizes the rights that protect them, namely their freedom and their private lives. Any intervention, be it by the police, legal or social, must fully respect these rights, which is also important.

• 1710

Mr. Chairman, we raised awareness of the issue of protecting young people's rights with the introduction of the Legal Aid Act and of all the related issues. Young people who did not have a family or whose families could not afford to pay a lawyer to defend them properly could have recourse to legal aid.

You must fully understand the issue, Mr. Chairman. Although I am repeating myself, I think it is important to understand the issues surrounding the Young Offenders Act before moving on to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, as we will at some point. We have to be aware of that, and that is the sense of my motion. Committee members must be given the time to read and learn about this extremely important matter and deepen their knowledge of it.

Although I have already quite clearly expressed my position on Bill C-3, I too am going to do some reading over the next two weeks to try to understand what is not working and why you don't seem to understand what we have been saying in Quebec for several years, nor what Quebec is fighting for.

I want to try and find a way of sharing with you my passion, if I can put it that way, for this issue, for the application of the Young Offenders Act, so that on May 2, we can come up with something together, with similar conclusions on postponing clause- by-clause consideration so that we can first of all conduct a more in-depth study of the Young Offenders Act.

So we studied the issue of young people's rights and we could not but recognize that young people had rights, a conclusion which we reached very quickly. We did however examine all types of action, be it by the police, or legal or social interveners, and determined that the rights of these young people had to be considered with the utmost respect.

The protection of young people's rights is clearly more present in the current Act. When I talk about the current Act, I mean the Young Offenders Act, which I am comparing with the Juvenile Delinquents Act. We have to refer back to 1965, when the study was conducted. The Juvenile Delinquents Act did not recognize the protection of young people's rights. Adopted at the turn of the century, it bore the mark of a time when it was not considered in the interest of a minor to give him rights that would have enabled him to defend himself against action that was considered good for him.

The Young Offenders Act dates back to a time when the focus was on individual rights, be it for citizens in general or children. In Quebec, I reiterate, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that was adopted in 1975—we started discussing it at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s—and the Youth Protection Act that was adopted in 1977 were milestones in Quebec in terms of recognition of the rights of children.

In Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, since we are in Ottawa, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was integrated into the Constitution when we adopted the Charter and when we were debating the bill that was to become the Young Offenders Act. Throughout that period, we had all of that in mind, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Declaration of Principle of the Act runs along the same lines when it states the following, Mr. Chairman:

(e) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, including those stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and in particular a right to be heard in the course of, and to participate in, the processes that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons should have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms;

I will speak a little more slowly, Mr. Chairman, because I just thought about the interpreters, whose work must be difficult when I read something quickly. When I read excerpts from documents, I will read them a little more slowly to allow the interpreters to interpret them correctly so that the government members here can understand what I am saying, and particularly think about it, Mr. Chairman, so that we will all be on the same wavelength on May 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

• 1715

So I will continue what I was saying. We say that the Declaration of Principle fits in with this approach, because it states:

...the rights and freedoms of young persons include a right to the least possible interference with freedom that is consistent with the protection of society, having regard to the needs of young persons and the interest of their families;

The Act also states:

(g) young persons have the right, in every instance where they have rights or freedoms that may be affected by this Act, to be informed about what those rights and freedoms are;

As you know, we have been concerned about protecting the rights of young persons in Quebec for a long time. When the Young Offenders Act came into force, we were able to advance further and to continue developing the concept of protecting the rights of young persons in difficulty.

I would like make another point before we focus more specifically on the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3 and the current provisions of the Young Offenders Act. You will appreciate that I maintain that the crux of the federal government's misunderstanding lies in the whole issue of the needs of young persons. At every step in the legal process, every time social or legal experts get involved in a case, they take into account one specific objective: the needs of the young person.

I would like to read two excerpts from the Jasmin report, Mr. Chairman:

A young person is in the process of developing and learning, and has special needs that distinguish him or her from adults...

Education needs rank first among these special needs. The professional work and behaviour of people who work with young offenders must be guided by their awareness of their educational role. Young people's needs must be considered in choosing among the options available depending on the seriousness of the offence. The young person's needs can also justify the severity of a decision that the offence might warrant, but whose consequences would run counter to the young person's needs.

So you see, Mr. Chairman, that the needs of the young person are always considered, at every step. Some may say, Mr. Chairman: But what are the needs of young persons:

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, their needs can vary and depend on the young person's specific situation: the problems he reveals, difficulty at school, drug problems, delayed psychosocial development, lack of maturity, family problems, poverty and the influence of gangs. A host of factors have to be considered, Mr. Chairman, when we try to determine the needs of a young person. We may find that they are from a disadvantaged socio-economic background, have improper school and parental guidance, are from a highly dysfunctional family or have major conflicts with their parents which may mean that the parents no longer allow the young persons into the home.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I admire the humanitarian side of the justices sitting on Quebec's Youth Court as well those other courts that also administer the Young Offenders Act. Although I don't know them as well, I'm sure they enjoy the same qualities.

