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]

Thursday, April 13, 2000

• 1001

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

This a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We're considering Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts. We had planned to begin to discuss clause by clause and welcome the extremely informative representatives of the Department of Justice, who have been most helpful.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): They haven't said anything I disagree with yet.

The Chair: Exactly. They have not been challenged on a single point yet.

I give the floor to Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I'm not hiding. I'm just getting my name.

Before beginning, Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to thank the people from the department who are so very diligent. They are punctual, contrary to many members of this committee. We should have started exactly 35 minutes ago. I've lost 35 minutes that I could have used to try to convince the government that it is going the wrong way. I'll try to make up for this and be even more convincing. I can't speak any faster because the interpreters would like me all the less.

On a more serious note, I see that we have a new Liberal colleague who has just joined us and who, unfortunately, has missed the six or seven hours worth of explanations I've given before today. I won't pull a trick on you and start all over again, Mr. Chairman. However, I would invite the honourable member to read the approach I've tried to present to all those interested in the cause of young offenders. I've mainly been addressing the approach taken in Quebec.

For those listening in today and for those who are just joining us, who were not here yesterday and the day before, the motion being debated this morning reads as follows and I quote:

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. Chairman, why did I table this motion? Because, quite clearly, there are people in the Department of Justice, more specifically the Minister herself, who have not understood the Quebec approach. The Minister has not understood what is being done in Quebec relative to the administration of the Young Offenders Act. Bill C-3, which is being considered at present, is dangerous in its present form.

It is not true to say, Mr. Chairman, that this kind of legislation will allow us, in Quebec, to continue to use the approach we've been defending during the past 10, 20 or 30 years. It is not true to say that we would be able to continue to move along as though nothing had happened. If that is the case, then immediately withdraw the bill. It is useless and the cost will be excessive for the courts, the Crown attorneys, the lawyers and society in general trying to study and attempting to administer it. If it is true that we will be able to just go on as we have, then withdraw this bill. But we know that is not true.

We know that this is political double-talk and I think it is my duty to try to wake up the members on the government side before it is too late. Before we started, I was saying that I found some encouragement because there were people listening to me and asking questions, Mr. Chairman. One of the questions I was asked yesterday had to do with the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs du Québec (Coalition for justice for minors in Quebec). What is this exactly? People don't know exactly what it's about.

• 1005

Unfortunately, I don't have an up-to-date list. However, I would have had the time to get it this morning because we started 35 minutes late. The list of members I have is dated November 1, 1999.

It really breaks my concentration when people are talking all around me. I know they're allowed to talk, but would you please ask them to tone it down a little, otherwise they'll be burying what I'm saying.

[English]

The Chair: I would ask members to try to converse.... I know what's happening: all the members on the government side are engaged in informed debate over this legislation. Try to keep that debate a little quieter so that Monsieur Bellehumeur....

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you very much for your understanding, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure they were bothering you too.

So I was saying that I was asked who the members of the coalition were. You've been talking about this Coalition for the last six or seven hours, Michel, but you've never named any names, is what I've been told. As I must enlighten this committee and all those listening to us as much as possible, I'll give you the list of names I have. It is not recent; it goes back to November 1, 1999. I know very well that there are five or six other groups who have joined this coalition since, but I don't have their names. So, just so I don't make any mistakes, I'll give you the names that I have available to me now.

In this coalition you have: the Commission des services juridiques du Québec (Quebec legal services commission); the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse du Québec (Quebec permanent youth board); the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec (CEQ) (Quebec Teachers Corporation); the École de criminologie de l'Université de Montréal (School of Criminology of the University of Montreal), and more specifically, a professor emeritus of this faculty, Mr. Jean Trépanier; the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal (Montreal community legal centre); the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants (Quebec foundation for young offenders); the Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal (Montreal Philippe-Pinel Institute) that everyone knows; the Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Québec (Quebec association of police and fire chiefs); the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux (Regional health and social services board conference) that gathers the regional health boards and covers all of Quebec.

They did this by resolution because I know that in our area the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Lanaudière (Lanaudière regional health and social services board) looked at this question and passed a resolution of which I obtained a copy as the member of Parliament for the riding of Berthier—Montcalm and the Lanaudière area. I know that all the Quebec regional health and social services boards have used the same approach. They examined the question before passing the resolution. So, when we say that the Conference is part of this coalition, that means a lot of people.

You also have the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec (Quebec youth centres association). You have the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec (Quebec human and youth rights commission). There is the Crown Prosecutor's Office. You have the Quebec Department of Justice. Must I mention it? I think everybody knows about that one. There is also the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec (Quebec CLSC and CHSLD association). There is the School of psycho-education at the Université de Montréal and, once again, a professor emeritus that everyone in that community knows, Mr. Marc LeBlanc.

There is the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec (Quebec grouping of alternative justice organizations). There is the Child Welfare League of Canada and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association that has a pied-à-terre in Quebec. It is a Canadian association but is also part of this coalition telling the government not to touch the Young Offenders Act. There is the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec (Quebec defence lawyers association) and the Société de criminologie du Québec (Quebec criminology society).

Mr. Chairman, this adds up to a fair number of people. If you add five or six organizations to that list, then you can see that the coalition represents just about anything that moves in the area of the administration of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec.

• 1010

Mr. Chairman, that's why I would like to have more time. It's to allow the members across the way and the members of the opposition to get in touch with one or the other of those organizations and find out why they're saying no to this new Bill C-3 and why they're so insistent on maintaining the Young Offenders Act as it is.

There's a minimum amount of work that must be done by the government across the way and especially those members who are going to be voting on each one of the clauses of Bill C-3 one day or another. The later the better, in my opinion, with never being the best.

Apparently I hit a member's nerve when I said that they were trying to americanize the legislation, that they were trying to get the Young Offenders Act to satisfy as many right-wing partisans as possible and that this bill was the Minister's response to all the lobbying undertaken by the Canadian right-wingers. Once again, I think the member who asked this question will learn even more from me today. This time, Mr. Chairman, I'm not the one who will be addressing the subject. Rather than that, I'll read you excerpts from a La Presse editorial. I think no one around this table would venture the opinion that La Presse is a big bad separatist newspaper, don't you think? Here's what is said in the Saturday, May 15, 1999 edition of Montreal's La Presse, Mr. Chairman; the article is signed by Yves Boisvert. It says:

The fight against crime is a popular subject just about everywhere. But you have to show up in Calgary during an election campaign to see how far this matter has gone in western Canada and become a quasi-obsession.

In all their speeches, the Reform candidates led by Preston Manning, first and foremost, hammer home the message that the courts are too lenient with criminals, that nowhere are Canadians safe, that the death penalty must be brought back, the Supreme Court brought under control, young delinquents must be held accountable and so on.

The most important part concerns the Minister. It is this one:

The Minister of Justice (and rarest of Albertan species, a Liberal MP) Anne McLellan, for her reform of the Young Offenders Act, draws her inspiration directly from this deep well.

I'm not the one saying so, Mr. Chairman. I'm quoting a La Presse editorial from May, 1999. It goes on to say:

In Quebec, this bill was analyzed mainly—is there any surprise here?—mainly from the angle of federal-provincial relations. Is it, yes or no, a sample of flexible federalism? Will Quebec be able to conserve a kind of “model”, an approach apparently different from that taken by the rest of the country?

Good federalist that he is, he wonders at the beginning of the article what he can do to discredit the sovereignists and says this isn't a federal-provincial tiff. It's his right to wonder about this question, to look at the whole young offender problem from that angle as some Liberals across the way probably do themselves.

But if my motion passes, Mr. Chairman, I hope they'll examine the whole matter during the two-week Easter break. Mr. Boisvert examined the question. He consulted and came to the conclusion that it's not clear that this is the approach to take with young offenders. It's more serious than that, Mr. Chairman. It goes on:

“In dealing with scandalous affairs, the Crown lawyer will be under great pressure from public opinion;

He started analyzing Bill C-3. He started to see what the federal approach was with this bill. He says that, in some cases, it will put the Crown under great pressure because of public opinion.

• 1015

It is healthy that public opinion show its disgust for serious crime, but it is also important that the decisions concerning the criminal justice system be made with a clear head” is the opinion of Professor Jean Trépanier, a lawyer and criminologist at the University of Montreal.

When I say that this is a well-known man, it is true. Even a reporter from La Presse is now quoting Mr. Jean Trépanier. He pursues and says something very important:

Whatever the discomfort, “violent” crime only represents 18% of offences leading to accusations against minors in Canada. Of this number, most are in the “common assault” category which means there's no bodily harm.

Which means that the “flexibility” is essentially focussed on exceptional crimes. For the major part of legal activities, “ordinary”, cases, the legislation will apply just about uniformly across Canada.

I think he understood what the federal government's objective was. In pursuing even further his study of this matter, he says:

Basically, the object of the bill is to allow more severe punishment in the case violent crime while, at the same time, getting young non-violent offenders out of the system.

The political marketing is obviously done with the first part: murder, crimes punishable by life imprisonment when committed by adults, less serious violent crimes committed by repeat offenders—the youth version of the American “three strikes, you're out”. These crimes committed by young persons aged 14 to 17 will mean adult sentences unless otherwise decided.

So much for safety. Another problem: the other provinces place delinquents in custody two to five times more often than Quebec. The Minister emphasizes diversion in the case of minor crimes and introduces a new concept for youth, release on parole, after two-thirds of the sentence, just to free up a few beds.

You might think that he's finally found a positive point. But once you've examined the question—as I hope the members across the way will do—and once you've looked at that aspect, that may appear positive at first glance, when you scrutinize it, when you look at it in the light of the option Quebec has been defending for years, you'll see that it's not positive. He says so. He goes on to say:

Now, the sentences which are already short must have a certain duration so that people can “work” a bit with the young offender, or so we're told. This kind of parole just serves to muddle things.

You don't come up with a legislative measure just to free up beds, just to say you've followed the Quebec approach. There will be fewer young offenders jailed. They'll be getting out earlier. That's not what we say in Quebec. In Quebec, we say that you need to have some time to work with the young person to try to reintegrate him into society and rehabilitate him.

Is this bill going to allow us to do that? No. The kid is going to know his law. The lawyers are going to know it after studying it in full and they're going to do everything they can to get the kid out earlier. Is he going to be interested in people investing in him if he knows that he'll be out of there quickly? With that approach, you're going down the wrong road.

The La Presse editorialist saw this after consulting and studying the matter. I would invite the Liberal members, before going into the clause-by-clause, to read up on this and consult the same people Mr. Boisvert did before writing his article.

His conclusion says:

For youth as for adults, the crime rate is stable or decreasing in Canada in just about all categories since the early 90s (actually, it's definitely lower for young Quebeckers than the Canadian average).

• 1020

Does this come as a surprise? I say no. It's not surprising that in Quebec the crime rate is lower, not because we're better or smarter than the others, but because we're enforcing an Act. Unfortunately, this is an Act that we didn't even pass ourselves as a sovereign people. It's the federal government that passed it, but we're good team players and because we belong to the system we enforce an Act that wasn't passed only by Quebeckers. We administer it in our backyard and apply it correctly with the existing programs.

As a result, what we've noticed, after many years and studies, is that it does bear some fruit. We can see, and the statistics support this—and more often than not these are statistics from Statistics Canada—that the youth crime rate is lower in Quebec than elsewhere, Mr. Chairman. These statistics must be valid, Mr. Chairman. Whenever it comes from outside Quebec it's always better for those federalist people on the other side.

He concludes:

Of course you have knives coming out in some of the school yards. Even guns. Littleton is really scary.

But if there is one thing that the Quebec experience seems to confirm—we're not dealing with exact science here—that is that investing in re-education can be a paying proposition.

On the other hand, it doesn't win you many votes in Red Deer.

The title of this Yves Boisvert editorial from May, 1999, is “Criminal Justice Alberta Style”. That says it all.

Those who say that the fact that the Minister comes from that western Canadian province has nothing to do with anything and that it's a mistake to think she wants to please the voting public there are wrong. In passing, if memory serves, I think she didn't get a huge majority of votes in 1997, less than 500, I think. It is clear she is doing everything she can to garner a few more votes even at the risk of destroying a system that's working well in Quebec, and that is unacceptable. As long as I have half a breath and some energy left, I will oppose going into the clause-by-clause study of this bill.

The people across the room must examine this question before passing this bill which is of extreme importance for the future of our youth and the very security of Canadian and Quebec society.

I tabled this motion so that the people across the room might study this question. Of course, I've already said this a few times, but I did it with a very specific goal in mind, that of giving the members across the way the time to go to see their own provincial legislative assemblies and to allow the Minister of Justice the time to put two major questions to her provincial counterparts. Justice Michel Jasmin, Associate Chief Justice of the Quebec Youth Court mentioned it last February 22 when he gave evidence here. He put two extremely important questions and I'll repeat them for Mr. Valeri who wasn't there when I began. He said:

You're not attacking the real problem then. If I were the federal legislator, I would postpone my bill for the time being and I'd ask the provinces how they apply the present Act and what youth policies they have themselves.

Those are the questions that must be put, Mr. Chairman, before we even touch the Young Offenders Act.

I can hear and I can see, Mr. Chairman. I can hear especially, and I've been telling you that. Since I began debating my motion, it seems to me I've developed a sixth sense. I'm sure that the members opposite, the Liberal members, but not you Mr. Chairman, say they've been studying the question. They say that since 1994 a legislative committee has studied the whole matter of the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act.

• 1025

Yes, it is true the question was studied. However we should not forget—and the Liberals especially shouldn't forget—that the conclusions of that study were written before the study even began. How were they written, Mr. Chairman? They were written in the Red Book the Liberals used for their election campaign in 1997. The Red Book that the Minister of Justice used as inspiration during her election campaign in western Canada when she said there was a scourge, an extremely serious problem with youth crime and that the Young Offenders Act had to be reviewed and amended because it wasn't working.

Talking about conclusions written in advance, what kind of serious study was made of the whole thing? We were there during those meetings. Some Quebeckers were heard, but we never went over there to see for ourselves what was really going on. The system, as far as the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act is concerned, is complex when you examine the thing as a whole.

When you go in the field and see how the Young Offenders Act is being enforced, how each individual intervenes in the file of a young person with problems for having committed an offence, then you can see that each one of those interveners has a very specific mandate and that each one works on the file with a single goal in mind, Mr. Chairman. And what is this goal, Mr. Chairman? To answer the needs of the child.

Whether it be the police officer when he arrests the young person ordering the investigation, the social workers, defence counsel, the prosecutor, the judge or the workers involved after the sentence, the only objective these people have in mind is meeting the child's needs, and personalizing their action based on the needs of the child they're dealing with.

Once the case is before a judge, they know almost everything about the child. There is a pre-sentence report, a psychological report, if necessary, and various reports prepared by the social workers who worked with the young person throughout the period.

They know almost everything and they adapt to the personal and individual requirements of the young person so that his sentence is adequate and that he has steps to take and specialists to meet. The only objective is to meet the child's needs so that he reintegrates society as quickly as possible, becomes an average citizen, becomes productive and does not live off society, and above all, does not re-offend. We want to prevent him from re-offending and going back down the road that we told him not to go down, because it is not the right one. Crime does not pay. He has to be shown that, and given proof of that quickly. In Quebec we have understood that.

During the study, we would have liked to see members go to Quebec, see what is happening there, and not necessarily as members of the committee. Nothing prevents the members opposite from making their own appointment with some workers in Quebec. There are undoubtedly members who have something in common with one of the people or groups on the list I read. If there are people who are close to the working world or the unions, there are unions on the list. Others might be closer to the Commission des services juridiques (Legal services commission). Others might be closer to psychologists or people working in a highly specialized area. Members of the coalition could answer your questions and could take you to visit certain places.

• 1030

I know that two weeks will not be enough to do all of that, but I hope that my motion will enable members to take time to contact one of the organizations or the people I named earlier who are specialized in their field and who are credible experts in the area of young offenders. Their credibility is recognized not only in Quebec, but also in English Canada and beyond, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Justice Jasmin is known for his credibility and his expertise in approaches to use with young people, perhaps not internationally, but at least in the United States. Many American judges consult him and call him to see how he operates with a view to improving the American system. Even in Europe, as I was saying yesterday, people have consulted him. Some Asian judges have come to visit him, I have been told, to learn about the Quebec approach and how it works, but very few, or none at all, representatives from English Canada have gone to see him. That is disappointing. It is disappointing to see that they are not even attempting to understand the specific way that Quebec applies the Young Offenders Act. I find that deplorable. If something positive exists, why not use it? Is it because it comes from Quebec, Mr. Chairman? If that is the answer, it is sad. I hope that that is not the case, Mr. Chairman.

At any rate, the committee studied the issue knowing from the outset what the conclusions of the report would be. The dice were loaded. The report had been written before we began. So it is hardly surprising, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister came up with Bill C-3 and it is hardly surprising that you came up with such a complex bill. When you do not understand the problem, you cannot know how to put it on paper. That's the result. Bill C-3 which is before us is the result of an incomplete and biased study that was prepared ahead of time, before the study was even undertaken, with a view to winning votes in western Canada. I hope that over the next two weeks, the members opposite will take the time to do some reading so that they can reach the same conclusion as me, and I hope that they will not vote in favour of any of the clauses in this bill.

Maybe in Quebec we got started before everyone else. We were not one of the most active provinces in 1908, as I said yesterday, it was mainly Ontario that was active, but once we were convinced of the approach or convinced that we had to invest in young people, we worked twice or three times as hard and invested more, year after year, department after department. We invested in young people. Our work with young people revolved around one very specific objective: meeting their needs. I cannot say enough about needs. It is not just a word that is in the dictionary. The meaning of that word is one of the pillars of the successful application of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec.

The Declaration of Principle in the Young Offenders Act contains some extremely important elements. Having handed down several decisions over the past decade or so, the Supreme Court of Canada has succeeded in setting some very clear guidelines for the Act. The importance of the Declaration of Principle is clear in certain paragraphs, including section 3. The preamble is not gloomy, like it is in Bill C-3. It is a section of the law with the force of law, which is not used solely to interpret the Act.

The government wanted to ease its conscience in Bill C-3. It included a nice preamble. Everyone in legal circles knows that a preamble is not worth much. It is worth the paper it is written on, and judges will not interpret a preamble. They interpret the act that starts with section 1 and ends with the final section on coming into force. Everyone knows that, but politically, the Minister has an easy answer: it is in the preamble. It does not even mention needs. We are now going to talk a little about that, and about the rest of the preamble.

• 1035

To put everyone to sleep, like a snake charmer, she is going to propose starting with the third paragraph of her preamble. Wow! That changes everything in the Act! Are we going to be satisfied with that in Quebec? The answer is no. No, you have completely missed the point, and we are going to try to help you understand. We are going to try to get you to understand that you are on the wrong track.

You, the members opposite, must read section 3 of the Declaration of Principle of the Young Offenders Act. You must understand the meaning of this Declaration of Principle. You must try and see if Bill C-3 contains all of the principles from this declaration. Then you must see if all of the rules for the application of it are consistent with this approach, and follow the principles that have been set out.

It took some time to draft the Young Offenders Act. It took a series of highly complex studies and the MacLeod report in 1965. Several ministers of Justice and two governments examined the issue. Many consultations were held between 1965 and the coming into force of the Act on April 2, 1984. Moreover, although it was tabled three years prior to that, parliamentarians rediscussed it. It was adopted in 1982, but came into force on April 2, 1984.

That bill was not drafted with a specific election in mind. That bill was not drafted in response to political issues. The bill was tabled in 1981 for one specific purpose: to meet the needs of children and respond to the need to protect society. That is the objective of the Young Offenders Act, and that is what the text of the Young Offenders Act states in no uncertain terms.

The Declaration of Principle is crystal-clear and it reads as follows:

3.(1) It is hereby recognized and declared that:

(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;

Prevention is included in the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Principle. Is the message not quite clear that investments must be made in prevention, that the objective is prevention?

Second paragraph:

(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;

That is also clear. Mr. Chairman, a young offender cannot be treated in the same way as an adult. A young person is a developing person. He cannot be treated like an adult. What is nice about the Young Offenders Act is that it ensures that there are two parallel systems.

Yes, the Young Offenders Act does refer occasionally to the Criminal Code. Yes, after 1984 the Young Offenders Act was amended somewhat, especially with respect to the issue of transfer. Yes, it contains the occasional reference to the Criminal Code, but not at all like in Bill C-3. Never, Mr. Chairman! Bill C-3 is a smaller version of the Criminal Code. Do we want a single system?

• 1040

If that is the case, say so clearly, since you are so keen on clarity. The Liberals like clarity, we saw that with Bill C-20. Be clear. Don't adopt a parallel act. Don't be hypocritical; don't adopt anything at all. Repeal the Young Offenders Act and have young offenders be dealt directly with the provisions of the Criminal Code. It would be a lot less complicated. Lawyers are very familiar with the Criminal Code. Applying it to an adult or a young person is the same thing, if that is what you want.

But that is not what we want in Quebec. We want two parallel systems and very specific rules that apply to young people. Why? Quite simply to respond to the Declaration of Principle that is contained in the current Young Offenders Act.

We sincerely believe that the degree of responsibility and the consequences of the offences committed by the young person cannot be compared to the degree of responsibility and the consequences of offences committed by adults. We cannot recognize the same degree of responsibility for young people, Mr. Chairman, and that is clearly expressed in paragraph (b) of section 3:

(b) society must, although it has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent criminal conduct by young persons, be afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour;

Don't try and say that society is not being considered in the Young Offenders Act. It is mentioned explicitly and clearly in section 3.(1)(b).

Paragraph (c) in the same chapter of the Declaration of Principle deals specifically with another very important point, the situation of the young offender. You see that everything is logical: prevention, the way the young person is considered, and protection of society. The situation of the young person also has an influence. That is mentioned in paragraph (c), and I quote:

(c) young persons who commit offences require supervision, discipline and control,

And what follows is very important:

but, because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs and require guidance and assistance;

Where in Bill C-3, even with the bogus amendments that the Minister is presenting, can you find a provision with the same scope as the one I just read? Nowhere.

You will recall that we just touched on society and the situation of the young person. The next section in the Declaration of Principle, paragraph (c.1) spells out protection of society.

When someone tells me that the Young Offenders Act does not protect society, and that is terrible, and like the editorialist of La Presse said earlier, that young people need to be made responsible... People everywhere are talking about crime and saying that society is not protected, that the death penalty must be re-established, that there is no longer any security anywhere, etc., and that because of that, we need a new act.

These people should start by reading the Young Offenders Act to understand it, and I hope that the members opposite will do that before moving to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill or before amending, repealing or discarding an act that is good and enforceable and that is applied in Quebec and other provinces.

Mr. Chairman, paragraph (c.1) reads as follows:

(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.

• 1045

Where, in the bill that is before us and under which we are told that Quebec will be able to continue proceeding as it currently does, is the principle that I just mentioned given the same teeth, as much force? Nowhere. Nowhere does it say that the needs and circumstances that can explain a young person's behaviour will be taken into account. Nowhere does it say that to protect society, the young person must be observed, his needs must be determined, and the circumstances that can explain his action must be examined in order to come up with a solution to his problem. It is the young person's problem, but all of society lives with the consequences.

Having addressed prevention, having looked at the young person's case and situation, having discussed society and protection, along the same lines, we must look at treatment and what must be undertaken. Once the young person's needs have been analyzed, what conclusion should be drawn? What must be done to pursue the same objective? Section 3.(1)(d) answers that question:

(d) where it is not inconsistent with the protection of society, taking no measures or taking measures other than judicial proceedings under this Act should be considered for dealing with young persons who have committed offences;

Could it be any clearer than that? No. Don't take us for fools. Don't take the people of Quebec for idiots, Mr. Chairman. As one of my law professors used to say: “You stuff mattresses, but not springs”. You don't amend an act just to please two or three people or win 100 votes in western Canada. And above all, you don't say you are amending an act because it does not meet the criteria for protecting society. You don't say, as I heard yesterday on TV, that some amendments are being made so that you can use certain alternative measures that you could not use in the past. That is already being done. There are already alternative measures programs in the provinces that apply the Act.

At present, if you ask the provincial legislatures, as I am suggesting, if they are applying the Young Offenders Act and if they have a youth policy, you will note that some provinces don't even have a program that enables them to implement alternative measures. They are not structured the way we are in Quebec. I know that some provinces are.

In Quebec, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Services have authorized the establishment of an alternative measures program, which has, like an act, its area of application, its interpretation, its definition, etc. It contains sophisticated mechanisms for determining if alternative measures are appropriate or not, mechanisms that can almost predict a situation.

The application criteria and the alternative measures can be found in chapter 3 of this program, which addresses the nature and conditions of the alternative measures. We have all of the information to give the young person in difficulty, as well as the agreements that were co-signed with respect to the commitment of the young person, the content of which is very important, because the young person must understand what he is committing to. The program also includes criteria for carrying out the alternative measures.

Chapter 4 reads as follows: “Offences and situations where the public prosecutor's representative may inform the director or authorize legal action”. Once the young person has been made aware of the reasons for the alternative measures, what situation his problem with the law puts him in, if he does not honour his commitments, the program states that he is liable to prosecution.

• 1050

After that, we list the offences that may justify legal proceedings. We try to cover almost all bases, Mr. Chairman: offences involving public order; firearms and other offensive weapons, edged weapons and others, Mr. Chairman; the application of the Administration of Justice Act; sexual offences, public decency, disorderly conduct; disorderly houses, gaming and betting; offences against the person and offences against the reputation; murder, manslaughter, bodily harm, acts of omission, motor vehicles, theft, assault, kidnapping and hostage taking. We draw up a complete list, including the sections of the Criminal Code or other acts involved, Mr. Chairman.

We even give young people a document indicating the main sections of the Young Offenders Act, which is important. The program has been improved over the years. I must say that the last one was signed on January 7, 1994, when Gil Rémillard, a Liberal, was Minister of Justice and Marc-Yvan Côté, another Liberal, was Minister of Health and Social Services.

The issue of young offenders is not simply a question of political allegiance. What they did in this regard was good, and I congratulate them for it. The program continued under the Parizeau government, and then under the Bouchard government. Bear in mind that Mr. Parizeau's Liberal government was preceded by PQ governments that had the same approach.

It can never be repeated enough that there is a consensus in Quebec with respect to the application of the Young Offenders Act and young peoples' needs with respect to integration and rehabilitation so that they can become citizens like everyone else, Mr. Chairman.

If, as I am asking in my motion, we postpone clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, my colleagues opposite, during the two-week Easter break, will be able to ask their own provincial legislature about its youth policy and the application of the Young Offenders Act in its territory. After everything I have mentioned, and in light of all of the questions I have raised over the course of the week, I am convinced that they will have additional questions to ask their legislatures.

Among other things, they could examine their alternative measures program. Do they have one? If the answer is no, they should worry. If they are told no, we do not believe in that, they will be left with major questions that will enable them to see that Bill C-3 serves no purpose.

A province that does not believe it is important to examine young peoples' needs, make alternative measures programs available to them, help them reintegrate society as quickly as possible, deal with their case as soon after the offence has been committed as possible and be diligent with respect to young offenders will not be encouraged to do so or will not feel obliged to do so under the bill that is being proposed.

You cannot use an act to change the attitude of a province that does not believe in this approach. Money is the most effective lever. The Department of Justice signs the cheques for the application of the Act. It just has to make the cheque reflect that. You don't apply the Act? The cheque is reduced by an equivalent amount. You invest in prisons? Perfect, but we will cut back funding, because that is not the objective of the Young Offenders Act. You should be investing in young people, and not prisons.

Once you have done that, I can assure you that the provinces will understand very quickly. Consider yourself forewarned. They will understand that they are on the wrong track if they are investing in prisons instead of investing in young people who are in trouble with the law.

• 1055

I see that Mr. Saada is trying to determine if we have a quorum. Seven committee members are here, Mr. Chairman. I would like you to confirm if we have a quorum or not.

[English]

The Chair: The clerk is just looking outside again. I think people are going outside from time to time.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We will wait.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): There are eight here.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): While we're looking for quorum, I'd like to go to the bathroom.

The Chair: We'll wait.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Thank you, Mr. Saada. I thought you were looking for a quorum.

• 1058

• 1101

[English]

The Chair: We'll reconvene. I'm sure you're good for another three hours.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, we can keep going. Before the short break, I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Declaration of Principle contained in the Young Offenders Act is extremely important. I invited the members opposite to read it very carefully and contact one of the groups in the Coalition for Juvenile Justice that I mentioned earlier. I did not bring their phone numbers, but I have them in my office. If you want them, just call me and I will be happy to give them to you. I am convinced they will co-operate whole heartedly with you and give you the information you might be missing.

You know that I could have done without the speech I am currently making or this monologue. I do however believe that I might slowly stimulate some of you to want to know more about how the Young Offenders Act is applied in Quebec. I might arouse in them the love and trust I have for young people. My efforts might at some point give rise to something better than what we currently have before us. Some of them, especially the members from Quebec, might end up understanding why the Bloc Québécois is fighting to maintain the Young Offenders Act. I believe I have received this mandate from the people in my riding in Quebec, and especially those people who are involved in the application of the Young Offenders Act at present, and have been since April 2, 1984, when it was adopted. I reiterate that the Act was adopted following a long process of adaptation and consultation among various departments in Quebec. The federal government had seen what was happening in some provinces, which at the time were much more co-operative and a lot less right-wing than they are today, and put a black and white legislative text on the table that met the needs of society and young people.

We could talk for hours, but the heart of the Young Offenders Act, Mr. Chairman, is the needs of the young people, while in the bill before us the focus is on firmness and offences. Emphasis is put on the offence committed by the young person. Sometimes it even ignores the fact that there is a young person involved, that this young person does not have the maturity of an adult, that he or she does not have the intellectual capacity of an adult and is not yet fully developed.

• 1105

Some people even say that, at that age, adolescents are just like sponges and when they are in a society with problems, they absorb those problems. When the young person is in a family where there are drug problems or unlawful behaviour, these problems are absorbed and the young person acts out in society until he or she is grabbed and told that this is not the way things work in real life, that efforts will be made to rehabilitate the young person and that society will invest in him or her so that reintegration can take place. But for that to happen, we need to take the time to look at the young person's needs, and the present legislation allows for that.

I talked to you about the Declaration of Principle. Although I need time, I will never put in enough time to get the Liberal members across the table, who are the majority on this committee, to understand that this Declaration of Principle in clause 3 of the Act is the central thrust, the aspect that should be given priority. Very few of those principles, unfortunately, are to be found in Bill C-3.

Mr. Chairman, we talked early on about crime prevention. Then we looked at the other clause, that deals with young people, their degree of responsibility and the consequences of their actions, which cannot be compared with adult offences. We then looked at society and reasonable measures to be applied to young people, with the focus always on society. We then addressed the situation of young people which, as I said, is important, protection of society and treatment. Before the break, we had got to the treatment issue.

Paragraph 3(1)(d) reads as follows:

(d) where it is not inconsistent with the protection of society, taking no measures or taking measures other than judicial proceedings under this Act should be considered for dealing with young persons who have committed offences.

I would like the members on the other side, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP members, who had shown a great spirit of co-operation yesterday and today, to ask the right questions to people in their province who apply the Young Offenders Act. The question is very simple. I have stated it and I will repeat it: “How do you apply the Young Offenders Act in your province? What are your youth policies?” I am convinced that after hearing everything I have had to say for the past two or three days, you have a lot of questions to ask your provincial legislatures and those who apply the Young Offenders Act in your respective provinces. Among other things, are there alternative measures? Explain to me what your programs are. I want to understand.

That is what you should do over the two-week Easter break, before we get to clause-by-clause study and talk about sanctions and imposing this or that on young people. You talk about quasi judicial sanctions, this kind of sanction and that kind of sanction. Before in-depth consideration of the bill, we need to finally ask what is being done at present in applying the existing Young Offenders Act, if it is applied in our respective provinces.

There are some very important aspects in paragraph 3(1)(e), which reads as follows:

(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 effect them, and young persons should have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms;

This appears not just in some preamble; it is in the body of the text. Section 3 of the Young Offenders Act requires all those involved, Mr. Chairman, to take into account the rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to ensure that the special guarantees that apply to young people are respected.

• 1110

The Liberal members must realize the importance of section 3. I hope that I am making them want to know more and that they will read the act, keeping in mind the many amendments that the Minister wants to introduce. In fact, we should really not use the word amendments because, in the final analysis, what we are doing is throwing out the Young Offenders Act. This is new legislation that is being introduced, a new act with new objectives, in which there is practically no mention of the child's needs. People say that that will not change anything in Quebec. The members on the other side have to wake up to the fact that yes, it will change a lot of things.

Paragraph 3(1)(f) of the Act states:

(f) in the application of this Act, 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 interests of their families;

Is it not a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman, that we can reconcile the needs of children and young persons in this way with protection of society, balancing individual freedoms with the rights of society? Mr. Chairman, section 3 sets out all the essential parameters for applying this legislation properly and understanding the primary objective of the Young Offenders Act.

Some people are saying that the Act no longer meets the needs out there and that society is not well protected. I have also heard a member say that young offenders get away with practically no consequences, that they re-offend, that they come back to court and that it is always the same ones. That is not true, Mr. Chairman. That is false. Let us look at the statistics that the government presented to us. Let us look at what is being done in provinces like Quebec, where the Young Offenders Act is being applied, and let us admit that we are on the wrong track. We realize that the government is on the wrong track. If we conduct a careful and full study of what is being done, what has been written and what the results are, it is evident that we have all the tools that we can use and that we need to be able to achieve to objectives in the Act, which are to take into account the child's needs and to protect society.

Mr. Chairman, let us look now at paragraph 3(1)(g) of the Declaration of Principle in the Young Offenders Act. I am putting some amount of emphasis on this Declaration because it needs to be understood. One reading makes it clear why Quebec is achieving good results and why a member from Quebec is fighting so hard to keep the Young Offenders Act.

Paragraph 3(1)(g) 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 as to what those rights and freedoms are;

Up to this point, the Declaration of Principle has focussed on the needs of young people, and not on informing them of their rights. The Declaration of Principle states it expressly. This is in line with what is done, at least in Quebec, under the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We saw yesterday, when I was describing the background of the measures implemented under the Young Offenders Act, that this was one of the influences in the early 1970s up until 1977, when the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms was adopted in Quebec. Special measures have been taken for young persons, including with respect to informing them of their rights and obligations. That has been part of our day-to-day practice in Quebec for a very long time. It is provided for in paragraph 3(1)(g) of the Declaration of Principle in the Young Offenders Act. There is no problem if that means that the Act would be implemented more adequately in the other provinces and, in particular, that young people would be better informed.

• 1115

There is something else that I have heard a number of times here and that I will have an opportunity to deal with more fully when I go into certain passages of the report written by Judge Jasmin and his collaborators, who have worked extremely hard with others in youth centres, community centres, the legal system and the Youth Protection Branch. These five eminent jurists who produced this report have young people's interests at heart. They put even more emphasis on the part of the Declaration of Principle that I will read to you; it is very important and once again responds to many of the questions that I have heard here, questions that no doubt derive from a lack of familiarity with the Act, but that are sometimes a reflection of bad faith. This is once again a case of people trying to make petty political gains on the backs of young people because they are not in a position to deal as adults with small-minded approaches by certain petty politicians. I am therefore going to read paragraph 3(1)(h) of the Declaration of Principle:

(h) parents have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children, and, for that reason, young persons should be removed from parental supervision either partly or entirely only when measures that provide for continuing parental supervision are inappropriate.

So the Young Offenders Act provides for parents to assume some responsibility. It is wrong, therefore, to say that parents are getting off scot-free, that they are doing nothing, that the situation is terrible, that the legislation must be changed, etc. There is legislation. If it is not being applied properly, we should not blame the legislation, but rather those responsible for applying it.

It is on that basis that we should be questioning those that apply the Act. How do you apply the Young Offenders Act in your area? What are your youth policies? That is what must be done before we amend the Act. Before crying wolf, maybe we need to go into the woods to see if there is any wolf there. Of course, those who want to make political hay will be crying wolf, wolf, and saying that we need to chase away or even kill the wolf. No one wants to go find out if the wolf actually exists. That is how to score easy political points, to the detriment, once again, of young people.

But I, personally, do not buy that old line. I do not belong to that political family that plays politics on the backs of people who are poor, disadvantaged or less able to organize resistance. I know that on the other side, there are people who have their hearts and minds in the right place and who know full well that they will not achieve the sought-after objectives. They know full well that Bill C-3 is a bad bill, which Quebec does not want. They know full well that one province is applying the Young Offenders Act adequately and has acquired expertise in the area of young people, and that province is Quebec. In spite of that, they were prepared, if I had not intervened with my motion, to begin clause-by-clause adoption of Bill C-3. That would have been a scandal.

Mr. DeVillers, I know that you understand the Quebec approach, I know that you are a good father, that you fully understand the possible repercussions of this bill and that you recognize that it is dangerous for Quebec.

• 1120

Sincerely, I hope that the Easter break will allow you to come back enlightened in May. I am convinced that the work that I am now doing is not just preaching in the desert. There are people listening to me, I am sure, who will understand. In any case, some people will want to know more about what is happening in Quebec. I am convinced of that. I am convinced that people will get in touch with Quebec agencies to find out how they are implementing the Young Offenders Act. I am positive that my message is getting through the brick walls of the Liberal Party of Canada. I am sure that my love and interest regarding the application of the Young Offenders Act will be contagious. I just need time. I do not have enough time and I am going to try to give you the opportunity to consult people and to do your work properly.

I understand that you may have your hands tied by your party, but I don't. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to attempt to untie your hands as well as those of the other Liberal members present.

Having said that, let me continue, since the Declaration of Principle in clause 3 includes another subsection, subsection (2). It's self-explanatory but I would like to read it in its entirety in order to present it to my colleagues opposite.

(2) This Act shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1).

Despite everything that's been said, this subsection (2) emphasizes once again that the principles in the Declaration of Principle included in the first subsection are paramount.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is the foundation of the current Young Offenders Act.

An attempt is being made to deconstruct all this and to play fast and loose with Bill C-3 in order to attempt, as I often said, to bore people stiff with minor amendments and subordinate paragraphs in such and such a subsection, etc., but it will never be as clear as it is right now. We will never be able to come up with new legislation with principles that are this clear. We have before us all the tools necessary to achieve our primary objective. Why attempt to change that? To seek to change this law is to fail to meet our responsibilities.

I know that the Minister is responsible. I know that she likes to play politics. I understand her. In her place, I might also want to get re-elected. If I had a majority of less than 200 or 300 votes, I would try some political manoeuvre to get re-elected. But I've always learned that in politics, we have to rise above this. One must never get into politics solely for one's personal interest, but for society in general. Once again, I hope that this principle that compels me here today will be adopted by all of you.

Mr. Chairman, once we have the Declaration of Principle in mind, once we have time—and I imagine that my motion will be adopted at some point—we can go and consult people in this field and ask them the right questions.

I told you that the passage of the Young Offenders Act on April 2, 1984 followed a process that had been undertaken several years previously in Quebec. Despite that, in the 90s, six or seven years after the Young Offenders Act came into force, we wanted to find out whether more could be done to further reduce the youth crime rate.

The Quebec government of the time gave a mandate to a task force to conduct an exhaustive study. The Chairman of this task force was Michel Jasmin, currently the Associate Chief Justice of the Quebec Youth Court. There was also Normand Bastien, Director of the Youth Division of the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal; Maurice Boisvert, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Regional Coordination Branch of the Ministry of Health and Social Services; Pierre Michaud, Director General of the Centre jeunesse Chaudière-Appalaches; and Jean Turmel, Director of the Youth Law Directorate of the Quebec Ministry of Justice.

• 1125

Their mandate was to speak to all the stakeholders, to see all the people who enforce the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis, all possible stakeholders in this field to ask them one single and simple question, a question that I dearly hope that all Liberal and opposition members who are in favour of adopting Bill C-3 will also ask the same stakeholders in their respective provinces. The question is: “What is your youth policy? What do you do when a young person has a legal problem?”

Mr. Chairman, we've seen—and I won't go over this again because I want to communicate my entire message—the whole issue of delinquency, the protection of society, of offences, of the responsibility of adolescents and the rights of adolescents. These are things we've examined. We've also examined the rights of adolescents, as I said, and their needs.

I was talking to you more specifically about victims. I can demonstrate to you that when we examined the Young Offenders Act in Quebec, when we examined the day-to-day application of the Young Offenders Act, we realized that some things that we were doing with regard to victims could still be improved. Page 25 of the report reads as follows:

During their participation in the justice system, victims should be treated in a manner that acknowledges their situation: with the respect and sensitivity appropriate to their needs and rights.

But the justice system's concern for victims should not stop there: they are also individuals who have been adversely affected by an offence and who rightly claim some form of reparation, restitution or apology. This must be better recognized in our judicial and social practices.

You can see that in Quebec, we did take time to examine what is done for victims and we recognized that some things need to be improved. But we are able to make these improvements under the current legislation. Improving our approach to victims does not require legislative amendments.

This must be better recognized in our judicial and social practices.

I hear people from western Canada, including the Minister, tell us that with Bill C-3, we'll be doing wonderful things for the victims. This will be the discovery of the century.

In Quebec, we examined the Young Offenders Act and we said that yes, indeed, some things could be improved with regard to victims. But this does not necessarily require legislative measures. We are able to do it in our province, especially since the administration of justice is an area of provincial and not federal jurisdiction. We are able to do it, in Quebec, within the framework of our jurisdictions while respecting the Canadian Constitution of 1982 that we never signed.

I'd like to take this opportunity to slip in one little message here. Once again, in Quebec, we're good sports. We apply the Canadian Constitution and we respect it much more than the federal government. But that's a debate for another day. In accordance with our respective jurisdictions, Quebec has a responsibility to administer justice and in the framework of the administration of justice, there are things we can do to improve our approach to victims in order to get them more involved. It's not necessary to amend the legislation to do this.

• 1130

The other aspect is so important that I would like to read certain passages to you. The next two aspects are important, but this chapter deals with parents. We've heard many things in committee regarding the obligation of parents, the responsibility of parents, etc.

There are even certain political parties who think that the Minister does not go far enough and who go so far as to claim that parents should go to prison for their children. And the Minister of Justice actually pays attention to this. She certainly hasn't read Judge Jasmin's report. I know that the Minister has the report, because I saw it. Madame Lafontaine, you had it yesterday.

It's not sufficient to just carry Judge Jasmin's report around. One has to read it. One has to report it to the Minister. One has to sell it to the minister. I'm convinced that if she had read it, she would never had tabled Bill C-3.

Subsection I.8 deals with parents and as I've said on a number of occasions, these are useful comments on all the subjects I've raised, and among others, the subject of parents that I will broach later. To understand the scope of the Young Offenders Act, one has to know certain basic facts or have a starting point. One has to have a minimum knowledge of what is important in order to understand the logic and the objectives that we set out in Quebec with regard to the Young Offenders Act.

With regard to parents, the report concludes the following:

As those with prime responsibility for their children, parents must be partners in any intervention, even if appropriate support must be provided to them. Special attention must be given to the importance of the role of fathers.

It states, Mr. Chairman:

Since its objective is to punish, classical penal law affects solely the perpetrator of the offence: it would thus be unfair to inflict punishment on someone other than the offender.

I will reread that hoping that the people from the department will fully understand the full scope of this comment and that they will bear it in mind when they speak to the Minister about my speech here today. I know that they report my statements to her, and that's perfectly fine since she sends me messages in the House. She seems to find this funny. I don't know why. It says this:

Since its objective is to punish, classical penal law affects solely the perpetrator of the offence: it would thus be unfair to inflict punishment on someone other than the offender.

Members from Ontario should repeat this sentence to Mr. Mike Harris, shouldn't they? In Ontario, they want to cut off the livelihood of lawyers who look after youths so that parents pay up to a maximum of $3,000 or $6,000, I believe, in lawyer's fees. In a way, that's making parents pay for an offence committed by their child. And so:

it would thus be unfair to inflict punishment on someone other than the offender. On the other hand, insofar as interventions with youth can have an educational aspect, they should involve the parents.

The difference is subtle, but it is there. We're not saying the parents should be ignored. We're certainly not saying that parents shouldn't be involved. What we are saying is that we don't want parents paying in the place of an adolescent child who is involved in the criminal justice system, which is pointless and illogical, but we do want parents to be party to any intervention, that they be involved in the education of the child who has a justice problem.

The report goes on to address all those who denounce the attitude of parents. It states:

Many people point the finger at parents for being primarily responsible for the delinquency of their children.

• 1135

You know, western Canada did not come up with anything new. They may how louder than others, but when western Canadians point the finger at parents as being primarily responsible and when Ontario follows suit, they're not inventing any new notion, they're simply saying out loud what's already been said elsewhere. But once you've analysed the situation, you realize that it's not just by pointing the finger at parents that we can solve the problem. It's not by making the parents pay that we're going solve the problem in the long term.

The report also states:

Without exaggerating, or without being too simplistic as is often the case in discussions of this subject, it is important to point out the role of parents in preventing delinquency. Parents remain the primary role models of their children, just as they are the first adults responsible for supervising their behaviour. The absence of mutual bonding between parents and children is seen as one of the conditions that create a predisposition to delinquency. Research indicates that the lack of affection and reciprocal commitment of parents and children, as well as a lack of supervision and discipline by parents, are associated with child delinquency. These are more closely related to delinquency than other factors, such as marital conflict, the absence of a parent [...] or the size of the family. The relationship that teenage boys have with their father is emerging as an even more significant factor than the relationship with their mother.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that in your province, as in Quebec or other provinces, in a society where there are more and more single-parent families, in a society where there are more and more families that do not have a male role model for the children, because of separation or other factors, this becomes even more important.

Is it by changing the law that we're going to change social mores, Mr. Chairman? No. And what we're saying in Quebec today, or rather what we said in 1995 when this report was tabled, still holds true today. It is true in Quebec and it's true in other provinces. It's also true in the United States, where they have a very different approach to youngsters. Some states even have the death penalty to punish young offenders for certain crimes.

What do they say in the United States? I quoted a short passage yesterday, but I'd like to quote another passage that corresponds directly to the comments found in Judge Jasmin's report regarding families. There's a problem that may be more modern. Society has confronted us with a problem that may not have existed 10 or 15 years ago. That's the whole issue, as we said, of the role of parents, who have a direct influence on the child.

When there is one parent or two parents, quite often, young people are considered orphans even though there's a mother and a father in the family. It's important that we bear this in mind when we vote on the clauses of Bill C-3. I hope that the members opposite, during the two-week delay that I've asked for before May 2, will do a minimum of work on this subject in order to glean more information about it.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, in 1996, which was around the same time of the drafting of Judge Jasmin's report, a Baptist preacher made a speech before certain judges on the occasion of the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Yesterday, I did not know which olympic games they were. But they were the Atlanta Games of 1996. Here's what he said; it's very important:

• 1140

This gathering is not simple an opportunity for entertainment, it has significant meaning because you are gathering during a period America is in a crisis, a crisis due to the fact that we are living in a era marked by many remarkable firsts. Indeed, this is the first generation of children and young people in history whose existential vision is more recent than that of the preceding generation.

Parents have always thought to improve things in some way, but now our children no longer have a greater vision of life than the one given to them at birth. This is the first generation that has had to make do with and adapt to the status of orphans with parents. In principle, one is an orphan when both parents are dead, but these children have had to face up to a brutal reality, the fact that too many are orphans even though their parents are alive.

Mr. Chairman, the person who said these things could have been Ontarian, a Quebecker, or someone from Western Canada. These statements are true here as well. We are not sheltered from this phenomenon, Mr. Chairman. But are we supposed to penalize the young because of that? Well, no. Are we to punish parents for things they didn't even do? Well, no. We have to strike a balance. I believe that the Young Offenders Act does allow us to strike that balance, Mr. Chairman. It enables us to involve the parents, to involve them more and to give them their rightful place. They have a role to play, particularly in terms of raising that youngster. You will recall that the statement of principle says that adolescents are not considered the same as adults in terms of their degree of responsibility and the consequences of their actions because they don't have the same degree of development and maturity as adults, because they are still being raised and educated. Parents have a crucial role to play and everyone agrees on that. Thanks to a sound enforcement of the Young Offenders Act, we can manage to reconcile the role of parents, the needs of the child and public safety, with the ultimate objective of the welfare of the child and his or her reinsertion in society.

Mr. Chairman, everything is there in the Declaration of Principle and in its application, when it is properly applied. Once again, there is no need for a Bill C-3 to change anything.

The problem is that some parents do not assume their responsibilities. There are things that the province can do to get parents more involved and that has nothing to do with federal legislators. It is not through legislation that we will be able to teach parents their responsibilities with respect to the conduct of their children. We need to educate these parents, and that is much more a provincial jurisdiction than a federal one.

Another important point, as I was saying earlier, Mr. Chairman, is the speed of intervention. We should all express our support for the idea that if there is one thing that can be done to improve the system for young offenders, it is to act on the time frames and speed up the handling of cases. If a few amendments were made to the Young Offenders Act to deal more specifically with the time frames involved, these would have been welcomed by those who apply the act.

Mr. Chairman, an excerpt from page 29 of the Jasmin report states:

• 1145

Speedy intervention is essential for impact and credibility. Slow reaction by society is interpreted by young people as an expression of indifference, if not tolerance by default.

In what way, Mr. Chairman, does Bill C-3 respond to that comment? I would really like to ask the Minister that question. How will the amendments before us in the form of Bill C-3 speed up the handling of these cases? In no way, Mr. Chairman. On the contrary. Everyone has told us that this bill is very complex, that it introduces new steps and that there will be an even bigger delay between the hearing and the trial, which means, Mr. Chairman, that Bill C-3 is counter-productive when it comes to speeding up intervention. It flies in the face of what we have heard from witnesses here, Mr. Chairman. The minister has understood nothing. It is one thing to carry the Jasmin report around, but you need to read and understand it. The minister needs to actually see what is being said by the people applying the Young Offenders Act.

I would like to quote from Louisiane Gauthier, a psychologist in the youth protection service. Her text is appended to the Jasmin report and it shows the importance of speedy intervention. She states:

Difficulty in dealing with long delays is frequent among adolescents and generally stronger among young offenders; it is often at the heart of delinquent behaviour. Since remembering and thinking ahead are things that offenders are not good at, the system that punishes them needs to compensate for these weaknesses by maintaining the cause-and-effect relationship between deviant acts and their consequences. The tendency of offenders to play down their actions goes hand-in-hand with a weak memory and continuing ideas of some miraculous impunity.

If I had time, I would read that excerpt to you 25 times until you could understand it properly. But since I want to say my whole piece before May 2nd, I will go on. She then says:

A slow reaction by society reduces the significance of the delinquent act in the eyes of the young person and is interpreted as an expression of indifference or even tolerance by default. As a result, the adolescent, in his other desire for social identification, sees the system as a net full of holes and the reflex as an offender will be to slip through the hole until brought up short one day, often when it is too late, by an overwhelming and impassable wall. Long delays mean more than wasted time, they result in lost opportunities and dashed hopes.

That is a wonderful quote, two weeks before Easter. She said: “Long delays mean more than wasted time, they result in lost opportunities and dashed hopes.” How will Bill C-3 help us to quit wasting time? It will not do that at all, Mr. Chairman. Even worst, it will mean even longer delays.

• 1150

Young people have a different sense of time—Mr. Chairman, you will not be surprised at this—from that of adults. All the psychologists and psychiatrists say the same thing. Adolescents have a different concept of time from adults. To have any meaning, interventions have to take place quickly so that young people can place them in the context of the offence. They need to realize what they have done. Intervention has to take place very quickly, as soon as possible after the offence has been committed. The longer the delay between the offence and the consequences, the more the offence diminishes subjectively in the mind of the young person, and the greater the possibility of the young person seeing himself or herself as a victim of the law instead of a lawbreaker.

I would like that to be kept in mind when we do the clause-by-clause study of this bill. I would like the Liberals to keep in mind that the principle of time, speedy intervention, is important. I would like them to remember what I have just said and to try to find provisions somewhere in Bill C-3 that will respond to this need to link young people as closely as possible with their offences by having sanctions imposed at the earliest opportunity. The faster the case is dealt with, the better the results will be. I would like to say to those who were not here yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that I gave a striking example of this. There are differences with respect to time frames and the way this is applied.

Mr. Chairman, I would like you to confirm that we have quorum.

[English]

The Chair: I understand one of the members is just outside the room.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We will wait until we have quorum, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying is too important and I want everyone to hear it.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It would be easier if we could go to the bathroom. If you could get us another Bloc member here, we could then at least have somebody able to go to the bathroom. Could you get another Bloc member here, and then we could go to the bathroom?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We can go ahead now, Mr. Chairman.

I would like you to explain some time to our colleagues from the Liberal Party that it is not up to the opposition to maintain quorum here; it is up to them. They represent the government. They should take advantage of that. Things can change quickly in politics.

I will go on now. I am in a good mood and things are going very well for me, Mr. Chairman. I think that the message is getting through slowly but surely. I can see by the eyes of the Liberal members across the table that my message is starting to get through.

Mr. Chairman, I was saying that speedy intervention was essential. It is clear to me that Bill C-3 does not improve the situation in any way. On the contrary, the whole approach where time frames are concerned is more complex. After two or three hours, I am starting to have difficulty expressing myself, but we will get there, Mr. Chairman.

So the time issue is very important. Comparative studies have been done, Mr. Chairman. I understand that my colleagues will not be able to do all that in two weeks. However, they can surely consult people who have done this work, among others, Judge Jasmin, who went to see people who gave him the benefit of their experience and informed him of comparisons that they had done between different cases. Those people would tell you the same thing that they told him.

• 1155

I could talk about the views of the Crown prosecutors in a district where I practise law, the Joliette judicial district, and about people who worked on the study dealing with the handling of young peoples' files by those responsible. They have seen these things very clearly, and I would even say beyond any reasonable doubt. Since we are here at the Justice Committee, let us use terminology that everyone knows. I would say that they have seen beyond any reasonable doubt that the issue of timing is crucial, that the earlier the file was dealt with, the more the young person realized the consequences of his or her offence and the better the results were. The young person understood more fully the impact of his or her actions and the fact that he or she was at fault. The parents also got more involved and tried to find solutions. Everyone was working to respond to the young person's needs and to protect society. So it is extremely important to take action quickly and it is unacceptable to have long delays.

Before asking you if we had a quorum, I was getting ready to give you the following example. Unfortunately, some provinces invest in things you can see, in decoration, in nice furniture, in shiny floors, colourful filing cabinets and they are very proud of that. It is true that the working environment must be very good.

However, in these beautiful courthouses, where everything is in order and properly filed, if you ask about the delays between the initial appearance and the trial, you get the following answer, according to what Mr. Justice Jasmin told me: this is November, we are very well organized, there are not too many cases, and all is going very well, the court appearance could be scheduled for June, or perhaps September if several other cases arise between now and then. Mr. Chairman, that means a wait of six, seven, eight, nine or ten months. In Quebec, when more than 30 days go by between the court appearance and the trial, the alarm bells go off.

Of course, there are some exceptional and highly complex cases that may require a lot of investigation. Forty or 45 days may go by, but the average wait for a court appearance, regardless of the time of year, or how many young offender cases there are, is 30 days.

That was not always the case. That is since the study that I have been promoting. I hope with all my heart that you will ask for something similar in your provinces, once they have understood that the delays are very important and they are prepared to take the necessary steps, by investing more heavily in applying the Act in order to decrease delays between the court appearance and the trial.

These delays are very important, but you understand that delays in the work carried out by police officers to put together a file and obtain evidence are also very important. Delays in the work of social workers are also important. Delays in obtaining reports from a psychologist or a psychiatrist are extremely important if the court needs them. Everyone must work effectively and quickly to achieve good results in the shortest amount of time possible, Mr. Chairman. So I can never say enough about timely action.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, consistency and responsibility on the part of all workers involved are of the utmost importance. Yesterday, I drew a bit of a comparison between the workers or rather the youth justice system in Quebec and a chain in which each link was important. I was saying that we could not have a single weak link if we wanted to achieve good results. To do this, everyone working in this area must cooperate. They must feel involved. They must feel responsible for the proper application of the Young Offenders Act.

• 1200

What does the Jasmin report say about consistency among workers in this field and their responsibilities? Once again I invite my colleagues opposite to read the report during the two-week break, in accordance with the motion I tabled. The report says this:

Above and beyond the specific requirements of their specific duties, the people who are involved with young people must see their role and assume their responsibilities on the basis of broad and common objectives, from a holistic perspective in which everyone participates. Consistency is a common thread to which each worker (police, legal or social) must be able to link the measures for which he feels responsible.

This maturity was not acquired from one day to the next. We did not begin to apply the Young Offenders Act effectively from one day to the next. Much effort went into this. It is the commitment of everyone involved, the cooperation among them, the sense of responsibility of each worker with respect to the application of the Young Offenders Act, the expertise acquired by each one that, at the end of the day, helps ensure that the Act is applied properly.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that those involved, having worked for years establishing something solid, do have questions and concerns when they see the Minister introducing something new, prepared in haste and for political motives, that just might put an end to what's happening in Quebec. I understand them when they say that we shouldn't act that way and introduce such a bill. I understand all those who have to implement the legislation when they send this unanimous message to the Ottawa government: “Withdraw the Bill. Ask the provinces how they administer the Young Offenders Act. Ask them what their youth policy is”.

It's important that this be done, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, the consequences will be terrible. You won't be able to turn back the clock. The members must remember this when it comes time for the clause-by-clause—some day or another but never, I hope—on Bill C-3, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying extremely important things that I'm only skimming over and I'm asking my colleagues to read the Jasmin report. Here's what it says about consistency and responsibility for all those involved:

The process a juvenile goes through when being dealt with includes many stages where responsibility is often assumed by different people...

If you just stop and think for five minutes how all this works, you can see that it's true. Whether it's police officers, Crown attorneys, lawyers for the defence, youth workers, judges or those responsible for implementing alternative measures, Mr. Chairman, they're all part of the process. And each one of the steps of the process has its own purpose and this is so true that one of the specialists met by Judge Jasmin and his group compared the process to an assembly line where the understanding each person has of his or her role and responsibility is important.

• 1205

You need the holistic view to intervene in a file. You need to have a common vision of the objective that needs to be attained and the means that have to be taken for the system to work, Mr. Chairman. This vision is called consistency. This consistency is possible with the Young Offenders Act. Why risk losing this with Bill C-3? Mr. Chairman, why risk putting the torch to a system that's been working well for years in Quebec?

Over 25 years ago the Prévost Commission denounced what it called the “disparities of intent”, deploring the antagonisms that opposed different individuals or professional groups and hoping for “the different stakeholders in the administration of justice to toil and work together in the same direction.”

The Prévost Commission isn't new, Mr. Chairman. For those who don't know this, the Prévost report was presented to the Quebec government in 1968. You can see that the questions about the justice system and what more could be done for young offenders in the whole justice system are not something recent, Mr. Chairman. For those who would like to read this report, it's the one by the Commission of Inquiry on the Administration of Criminal and Penal Justice in Quebec. The title is La société face au crime (Society and Crime). What I commented on before is found on page 20 of that report, Mr. Chairman. On page 20 they address disparity of intent and deplore the fact that the different collaborators in the administration of justice are not all working in the same direction, following the same lead.

This study was done in Quebec in 1968. I'd like to know if this kind of study was ever done in any other of the provinces. Could I know if the other provinces ever stopped for five minutes to see if those implementing the Young Offenders Act were consistent in their implementation? Could anyone tell me that? Could anyone tell me if any provinces took time out before crying wolf just to check up on what they were doing in their own backyards?

And those involved in these provinces, do they feel responsible for the file they have in their hands? Do they work jointly towards a specific goal which would be to attain the principles underlying the Young Offenders Act: the needs of the young person, the responsibility of the parents and the young person and the protection of society? Each one of those people must feel a commitment. Was that done in the other provinces? We did it in 1968.

In 1995, we felt the need to do it again, to try to improve things. We stopped and thought about the whole matter. Were the provinces consulted in this respect before this unreadable piece of material was produced, Bill C-3, before us? Did the slightest bit of questioning go on before producing this bill and playing politics on the backs of our youth? To my knowledge, not. Enlighten me! I'm begging you. I don't think that was done, otherwise I would have been told so and I would have been given all the documents.

Right now, I'm talking with a member when he wants to have information, when he has questions about what I've said during the day because he learned such or such a thing. “Is it true that that's how things work in Quebec?” “Where did you learn that?” “What do you mean?” Of course, this is an opposition member.

The members on the government side don't have this broad-mindedness. They have to follow the party line. They must give the impression they know all. Maybe members are more humble when they're on this side of the room. In any case, they're the ones asking the questions. So, Mr. Chairman, there's evidence that what's being done isn't very well known.

I understand that not everyone can know what's going on in Quebec. However, before voting clause-by-clause on a bill like this one, the members should at least know what's going on in their own provinces.

• 1210

My riding is in Quebec. I think that no one here has a riding on Mars. They have to know what's being done in their own backyards before wanting to try to change the system.

Mr. Chairman, it also says:

Of course, different people must play roles that put them in different, if not opposing positions.

You can understand that the Crown and the lawyer for the defence play different roles. I think everyone knows that. The example of lawyers is given specifically. However, you shouldn't let those different roles be a barrier to consistency in the interventions. And you can't be inconsistent in how you administer the Act when the Declaration of Principle and the objectives are clear, straightforward and specific. That's what you find in the Young Offenders Act. That's what you don't find in Bill C-3.

Consistency means taking a common approach. It requires that the different people dealing with the same offender see their role and take on their responsibilities in the context of broad common objectives and means and a vision they all share. What would you say, for example, about a situation where a youth is put in custody by a judge with the stated objective of preventing recidivism while the rehabilitation centre where he's sent focuses its interventions on something else altogether without any consideration for the objective for which the young offender was sentenced to closed custody? Wouldn't the very legitimacy of this custody then be questioned?

That would be awful. When I see the criticism by some members from provinces other than Quebec, provinces which, in some cases, seem to have very pro-active alternative measures but that are still criticized by federal MPs, I figure that maybe it's precisely because you don't have proper consistency between the judge's decision, the objective he had in mind when he imposed the sentence or alternative measure, and the centre where the youth is sent.

In this case, the Act is not at fault; it is the way it's being administered that is. You don't change legislation to solve that kind of problem. You try to settle the problem at its centre. You try to settle the problem there seems to be with consistency. You try to make the players accountable, including the judges, if they are in error. You don't change legislation that is working well. At worst, you are going to be throwing that legislation in the wastebasket like they are trying to do. It's awful. You're trashing legislation that's working well just to respond to some requests from other provinces while you have inconsistencies that are not due to the Act. The problem is that some provinces either administer it improperly or don't want to administer it at all.

The problems raised at the time of the Prévost Commission of Inquiry, in Quebec, were unfortunately still present in 1995. In 1995, when they examined the matter, Judge Jasmin's group came to the conclusion that the conclusions of the Prévost Report had perhaps not been understood or implemented 100%.

• 1215

Why did they come to certain conclusions and suggest positive steps to the government of Quebec themselves? It was precisely in response to the lack of consistency that had been noticed in 1965 in the Prévost Report and that still existed in 1995.

Did we ask to have the Young Offenders Act changed, though? Of course not. We determined what could be done on our own before asking the federal government to amend the Young Offenders Act. Anyone with common sense would do the same thing. Until anyone can show me the contrary, there are still a lot of people around with common sense and people of good will. The law is predicated on the assumption of good faith. That's one of the rules of law. I am sure of the provinces' good faith, but they have to stop a minute and wonder and when they see they cannot answer their own questions, then they will set up task forces like we did in 1968 with the Prévost Commission and just as we did in the 1990s with Judge Jasmin's group.

In that way, you come to certain conclusions and if there are steps to be taken in certain departments, then you do it. If you have to adopt legislative measures, then you do it. You count on yourself before counting on federal government. Before crying wolf, you try to settle the problem in your own backyard, especially when it comes to administering an act.

Whatever the act, if it is not properly administered, the results won't be what you hope for. Whatever the Act, if you don't want to administer it, then you get the results you deserve. I will give you another example that was given in the report written in 1995. It says:

... some police officers don't fully understand some releases ordered by judges; some social workers that would like some things to be done because of the juvenile's needs don't appreciate being confronted with the view of a defence lawyer whose client's orders are to get the least restrictive measure;

Any lawyer, whether for the defence or the Crown, one day or the other comes to the same conclusion. The defence lawyer works to get the lightest sentence possible and the Crown tries to get the harshest possible. The only difference, when they consult, is that they both have the same objective and, especially, that the judge who decides the case should keep in mind the declaration of principle I read out to you before.

So he continues:

Doubtless more consultation has allowed views to come closer together during the last two decades. Just think about the relations between the justice networks and social services that have improved in a manner that deserves mention. However, at the same time, the process has become more complex, especially with the introduction of assessments and alternative measures without the court's intervention; the result has been an increase in the number of stages and specialized interventions with all the risks of compartmentalization stemming from that.

There is a risk in wanting to specialize. Everyone agrees with that. There is a risk in wanting to provide specific interventions, and the risk is that everyone will go along their merry way in a very responsible fashion, but without any concern as to what will happen once their mandate is over.

This does not occur, however, when there is good co-operation and when people feel responsible, not for their own mandate, but for bringing the file to a conclusion. There is a big difference, Mr. Chairman. We are capable of making this distinction right now under the Young Offenders Act. Why change it, Mr. Chairman?

• 1220

The report continues, stating:

However at the same time, the process has become more complex, especially with the introduction of assessments and alternative measures without the court's intervention;

The program implemented in Quebec provides for the opportunity to use alternative measures for young offenders without necessarily having them go through the courts. There is room for some discretion and common sense. The report also states:

The specialization of roles has advantages that make it necessary. It can serve to avoid conflicting roles. Moreover, it serves as a means for developing the skill set of the front line workers: one cannot be competent in everything. People need to develop their skill sets according to their own roles. They must also have a good understanding of the role to be played by others: this understanding is a prerequisite to any mutual adjustments to be made to achieve greater consistency.

I hope that you will understand what I have just read and this is a question you can ask yourself when you leave, on Friday, for the two-week break, before coming back on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 9:30. In addition to asking the various players in your provinces about youth policies, you could also ask them this question. Ask them questions. How do the various players work with each other? Do they talk to each other from time to time? Do they feel responsible for the way the police have acted in a file? Do they feel the need to read the psychoeducator's report on file in order to understand where the youth is coming from, where he will go in future, how we should deal with him and so on and so forth? Ask them if they feel responsible. Ask them whether or not they intervened. Ask them if there is consistency.

These are questions that need to be asked and it is incumbent upon you to ask them, Mr. Chairman, before moving to clause-by-clause of Bill C-3. Mr. Chairman, after reading up on the issue, after meeting many players and seeing the need for this consistency, I came to the realization that we have consistency under the Young Offenders Act. We can obtain it if we enforce the Young Offenders Act properly. This is, therefore, a crucial question that you should be asking to those individuals who enforce this act in your respective provinces. What do you do? How do you enforce the Young Offenders Act in your province? These are the questions that you have to ask before amending anything whatsoever and before shelving a piece of legislation that works well and that has proven itself in Quebec. Let's all say no to the amendments and no to the new bill.

You should at least go through this exercise in your ridings, as responsible members of Parliament. You should check this out before we continue with our consideration. In Quebec, we know that consistency and the responsibility of all of the players are important factors. We are aware that certain problems do exist and we have tried to resolve them. I sincerely believe that, since 1995, numerous improvements have been made in Quebec in this respect. This is why we now have a coalition whose members all state that they feel committed to the good management of youth justice.

Obviously, the judges play a crucial, extremely important role. They must be competent—and I believe that they are all competent since they all receive very good training—and enforce the act. In Quebec, at least they have been given significant specialized training to ensure that they constitute one of the extremely important links in the chain of youth justice which I referred to earlier. They are probably the most significant link, the strongest link in the entire system and the one that rigorously ensures that the Young Offenders Act is enforced properly. This link does its best to ensure that the first objective of the Young Offenders Act, namely the needs of the child, is met. Protection of society and the involvement of other players fallow from this objective. There is, therefore, a decision-making process which considers the entire situation. The judge must have every element of information in his possession in order to meet the needs of the child in adequate fashion.

• 1225

Mr. Chairman, what does the Jasmin report say about the decision-making process taking into account the entire situation? On page 33, we read:

The police department as well as the social and legal workers must make every effort to compile all of the files on the youth in question, abiding by relevant legal principles, so that the decision will be based on the young person's entire situation.

In order for the judge to make the best possible decision and in order to guide and assist all of the players who will be working to meet the specific needs of the young offender in question, all aspects of the case must be found in one single file.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bellehumeur.

I would ask the committee to note that it is 12:30. Yesterday when we adjourned I think we alluded to the fact that we would be sitting today from 9:30 to 12:30, so that those people who are returning home and so on have opportunity to do so. On that note....

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I haven't finished my intervention, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Well, since we....

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I am prepared to continue all afternoon, if you would like. I have a message to convey. I have something to tell you.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: You're breaking my heart.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have not yet delivered one fifth of the message that I wanted to convey to you.

[English]

The Chair: I bring to your attention your motion, and I would cause you to consider the fact that we're leaving today and we won't be back until the Tuesday after the break. Under the circumstances, I think your point has been made relatively well.

With that, I would wish everyone a reflective two weeks.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn until Tuesday, May 2, 2000, I would like to inform you that I have advised the clerk about two notices of motion. I will be giving him copies of these motions. I have also added four other motions and, therefore, I am advising you that I am going to table, today, six motions with the clerk.

[English]

The Chair: I would note that I've already received notice of other motions as well, and those will be circulated also.

Thank you very much. I hope everyone enjoys very much their two weeks.

The meeting is adjourned.