• 1720

Let's talk about the human aspect. I visited the court house and I saw how the young offenders are treated in Quebec. The Associate Chief Justice, Michel Jasmin, also explained to me how it was done. He told me that he regularly had many observers, many of them being MPs from Quebec, but never from elsewhere in Canada. He also regularly had members or representatives from the different American states as visitors. He told me that even the Europeans came over to consult and see how things worked. They probably witnessed the same energy and love for children as I did.

Don't forget, the people I met aren't bleeding hearts. He gets to see some big ones—I was going to say big galoots—14 or 15-year old boys who want to show how "tough" they are. Sometimes they've caused very serious damage or committed serious crimes. However, he still shows the love he has for these kids, the same love he gets us to share when we meet him. That's why I'm inviting you to go to meet him. You'll see for yourselves.

You'll see that to find out what the needs of the child are, you have to know where he's coming from, what his origins are. The place I visited had a jail-like set-up on the first floor because you have young people there from different centres coming for court appearances. There are also young people who knock on the door at supper time because they don't know where else to go. Sometimes, some of them have almost committed an offence just to get in there. Judge Jasmin was telling me that when you ask them if you should inform their parents, they say no. So these 14-year-old children are out in the street and relying on the court because their parents don't take care of them and don't want to know anything about them.

I think society has some responsibility for that. I'm not saying that everything should be blamed on the government and society at large. We have some responsibility when we bring children into the world. I know it because I have some. But I very sincerely believe that society also has a share of responsibility.

To know what the needs of these young people are, you have to take the time to find out where they come from, what they've done, where they live, what environment they've grown up in, and so on. Bill C-3 won't allow you to do that. Provinces where this isn't being done already and that don't consider the needs of the child will continue not doing it. The little that is mentioned in the bill won't be implemented any more than it is today, Mr. Chairman.

The provinces and the people that sacrificed time, energy and very often entire careers in building up a system that's working well are the ones who risk seeing, after many years, dozens of years of work, seeing everything they built crumble away into dust. That is wrong and I will fight against that to my last breath, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to convince my colleagues across the way that they are going the wrong way. I'll try to convince the departments that they're doing the wrong thing.

I know that the department has engaged in a dialogue and had a lot of discussions with the people concerned in Quebec. Unfortunately, those people don't seem to have convinced the representatives of the department. Still, the latter seemed shaken after being made aware of the approach used in Quebec and having understood why, in Quebec, they particularly didn't want to touch the Young Offenders Act. Mainly, they actually saw why Quebeckers didn't want to contribute to the catastrophe that is under preparation with Bill C-3. They didn't want to engage in this exercise, nor present any amendment whatsoever to this bill that is judged to be fundamentally wrong and inappropriate, Mr. Chairman.

So, what are the child's needs? You really have to think about it, Mr. Chairman, to understand the full importance of that question and to be able to answer adequately and steer the young person in the right direction, Mr. Chairman.

• 1725

If there is one need that encompasses many others and that we think is important to insist upon in the context of the administration of the Young Offenders Act, it is the educational need. Where and how is Bill C-3 going to improve the possibility, for Quebec amongst others but also for the other provinces, of improving the education of our young people? Nothing is provided for in this bill that only contains new principles, the interpretation of which we are far from certain.

It says young persons are distinct from adults as they are still undergoing an educational process. Education includes different stages of learning and at the end of that you expect the young person to have integrated a certain number of social standards that must orient his behaviour. It is recognized that these are still being learned by the minor person while you expect an adult to have fully grasped them. You should expect less from a teenager or a young person than from an adult. I think that goes without saying. We don't need a new bill to know that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist either.

So what is the basic requirement to examine fully the matter of the standards that a young person will have to internalize? You have to analyze them, scrutinize them and all the interveners—police officers, lawyers, social workers and judges—work on them, each one in a different context and, especially, according to each one's own mandate.

The social worker intervening in a file will examine the needs of the child within the context of his jurisdiction and mandate. The lawyer defending the young person under the Young Offenders Act will examine what the needs of the youth are based on the mandate he has to ensure an adequate defence on the basis of his rights but also his obligations and making him understand what he, the lawyer, can do to protect his rights and what he can't do in view of the offence that was committed. The judge, Mr. Chairman, must examine the needs of the child differently and look at this with an eye other than the social worker's, the lawyer's or even the policy officer's. The police officer arresting a young person, a teenager, has to see his needs in another light. Each one has his own point of view and that is how, Mr. Chairman, these points of view dovetail.

Thus the importance of the question Justice Jasmin posed at the very beginning: "What is your youth policy?" Everything holds together, Mr. Chairman. The role all these interveners are called upon to play is very demanding and we all agree on that. So we have to consider what we require of them before passing this bill clause-by-clause.

Those who take on these duties must exercise them in a way that will command the respect of these young people. You can only get people to agree with your social standards by setting a credible example yourself. The awareness of this educational role must be part and parcel of the work and professional behaviour of those who work with the young offenders. We think that essential, Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur, it has been brought to my attention that we've now come to 5:30 p,m., which is generally the end of the time we spend on our work. We had people from the ministry who were presuming we might get to the question. That not having been the case, I'd like to adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning. We will sit tomorrow from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned.