JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, September 20, 2000

• 1517

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call this meeting of the justice committee to order. Today we are doing Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and appeal other acts. Today we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, as I said.

If memory serves me correctly, when we adjourned last night we were hearing from Monsieur Bellehumeur on the previous motion. Is that correct, Monsieur?

Notwithstanding the heckling on the government side, I think we will proceed. Mr. Bellehumeur, we await with bated breath.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would point out to the members of the committee that, after having asked my question in the House, I ran to be here at 3:00 o'clock, on time, but that the government was not able to get quorum for another 20 minutes. We should have simply set the meeting at 3:30.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. You think that's funny, you and the opposition. The meeting should have been set at 3:30, as usual, to give those who ask questions and who work at least 30 minutes to get here after Question Period.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, I have more serious things to address today. I'm a very optimistic man and I am convinced that I am close to convincing the members across the way that they're heading in the wrong direction with Bill C-3. For the benefit of the many people listening to us, I will read the motion which is on the table this afternoon. It is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights postpone clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, in order to allow the federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General to appear before the committee, explain her many amendments, and answer our questions.

There is still time, Mr. Chairman, since we still have about five hours if we want to abide by the House Order. Indeed, the government has decided to put an end to this committee's work and, with the support of all the Quebec Liberal members, it has put a gag on the Bloc Québécois and, in so doing, on Quebec. Obviously only the Bloc Québécois can defend the interests of Quebec concerning this Young Offenders Act, among other things.

• 1520

Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to repeat what I said yesterday for those who weren't here. They missed some good arguments. However, there is one thing I will repeat for those who were absent: the two hypothetical cases I developed, a very good summary of the situation.

Yesterday I started with the letter that the Justice Minister sent to the French dailies on April 25 last. I pointed out several instances in which the Minister is downright wrong or even misinforming the public on the true objective of Bill C-3. As I demonstrated yesterday, that letter led to the publication of a series of other letters in which these falsehoods were corrected.

I won't read the Minister's letter, but I can tell you that the Minister's strategy was also used yesterday by a lady by the name of Yolande Viau, a Justice Department official. It's as though Ms. McLellan is unable to adequately defend her own bill and explain the whys and wherefores of the legislation. She sent an underlying from the department to defend Bill C-3.

I must admit that I may not have the political experience of many other members of the House. However, I have been a member of the Justice Committee since 1993. It is the first time that I see an official who is supposed to serve the public serve the Minister politics instead. Let me elaborate on Ms. Viau's article.

As you know, Mr. Chairman Scott, since you've been on this committee for some time now—and as other colleagues know since they've been here longer than you—I have not always shared the Justice Department's views on its bills. On some of these bills, I met Mr. Yvan Roy, for instance, who always gave me the straight facts and who always tried to explain the legislation submitted by the department without practising petty politics. Ms. Viau's comments on Quebec's situation are deliberately misleading; she purposefully aligns and overlaps certain federal and provincial pieces of legislation.

Quite frankly, I would have liked Ms. Yolande Viau to be here this afternoon because I would have looked her straight in the eye and told her what I am about to tell you, because what she did is unacceptable. It is okay to defend a bill. It is even okay to defend your own bill, because the way she talks about it, she seems to be taking it personally. I do not know whether she is in fact one of the drafters of Bill C-3, but she could have defended it properly by remaining within the limits of the duties of her position, in other words, by steering clear of partisanship and by sticking to the facts.

• 1525

When I got here, I even asked the people from the department if she was a public servant or a political assistant. As far as I know, she is a public servant paid in part by Quebec taxpayers. It was to be expected that she would defend the bill properly, but within the limits of her jurisdiction. If the Minister were here today, I would ask her questions on that too, Mr. Chairman. I would ask her to explain her department's attitude on that score.

I hope members of the committee have read the article Jeunes contrevenants, qui appuie qui? [Young offenders, who is supporting whom?]. According to a CROP poll paid for by the Department of Justice with public funds, 49% of Quebeckers agree with Ottawa, but barely 10% are aware that there is a federal bill. It is quite absurd for a government official to use a totally bogus poll to support her minister's policy. I would have liked to ask the Minister, had she been here today to explain her numerous amendments and to answer our questions, what the real reason for this poll was.

We see that only 10% of the population of Quebec know that there is a Bill C-3, know that the Minister has tabled a bill, and that only 10% of the population of Quebec are opposed to the bill. One has to wonder whether it is the 10% who know about the bill who are opposed to it. The poll says nothing about that.

It's disappointing—I imagine she was speaking on behalf of the Minister—that she prefers to go by a bogus and biased poll rather than to rely on the opinions of the numerous specialists who went to the trouble of sending briefs to the committee and travelling to appear before the committee to explain their practice and experience. Some of them have been in this field for 30 years. But the Minister prefers doing polls and commenting on bogus polls.

There is another very good poll that the Minister disregarded. In that poll, all of the members of the National Assembly said no to Bill C-3 and asked the Minister to go back to the drawing board. That poll is rather more compelling; it is much more representative of the population of Quebec than the Minister's bogus poll.

Ms. Viau even has the nerve to say that according to the poll, two out of three respondents feel that the youth crime rate has gone up over the past five years. That is, in fact, the perception that is out there. You do not have to spend several thousand dollars to find out that there is a perception problem. But repealing the Young Offenders Act will not necessarily change that perception. The Minister has an educative role to play, but she has decided not to do so for purely partisan reasons.

There are two places where I believe Department of Justice Counsel Yolande Viau is engaging in politics. First, where she defies readers to find support in Bill C-3 for criticisms that the new act provides for sentences to be based on the seriousness of the offense. One need only read the text to realize that the seriousness of the offence is a key feature of Bill C-3 that is to guide the judge in sentencing. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

• 1530

Since Ms. Viau uses and even re-uses the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec, just to take up the challenge, I am going to read a little bit of the brief of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec. It's important, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Viau likes quoting the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec. Yet this is what the Commission had to say about the issue of the seriousness of offences. Take notes and report back to Ms. Viau. I am quoting from the Commission's brief:

The fact that the new legislation is based on the seriousness of the offence clearly suggests that the current legislation does not deal adequately with juvenile delinquency, particularly where the offence is objectively very serious.

The imbalance that would result from new legislation based only on principles of protecting the public and making the young offender accountable would likely compromise all of the work that has been done to date with problem young people.

If Ms. Viau, before engaging in politics, had simply made an effort to read up on the Young Offenders Act, and before quoting a Quebec organization, had taken the time to at least read what that organization said when it appeared before the Justice and Human Rights Committee, perhaps her comments would make more sense.

A bit further on, Mr. Chairman, she wades right into politics, lashing out against Quebec's criticisms of the federal bill.

Ask them what makes them think their system is so great, when the human rights commission in their province says plainly that the system of youth centres does not work.

She is making judgments. She is engaging in politics like the Liberals in the House of Commons. That takes some nerve, Mr. Chairman. That takes some nerve. Ms. Viau is even more of a demagogue than the Minister, with the explanations she gave us on April 25, 2000. Those are the government's tactics. It sure takes a lot of nerve to make statements like that.

Before going by a bogus poll like she did yesterday, she would have been well advised to read the Commission's brief very carefully. I quote the following from that brief:

... it is incomprehensible that people should believe that young people are often potential criminals and that crime, which is mistakenly believed to be on the rise, is something that young people are bound to get involved in.

To correct that misperception, the government must take an active role in informing Canadians.

A bit further on in its brief, the Commission continues:

... it is hard to understand, given the public misperception with respect to the current legislation, why the government is contemplating replacing this legislation rather than developing an effective information program.

Ms. Viau must also know that the critics of her minster's reforms have been working in this field for many years. They have dedicated their lives to this. Among them are people from the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse.

• 1535

The most absurd part, Mr. Chairman, is that after checking, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec issued a press release yesterday. It was under wraps until noon. That means that Ms. Viau was aware of the press release when she made that statement. I will read a passage from Commission President Claude Filion:

It is important to understand that this is about children and youth being sheltered under the Youth Protection Act and not under the Young Offenders Act. These are young persons whose security and development were jeopardized in their family and who are placed under the care of the protection network precisely to foster their development.

The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse is making that clarification knowing the use that some people could make of such a press release, turning it around and using it to their advantage in the context of what is going on in Ottawa with the consideration of Bill C-3. The Commission goes as far as very clearly cautioning people not to confuse the two laws and Ms. Viau is playing politics. She distorts the press release and the facts and she wants us to ask them how they can claim such an extraordinary system when the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse of their province says quite bluntly that the system is not working.

You have to have nerve to do such a thing. If Ms. Viau likes to play politics, tell her, you people from the department, that it is time to make up her mind. There will soon be federal elections. They are looking for a Liberal candidate in the Berthier—Montcalm riding. Ms. Viau can come there any time she wants. I will debate with her and we will play politics, but for the time being and as long as part of my taxes are used to pay her salary, I would like her to stay within her mandate, that is work in a department and not play politics. If Ms. Viau comes in while I'm speaking, I would like to be told because I would have things to tell her to her face.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, you can see in what climate Bill C-3 is evolving. I would have liked the Minister to be here to be able to ask her some questions on, among other things, her many amendments. I would have liked to hear her answers, especially about young offenders, but also on the mandate of Ms. Viau and her playing politics. I would have liked also to know more about that panic-stricken department. They have gone to the point of paying thousands of dollars for that kind of survey, of having one-on-one meetings with the people from the press—they are telling me that the Justice Department is really bending over backwards to talk to them—an unprecedented lobbying effort. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I can almost say mission accomplished. I am getting on their nerves.

They are panic-stricken, and we intend to keep on going. You can laugh, Mr. Saada, but as a Quebec MP, if I were you I would not laugh, certainly not after having voted yesterday for the motion to gag Quebec and just before voting in favour of a bill that nobody wants in Quebec. I would not laugh.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Is that a personal comment?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Take it any way you like. If I were in your shoes I would not laugh.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think that the role of this committee is to debate the substance of what is being discussed and not to allow personal attacks. Therefore, I would like my colleague to withdraw his statement or, at least, to apologize for this personal attack against me.

• 1540

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, I should also bring to your attention the fact that others have brought the same concern to my attention, and I would ask you to be quite prudent in drawing conclusions, particularly in the absence of someone who is not here to defend their position.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As I understand that you are not asking me to withdraw my statement, I shall continue.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me. My point is that I think it's the tradition of this place to limit our comments to those people who are publicly accountable, people who have sought political office. If the member has problems with a particular public servant, there are all kinds of ways one can deal with that, but I don't think it's appropriate for it to be done here, in their absence.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Exactly. That is the reason why I wanted to know if the officials could call her because I would have loved to address her directly. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I will check my rights and, if I have complaints, I will also do it in the correct manner. Having said that, I understand. I take note of what you just said and I would like to continue.

[English]

The Chair: As long as your noting of it is substantiated with a change in approach. I don't think it's fair either at this point in the middle of this meeting to have officials call other officials. People have jobs to do; they have other responsibilities. I think the point has been well made. There are other opportunities or avenues available to any member of Parliament who has any problem with any public servant, and I would suggest you take that route.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: This issue is settled, but as for what just happened that concerned me, I am still waiting for Mr. Bellehumeur to withdraw his statement. I insist on having him withdraw his personal attack.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: What was that personal attack exactly?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understood that Mr. Bellehumeur did not intend to do it.

[English]

The Chair: I would apologize to honourable members in the course of this, now, six-hour debate. I haven't caught every word, so I can't really speak particularly to what was said. I'm certain that the honourable member would not want to insult anybody and I'm certain he would be prepared to offer some apology if that is the case.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would like to apologize, but there was no personal attack. I just stated a fact, in the course of my argument. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should move on because we will never agree on what is and what is not a personal attack. I would simply ask him to listen with his ears and not with his mouth. I will then not have to react to some comments coming from the opposite side.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, whatever the argument being used, there is one thing that is for sure, in the course of the debate around this table, up to now, apart from the instances to which you yourself alluded to, there was some kind of decorum. I feel it is important that we do not lose it. Consequently, what my colleague just said about my interpretation of his reaction, that I consider as a personal attack, should be withdrawn. I ask him to do so if he wants to maintain the decorum that befits this debate.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, tell me what I am supposed to withdraw.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Do you want me to tell you? Here it is: I declare that it is not a personal attack against my colleague, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: To say that, I have to know what this personal attack is. What did not you like in what I told you? That you did not defend Quebec interests?

Mr. Jacques Saada: So, it means that my colleague across the way speaks and does not know what he is saying, since he does not remember what he just said. That is a problem for me.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My colleague has the problem, Mr. Chairman. It is not what I said. I clearly remember what I said.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Good!

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I clearly remember the words I said, but there was no personal attack. What does he view as a personal attack? What is it for him, in his mind? Let him tell me, and if I see it as a personal attack, I will withdraw what I said. But I do not view it as a personal attack. Can I be clearer than that?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I will be even clearer than that. I asked Mr. Bellehumeur if I was to construe what he just said as a personal attack and he replied: “Take it any way you like”. Therefore I effectively view it as an implicit personal attack and I would like him to clarify the situation and to withdraw what he said.

• 1545

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, it is a question of interpretation, of construction and I think we should avoid such arguments. If we were in the House, the Speaker would not even take notice of it and I invite you to do the same. Otherwise, we will still be at it tomorrow morning.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No, we will not still be here tomorrow morning. Mr. Chairman, I insist on getting this clarification.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Well, I hope you stopped the clock.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, we were here for a long time last spring and now we're back. I think, generally speaking, until this point this rather difficult exercise has been carried out with a great deal of patience on the part of all members.

As I understand the exchange, Mr. Saada believed that in fact something you said might have been interpreted as personal, and you said he essentially could take it as he felt. Well, he felt it was intended as a personal attack. Since he did, he is asking you as an honourable member to simply withdraw that so that we can continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Does the member want me to withdraw what I said, that by voting in favour of closure he did not defend the interests of Quebec properly? Is this what he considers a personal attack? I'm not sure if this is what he considers a personal attack. Maybe he should repeat which words of mine he considered offensive and then I will withdraw them. If he is feeling touchy today I am willing to withdraw those words so we can resume the debate. But I can hardly withdraw my words if I don't know which words I should withdraw. I don't know what the member wants. Mr. Chairman, I cannot possibly withdraw words that would have offended my colleague if those words have not been said. I'm not willing to go that far.

[English]

The Chair: I think, Mr. Bellehumeur, it would be sufficient if you were simply to suggest that it was not your intention to attack Mr. Saada personally in this exchange. That's all. I think that's a reasonable expectation. It's simple.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I will not present apologies without knowing why. The member should say what he is alluding to and I will withdraw what I said if I said something I didn't mean to.

[English]

The Chair: You did not intend to attack him personally, Mr. Bellehumeur, did you?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If the member thinks that I attacked him personally by saying he didn't adequately defend the interests of Quebec by voting in favour of closure for the committee deliberations, then I won't withdraw what I said because it is what I sincerely think. When he asked if this was a personal attack, I answered that he could understand what he wished from what I said. It was a simple acknowledgement. If he takes that acknowledgement as a personal attack well, that is his problem. It is not a personal attack.

An hon. member: It has to be profitable... [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It is a simple acknowledgement, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Saada first, and then Mr. Myers.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, during our study of this bill we have been debating many hours around this table. Obviously, we have different opinions on the substance of the bill but those differences have never got in the way of the respect we have for each other as human beings.

By referring to a smile I had on my face and by inferring from that smile that I don't deem this issue important, and also by hinting that this could be a personal attack, the member, in my opinion, did attack me.

I don't mind Mr. Bellehumeur claiming all the rights he has to oppose my political positions, and that is as it should be, but I disagree with his interpretation of my facial expressions as a political position. I think that is clear. I want him to withdraw what he said.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Myers on a point of order.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat distressing, quite frankly, that Mr. Saada would have to undertake the kind of attack he has.

The Bloc member opposite has a lot to say, it would appear. I'm not sure if there's a great deal of substance there. In fact I don't think there is at all. Having said that, he should stick to the script. He should stick to the point at hand. He should not get into, as he did yesterday, commenting on people's travel habits, taking member of Parliament by member of Parliament on in terms of what they do or don't do. Again today we saw that repeated with Mr. Saada.

• 1550

It's quite a way of doing business, especially on an important committee like this, Justice. I find it offensive in the extreme. If he wants to carry on and do whatever he thinks he must do for the next four and a half hours, that's one thing, but to get into a level of debate that is unbefitting a parliamentarian and unbefitting what I would consider to be a good member of the Bloc Québécois, then I think that's just simply outrageous. I think the point is noted. I think we should move on.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, you have the floor, and the clock is ticking. I'm certain you have enough time to finish; nevertheless, I just want you to know that—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I thought you had stopped the clock.

I won't answer Mr. Myers because it's not worth it. As to my colleague Mr. Saada, if he considers my interpretation of his facial expressions as a personal attack, I'm willing to withdraw it. Is my summary good enough, Mr. Chairman?

An hon. member: Yes, it is.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. I believe we were debating Bill C-3. Continue, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Ms. Viau is not here yet. The fact that her article was published is a good coincidence because I had planned to discuss the brief yesterday and I didn't have the opportunity. The publication of her article gives me the opportunity to do it today. It seems that the department did not understand the content of this brief. If the Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada had appeared before our committee during our study of Bill C-3, I could have asked her a number of questions, and I could have explained a number of things to her, for example the submission of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec which was submitted in December 1999. This brief is quite revealing and I'm quite sure that if the department had at least taken the time to read it, it would never have made the statements it did through Ms. Viau.

While you almost deserve to be read this submission in its entirety, since you obviously did not read it, I will only highlight some passages, including some comments on the Young Offenders Act. To adequately assess the amendments proposed to Bill C-3, one must at least know what the Young Offenders Act is about, since it is the Act we wish to repeal. “Repeal” would be a better word than “amend” in this case. In Bill C-3, the Minister of Justice is proposing a new approach that aims at further criminalizing young people who have a problem with crime.

Here is what the Commission says on page 3 of its submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

In 1984, the 76-year-old Juvenile Delinquents Act, the principles of which reflected the paternalistic spirit of that time, was replaced by the Young Offenders Act.

• 1555

A few years were then needed to clearly apprehend the guiding principles of the new legislation. To many of those working in the youth field, particularly those in other provinces, these principles may have seemed contradictory at first sight. Ultimately, in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada was to emphasize the complementary nature of the principles set out in this act, and note the attempt therein to “balance the need to make the young offenders responsible for their crimes while recognizing their vulnerability and special needs”.

Mr. Chairman, trial courts and courts of appeal frequently cite this judgment of the Supreme Court. This judgment is indexed as R. v. M. (J.J.) - [1993] 2 S.C.R. 421, but the statement that I quote is to be found on page 428. Indeed, a few years were needed in which to integrate the guiding principles of this new Young Offenders Act, which has been applied since 1984. The Act's guiding principles are in section 3, the declaration of principle. It says that young persons should not be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults. We cannot ask a 12-year-old child or adolescent to think as an adult. Certainly we cannot hold him responsible in the same way as an adult.

In spite of that, many years were needed to define and integrate the guiding principles of the Young Offenders Act in order to enforce it properly. Those principles also mention things that should be easy to understand concerning the maturity of persons who commit crimes.

Moreover, the law says that measures other than judicial proceedings should be considered for dealing with young persons who have committed offences in order to make their rehabilitation possible. It seems clear enough to me, but a number of years were needed to integrate those principles. The reminder from the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec was very useful. The Commission warned the Minister of Justice and her officials when it said that if they were to amend the Act as they intended, by including all sorts of new principles, many more years would be needed to integrate the guiding principles of the new act and find a new balance.

Only a blind person or someone unable to read the bill would not see and agree that the sentences proposed in the new act are based on the seriousness of the offence. The Commission gave that warning to the Department of Justice. I wish I could have asked the Minister of Justice, if she had appeared, if she understood the warning in that paragraph.

As I said previously, there is no need to pay thousands of dollars for a poll in Quebec to see that the Young Offenders Act has not been well received. The Commission did not need a CROP poll to understand this. On page 3 of its submission it said:

• 1600

It should be kept in mind that a number of provinces displayed some hostility to the implementation of the Young Offenders Act, particularly in regard to the anticipated effects and the commitment required of them by the federal government.

On the other hand, Quebec easily adapted to this new philosophy on young offenders because it had already developed, in the 40 years before, a rehabilitation intervention model based on the principles entrenched in the Young Offenders Act. From the moment the Act was applied in 1984, Quebec put in place the required elements to facilitate the transition and ensure the best possible chances of success. A youth tribunal with a confirmed concern jurisdiction, the support of resources under the Act and the development of an approved program of alternative measures are some of the elements that guided the transition and the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in the direction promoted by the supporters of an approach based more on rehabilitation than on punishment.

So we can see that as early as 1984 a number of studies and federal-provincial consultations were necessary. I can provide you with a more detailed history later. We even had to wait for two governments before the bill could be adopted. While the majority, including Quebec and Ontario, supported this bill, there were still some who opposed it in 1984 even after all those discussions, studies and consultations. Provinces decided to play the game and developed the tools and the infrastructure—as I said yesterday—they needed to implement the new act, the Young Offenders Act that is in force in Quebec and other provincial courts.

In Quebec, we created a special court for youth, which is today the Youth Court. We also gave ourselves the resources required under the Act, which by the way are quite superior to what we could afford with the money given to Quebec by the federal government for the implementation and the administration of the Young Offenders Act. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the fact that the federal government currently owes the province of Quebec more than $100 million for the administration of the Young Offenders Act. While this figure is an approximation, I must emphasize that the former Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, had agreed a few years ago that the amount owed was $96 million. Since then, nothing has changed and the debt has no doubt gone beyond $100 million, but I don't have the exact figure with me. Of course, if the Minister were willing to sign a cheque today for the province of Quebec, I could undertake to find vetted figures for her by 5:00 o'clock. I'm quite sure that I could find all that is needed.

What I'm telling you is that following the adoption of the Act in 1984, Quebec developed the appropriate resources to comply with the Act and more specifically a program of alternative measures that was authorized not only by the Justice but also by the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services. It is a very detailed program that lays down the law in Quebec.

• 1605

The first chapter deals with the program's interpretation and administration. The second deals with the mechanism to decide on the appropriateness of alternative measures in terms of referral to the prosecutor and of the powers of the general prosecutor. In the case of 12- or 13-year-old youths, what is the jurisdiction of the director before or during the accusation? You can find in this chapter all sorts of things that apply to young offenders. Everything is detailed and defined in that program, including the mechanism to decide if alternative measures are appropriate and the conditions of their application.

There is an explanation of the nature of alternative measures. Section 13 of the program reads as follows:

Section 13, PMR. As an alternative, the Director may suggest to the young person one or more of the following options:

(a) the young person pays an amount of money to a person or institution under the conditions agreed to by the young person;

(b) the young person performs community work for the benefit of the victim, under the conditions agreed to by the young person and the Director and endorsed by the victim;

(c) the young person performs community work or makes an appropriate contribution to the community;

(d) the young person takes part in an activity which will help improve his or her social abilities.

The program then lists the conditions and ways in which the young person is informed: the agreement with the endorsement of the young person because, of course, there has to be a formal agreement. The content of the agreement can be changed by mutual consent. Every option is covered. There is no improvisation in that area. We have a program of alternative measures because the legislation makes it possible for us to have such a program now.

In chapter 4, “Offences or situations where the Attorney General's prosecutor may alert the director or authorize legal proceedings”, we have a list of all the sections involved, the types of offences regarding the law enforcement and justice system; every offence concerned is mentioned. Regarding sexual offences, all the sections are also mentioned. There is a whole range of offences. For all those offences, possible alternative measures are specified.

We have that in Quebec. Right from the beginning, we set up a program which was passed in 1985, a year or a few months after the passing of the Young Offenders Act. A working committee was struck to design a program of alternative measures. That was possible under the legislation at the time, the Young Offenders Act. We did it in Quebec.

If the Minister had accepted my suggestion, if she had come here to answer my questions, I would have liked to hear her tell me if she checked that every other province had a similar or identical program. The other question I would have asked her is whether, to her knowledge, provinces enforce that or those alternative measures programs in compliance with the 1984 Act.

I shall continue reading from the Commission's report. It says:

Although several other provinces have been somewhat reluctant to accept the new Act, Quebec, in spite of many amendments which run against some of its principles, has kept on track.

• 1610

The new Act mentioned here is the 1984 Act.

Quebec stakeholders did however feel that there was a need to carry out an in-depth review of the Young Offenders Act and check for possible flaws, either in the text of the law or in the enforcement provisions.

The working group I just mentioned drafted a report now known as the Jasmin Report. I would be pleased to speak to you in greater detail about that report this afternoon. The department officials and the Minister who walk around with a copy of that report have obviously not read it. At least, I am not sure they have read it. I am convinced that if they had read that report, Bill C-3 would be quite different or even non-existent, because it says that the Young Offenders Act is a good piece of legislation.

After presenting this brief background, that same Commission, which Ms. Viau used to explain the Minister's position, continues in these words regarding the outcome of the enforcement of the Act.

Regarding the outcome of the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec, statistics speak for themselves:

- in 1997, the rate of indictment of young offenders in Quebec was the lowest in Canada; in Ontario and British Columbia, twice as many young offenders are indicted as in Quebec, while in Manitoba and Saskatchewan three to four times as many young offenders are indicted;

Those are important statistics if we really want to have a proper look at the bill and above all see if it is necessary. Let me continue reading the text:

- in 1996-97, the number of people sentenced to be placed in custody in Quebec was four times less than in Saskatchewan and three times less than in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta; in fact, Quebec had the lowest custody rate in Canada;

I now have a very important statistic which I must obviously mention today. I have a double reason to do so as the department officials, in their little briefings to the media, have used that statistic to show that dreadful things are happening in Quebec and the Minister should be thanked for her bill. Here is the statistic I am talking about:

- in 1997-98, with 24% of the Canadian population between the ages of 12 and 17, the Quebec youth courts tried only 10% of the total volume of cases in Canada; Saskatchewan tried 8% of the cases, although its 12 to 17 population accounts for only 4% of Canada's as a whole;

But I made a mistake with that 24%. It is not the percentage used by the department officials with the media; it is used for something else. I shall therefore now stop here with respect to the report of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse and turn to the percentage used by department officials to tell the media how dreadful the situation is in Quebec.

In Quebec, according to our statistics, many 16 and 17-year-old offenders are summoned to appear before adult courts. In 1997-98 and in 1998-99, 23 have been transferred in that way from the youth justice courts. Quebec has the second highest rate in Canada for those transfers. Quebeckers should be grateful to us; with Bill C-3, they will be able to transfer fewer young offenders.

What they do not say, Mr. Speaker, what they should say if they pretend to provide full information to the media, is that first, Bill C-3 brings the age down to 14 and 15.

• 1615

Secondly, I would say that indeed, 23 cases were transferred in 1998-99. I would have liked to be informed before the department made such a fuss about it, because I could have spoken to each and every one of those cases. We would have come to the conclusion that they were referred to the adult court system in Quebec precisely because the appropriate section of the Act had been applied and more specifically the declaration of principles dealing with the needs of the youth in the Young Offenders Act. We would have shown that those 16- and 17-year-old offenders who were committed to the adult courts according to the reference provisions, deserved it.

This has nothing to do with the scandal which the department would want the media to believe in, and it does not put in question the system set up in Quebec to enforce the Young Offenders Act. It only confirms that this Young Offenders Act is properly managed in Quebec. It only confirms that the Young Offenders Act is properly implemented and enforced in Quebec. They removed 23 difficult cases from the youth justice courts system because there were individuals who were beyond handling in that youth justice system for all kinds of reasons, and they focussed on the rest to really concentrate on pardon and social reintegration.

After yesterday's meeting, we had a discussion with some members who heard my comments, what I would call my closing arguments, yesterday, and we were all agreed that there are 16 or 17-year-old who are in fact beyond rehabilitation, there are 16 or 17-year-old who have committed murder, who knew fully well what they were doing and who have no remorse whatsoever. Why then should we try anything, why invest time and money trying to rehabilitate them?

On the other hand, thanks to the Young Offenders Act, thanks to the special needs that have been identified in black and white in the Young Offenders Act, you can immediately, right from the beginning, see if you can or must, because it is an obligation... The State has an obligation to do something because our youth is the future of our country. We must therefore see if we have to invest in the rehabilitation of a young offender and try to put him back on the right track so that he can become an ordinary citizen.

It is true that last year, that is in 1998-99, 23 cases were referred in Quebec. It is not a scandal. I don't know why the department is overplaying this fact if not due to panic, as I was just saying, and to scare journalists through the voice of Ms. Viau.

That is all I'm going to say about those statistics I wanted to mention. I thought they were mentioned in the Commission's report and I really wanted to stress that fact so that it would be clear for all those who are listening to us, those who are here and who are listening attentively, and those who are interested in the matter, in Bill C-3.

So let's get back to this important report of the Commission which obviously was not read by the department's officials, since they are misusing it.

The report says that from 1997 to 1998, while the percentage of youth accused of a violent crime went down by about 1% in Canada as a whole, in Quebec it went down by 6%; I think I will repeat that.

• 1620

In 1997 and 1998, whereas in Canada there was an overall decline of approximately 1% in the percentage of youths accused of violent crime, the figure dropped by 6% in Quebec. That surely shows the system can't be that bad.

It is not because there are problems in one or two youth centres in Quebec that we must ax the whole system. One should not rejoice at the fact that there are problems in one or two youth centres in Quebec, like Ms. Viau is doing. I have never said that everything was perfect in the administration of justice in Quebec. You know, when you eliminate hospital beds, it is also possible to cut the fat in those centres.

Now, oftentimes, that fat is essential. The psychological rehabilitation of young offenders is so complex. One could write a PhD thesis on the subject to try and understand the situation. So you'll understand that our system cannot be perfect either.

Besides, we've never claimed such a thing in Quebec. We've always said that even with the Young Offenders Act, there is room for improvement. Some things can be improved. Had the department listened carefully, attentively, to Quebec's claims, had the Minister been more aware or had she come more often to the Justice Committee, as I'm asking her to do in my motion, she would know that we had already made proposals along those lines, Mr. Chairman.

I would have liked to hear what she had to say on the proposals we've made, particularly on improvements that could be brought to the Young Offenders Act. It could have been improved, we could have placed more emphasis on delays. The Young Offenders Act could have been improved by accelerating procedures so that a young offender is taken care of, if need be, as soon as he commits an offence. The Young Offenders Act has done a lot of good things, but if it said in black and white that there is an obligation to take one measure or another within a given timeframe, it would be much better for the young offender, for the system and for society.

That doesn't mean that the Young Offenders Act must be axed in order to do so. In any case, in order to better illustrate the bad faith of the department and of the Minister, I will say that Bill C-3 totally dismisses the question timeframes. What is worse is that so many steps have been added that Bill C-3 has been made into a shorter version of the Criminal Code with all its different steps, i.e., court appearances, preliminary hearings, the need for a judge and a jury, all of that, and we apply the same procedure as for adult courts, therefore lengthening the whole procedure.

Yesterday I gave two examples of hypothetical cases. I know you weren't here yesterday, Peter. I think it is worth repeating those examples just for you. Those two cases illustrate the situation very well, and, as a former Crown prosecutor, you will understand all the subtleties. Since you seem to insist on it, I will present them to you right away before I continue reading the brief of the Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse du Québec.

I was saying, Mr. MacKay, that during the summer I prepared two fictitious cases which involve several elements. Although those are not real cases, they enable us to draw a comparison between the application of the Young Offenders Act and the application of the future Bill C-3. This is only a hypothetical case but it shows the difference between the two very well.

• 1625

The police discover the body of a 30-year-old woman on the scene of a fire. She died violently, she was stabbed repeatedly with a knife, and there is evidence of a violent altercation. The crime weapon has not been found and someone has tried to cover up the crime by deliberately setting the fire.

The whole neighbourhood is afraid and investigators quickly suspect her common-law spouse who has a previous history of domestic violence. That family was known to the police because of domestic violence. The common-law spouse denies everything and gives a good alibi. It is going to be a difficult investigation, one that requires an exhaustive scientific analysis.

Several days after the tragedy, the investigators show up at the Crown attorney's office. I am sure that you have experienced similar things. They have just arrested a 15-year-old girl who happens to be the only daughter of the deceased. Claudine, the fictitious name of that girl, still has the marks of injuries to her arms and hands that she would have gotten during the assault. The DNA sample, obtained on a warrant, matches the one found on the crime scene and on the victim's clothing. Claudine was arrested at her father's house—she lives with him—and what appears to be the crime weapon was found at the scene.

During questioning at the police station, she was aggressive and bluntly lied to the investigators about her whereabouts the day of the crime. She has a record: two aggravated assaults which happened at school. Claudine was placed on probation and prohibited from carrying a weapon and taking drugs. She is charged with first- degree murder and she is in custody pending the outcome of the trial.

It should be noted that at this stage of the procedure that the prosecutor only has the information which has been given him or her by the police. Except for these two convictions, he knows nothing of the history of that teenager or the reasons why she would have killed her mother.

Let's see how the Minister's reform is going to treat that young girl, and we will then look at what we are doing in Quebec, amongst other provinces, when applying the Young Offenders Act.

For murder, the new legislation provides that adult sentencing be applied to young people from the age of 14, unless the youth, after being convicted, can convince the court that he or she should be sentenced as a youth. Even though she is only 15 years old, Claudine can be imprisoned for life.

Under the reform, the Attorney General may request that the youth be sentenced as such. However, given the seriousness of the offence, the behaviour of the young girl with the investigators and her previous criminal record, that request cannot be made because the young girl is a serious threat to public safety.

Under the criteria provided for in the Minister's legislation, Bill C-3, the prosecutor must request that the young person be sentenced as an adult considering her criminal history and the serious threat she represents for public safety.

In view of the fact that she is liable to adult sentencing, the proceedings will be the same as for an adult. Claudine may choose a preliminary hearing and a trial with a judge and jury. That is what her lawyer—and I'm quite sure that you will agree with that—will request in order to keep as many options for her as possible during proceedings.

• 1630

A year and a half later... I do not know how long one must wait in your province before a trial by judge and jury can take place, but in Quebec, a year and a half waiting time is quite short and I do hope that it will not take any longer. Thus, a year and a half later, during the trial by judge and jury, the evidence is overwhelming and the youth does not testify. After due consideration of the case, the jury hands down a guilty verdict and the court requests assessment reports for the young person. Indeed, under Bill C-3, assessment reports will be requested only if the young person is found guilty. If he or she is not found guilty, those reports will not be necessary.

Let us look at what these reports say, still in a hypothetical situation.

Psychological, criminal and pre-sentencing reports present the past history of that young person, a history which surprises many people. Indeed, her history is very simple. When she turned 12 years old, the new common-law spouse of her mother started showing some interest in her. He gave her presents, told her that he loved her and, gradually, an unclear and hostile relationship started to build between her and her mother, both being, unknowingly, love rivals.

In order to attract the girl to him, the mother's partner gave the daughter jewels and drugs, and their first sexual contacts began as what she considered to be a love experience.

Later on Claudine has problems in school and her violence towards her schoolmates is due to the confused triangle she finds herself in. Of course, her friends make fun of her.

Fighting with her mother becomes increasingly common during her visits. That is when Claudine, out of frustration, reveals to her mom that her partner is also her daughter's lover. A violent quarrel ensues which results in her mother's death.

During all of the proceedings, she kept silent and demonstrated very aggressive behaviour, simply because she did not want anybody to discover her love relationship.

What happens once all these facts are known? Faced with those disclosed facts, her counsel has no other choice but to appeal the guilty verdict and a new trial will probably take place under reduced charges. The Crown prosecutor, in view of the information he has just been given, will not object to a youth sentencing.

Because of the reform, therefore, there will be very cumbersome proceedings, a trial by judge and jury, above all, a lot of time lost. By the time everything is over, two years will have gone by.

Under the present system and faced with the same facts, what would we do? Under the present system, there would not be a long waiting period of 2 years or even 3 years. By the time all the examinations and assessments are made, that time period could even be longer. Before the young person is sentenced, there would not be such complex judicial proceedings with preliminary examination, committal to trial and the trial by jury would not take place. We know that this leads to a lot of publicity.

Under the present Young Offenders Act, assessment reports on the young person are requested at the first stage of the proceedings. Undoubtedly, as soon as they found out about that young girl's history, Crown prosecutors would state that they do not intend to request an adult sentence.

In addition, the young person would probably plead guilty, so that there would not even be a trial and most of the custodial portion of the sentence would probably be completed within the three-year period before they realized that they made a mistake.

Finally, she could have avail herself of support measures aimed at making her rehabilitation easier well before she hits the legal age of majority. As well, the common-law spouse would long have been convicted of having sex with a minor.

• 1635

In my opinion, that example clearly shows that only when the prosecutor—Mr. Peter, you are a former Crown prosecutor—has access to all available information can he really use his discretion and request that the young person be or not be treated as an adult.

I used that example because the Minister of Justice was asking for some concrete examples showing that her reform would not work. That case clearly shows that the reform system she is advocating will not work and in particular would go against what is being done in Quebec. I would have liked the Minister to appear before this committee, pursuant to my motion, in order to answer my questions, to find out whether she agrees with these two scenarios, one under her reform and the other without the reform.

Mr. MacKay, I do not want to interpret your gestures, but you seem to be nodding your head. That means that those facts I am relating are true and in particular that there is a real difference between the provisions of the present legislation and those of Bill C-3. I think you are aware of that difference. Those cases speak for themselves.

Since you were listening to me carefully, Mr. MacKay, I will give you another example. I think Mr. DeVillers is also listening carefully. He was laughing, which means that he might have been listening more carefully than yesterday, when he was behaving in an unruly manner.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I was tired.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Okay, but you seem to feel better today and you will certainly listen more carefully. I think it is worth repeating that example because it is a shorter one. This may be the case that shows that, when the Minister says that this legislation will better protect young persons and in particular better protect their rights, it is not always true. Let us take that case. It is a guy this time, because I don't want to be accused of sexism.

Justin had a difficult childhood. He was raised in a single- parent family and is the second of four children raised by his mother alone. The real life environment of Justin is the street and his real family is his gang. From an early age, he shows good skills for theft and all kinds of minor offences in his environment. Let us see what his chances of rehabilitation are under the federal reform.

At 12 years of age, Justin is arrested twice by the police: the first time for shoplifting in a shopping mall and the second time for mischief in a public park in a neighbouring community. On both occasions, he is given warnings by both municipal police departments. That is what is called for in the proposed reform; it focusses on warnings for the first minor offences, without any possibility of using alternative measures. The proposed system is such that unless a serious offence is committed, you cannot go from one level of measures to the next unless the young person has a record containing several misdeeds. Before you can send the young person for trial, he or she must first go through two stages: first the warning stage and then the alternative measures. It should be noted that previous warnings given to the young person are not admissible as evidence at trial.

At the age of 13, he is arrested once more, together with two accomplices, for three burglaries in garden sheds, as well as mischief. There again, the reform says clearly that we should give preference to alternative measures. The case is sent to the Crown prosecutor, who refers it to the Director of Youth Protection in Quebec and, given the lack of seriousness of the offences, no in-depth assessment is done. Justin gets away with sending excuse letters to victims.

• 1640

At the age of 14, he is arrested once more for three break-and-enters. His case is once more referred to the Director of Youth Protection. However, this time, given the defiant attitude and the aggressivity shown by the young person, the case is sent to the prosecutor.

Justin is sent to trial, but since it is the first time that he appears in front of the judge, he is sentenced to one year's probation without supervision, which is the norm in such circumstances. At the age of 15, he is once more arrested, this time in a drug sweep. He is charged with drug trafficking, as he was a pusher in the streets and primary school yards of his community.

Under the proposed reform, the court cannot impose a sentence of custody, although the required pre-sentencing report indicates that Justin is heavily involved in juvenile delinquency, that he hangs around with a gang that is well-known to the police and that no parental control can be exerted. He is released on probation with a two-year supervision provision.

Barely out of the courtroom, he goes back to his business, using the proceeds to pay for his daily dose of drugs. Being good at manipulating people, he shows up on appointed days to meet his probation officer and nothing transpires of his illegal activities.

At the age of 16, he is charged with assault. He is not afraid of using violence to collect drug debts. It is only then that the court may impose custody.

So, under the system that they want to inflict upon us, this young man, who has had trouble with the law when he was 12, 13, 14 and 15 years old, only gets a custody sentence when he is 16 years old because he was charged with aggravated assault.

What would we have done in the present system? The example that I am giving shows that under the system that the Minister would have us accept, under Bill C-3, the problem is merely pushed away without ever being dealt with squarely. That is what the bill will enable us to do. It is only when the youth reaches the age of 16 that we will be able to begin a therapy program at the rehabilitation centre, when such a measure should be taken much earlier.

The federally proposed reform is flawed in that it would establish a series of cascading measures. We would have to wait for several repeat offences, or a violent offence, before being able to apply the measure that would be appropriate for the young person. Putting the young person in custody is the only way to get him or her out of the street or away from the criminal circles he is hanging around in and giving him the time that he needs to reflect and change his behaviour.

The more we postpone using such a measure, the more we reduce the chances of successful rehabilitation of the young person. The federal reform does not allow using the appropriate measure at the right time, that is before the situation goes out of control. That is probably what the Minister means when she says that she wants to better protect young persons. The problem is being pushed forward without the appropriate measure being taken at the right time. With the new system, it is only when the situation is absolutely out of control and violent acts are being committed that we can intervene.

In Quebec, we could have intervened right at the beginning and placed the young person in custody in such a case. Why would we have chosen custody right at the beginning? Quite simply under the section that I told you about earlier, that is well known, that is the declaration of principles where there is mention of the special needs of the child. We would have assessed the case and we would have realized quite quickly that this young person had to be taken out of this family with a criminal background. We would have seen right away that we had to get him off of the street and away from the criminal gang of people with whom he was hanging around. We would have intervened immediately.

• 1645

Under the bill, he is being rapped on the knuckles and then let go. A whole series of cascading procedures is called for in the bill: reprimands by the police and even by the prosecutor, then another stage, and so on. There has to be perpetration of a violent act in order for us to take charge and impose alternative measures if need be.

I would have liked the Minister to be here together with you, Mr. MacKay, for her to hear this example. I would have been able then to ask her questions, but unfortunately, the Minister did not see fit to respond positively to the charming invitation that I have sent to her through my motion.

Those who enforce the Young Offenders Act know the difference between the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act and the future enforcement of this bill, if it is ever passed. Hopefully, there will be a miracle and the government will realize that they are on the wrong track.

As you know, there are numerous examples of this in history. There can be revelations on the road to Damascus. I hope the Liberals opposite and the department will have such a revelation.

The Quebec Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, that was quoted by Ms. Viau during a scrum, has understood this. Perhaps Ms. Viau has not understood it, but the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec has understood the department's position in Bill C-3 quite clearly. The Commission also understands that there is a public perception problem. It indicates on page 7, and I quote:

Some serious questions are in order as to why there is this consensus about the current legislation among those working in the field, at least in Quebec, while the broader community has a more lukewarm opinion of it.

To a large degree, this perception is based on the information that is accessible to it, primarily in broadcast form. Unfortunately, the written media, like radio and television, are often sensationalistic. A murder committed by an adolescent blown out of all proportion in the media fulfils this concept of information. Not only does a crime committed by a child in Canada make the front page, but a murder by a U.S. schoolboy will also receive exaggerated media coverage. With this kind of “information”, it is understandable that people end up thinking that young people are often potential criminals doomed to a like of crime—which is mistaken thought to be on the rise.

The Minister had a responsibility to counter this perception that is distorted by sensationalistic media coverage. As Minister of Justice of Canada, she had to use all necessary means in order to change that perception. Changing the law will not change the perception.

If this bill were to become law—I hope that this will never be the case—I am convinced that the public's perception would be identical if nothing is done to explain the situation.

• 1650

If, after three, four or five years of enforcing this new legislation, the Minister thinks that she will be able to explain to us and try to convince us that this is a good law, that everything is going well and the crime rate is lower, then she should have the conviction and, in particular, the political courage to explain the true situation immediately for the precise purpose of changing public perception of the young offenders bill. She should have done that rather than slash a system that is operating well.

Let me continue. On page 8 of the Commission's brief, we read the following:

As the document defining the federal strategy stated, “inaccurate and incomplete information may fuel misunderstandings and undermine public confidence in the youth justice system.” We agree, and we find it hard to understand why, faced with the mistaken public perception of the present Act, the government is moving to replace it rather than develop an effective information program. There is every reason to believe that if they were properly informed about the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, and in particular the principles that govern the tools it provides secure the protection of society in the short, medium and long term, and the actual state of youth crime, people would be generally favourable to maintaining the set in its present form.

In order to create an image, since an image is worth a thousand words, I would say that, up until now, the Department of Justice has conducted itself as an arsonist would. It set a fire so that it could shout “fire” and try to put it out, whereas the Commission as asked it not to amend the legislation. It would be pointless.

Just give the people a true picture of the crime rate amongst youths, explain the guiding principles of the Young Offenders Act and they would be behind you. As individuals working for the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec, we are asking the Minister to paint a true picture of the situation and to explain the Young Offenders Act properly. Then the perception will change. People will be in favour of maintaining the legislation in its current form.

Unfortunately, it is clear that neither the Minister nor the department has taken the words of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec into account. However, Ms. Viau has quoted the Commission out of context and has disregarded the comments that the Commission has made on the same topic. If she wanted to quote from the Commission, Ms. Viau could have done so properly and, in particular, she could have read the brief.

Then they make comments on Bill C-3. We will see, at the same time, whether or not they scale back the youth centres. We will read this brief, since the department did not do so. It is worth reading this brief and it would have been really very interesting to have been able to question the Minister on the differences and on her personal perception of how the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec sees her bill vis-à-vis the almost inflammatory statements made by her staff.

• 1655

The Commission made the following comments on Bill C-3 on page 9 of its brief. Of course, this was not the first time that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec testified before the Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and it therefore refers to its experience in this process. This is what the Commission, on page 19, has to say about replacing the Young Offenders Act with a new piece of legislation:

Unlike the youth offender legislation enacted since the adoption of the Young Offenders Act, this bill is not limited to proposing some amendments to the Act. Instead, it introduces a new act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would repeal the present act. Thus, while the old Juvenile Delinquents Act was on the books for over 75 years, now, barely 14 years after the Young Offenders Act came into force, with 11 amendments already, some of them major, it is supposed to replace it.

I do not know whether or not you are reading between the lines, but what I understand is that the Commission was asking the Minister to not amend the legislation and to at least give us the time to enforce it properly in order to get to know it and to see the results. At any rate, the Minister did not read this brief. This is very disappointing. The Commission continues, saying:

To justify this change, we are told it is necessary that the new Act “put public protection first and [...] command respect, foster values such as accountability and responsibility and make it clear that criminal behaviour will lead to meaningful consequences”.

This very same thing is found in the document from the Department of Justice, where the strategy on youth justice was announced in 1998. Consequently, this is nothing new for me.

Yet, this priority on public protection and accountability of young people for their wrongful acts is at the very foundation of the principles guiding the Act in its present form.

The justification or one of the initial justifications given by the Minister for repealing the Young Offenders Act pertains to the very foundation of the legislation that the government wants to repeal. Certain actions taken by the Minister lead to confusion or, at any rate, raise big questions. I would have liked to put these questions to the Minister if she had bothered to respond to my invitation to testify before the committee in order to answer our questions and, in particular, to tell us how she was responding to the demands made by Quebec and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec.

The Commission's brief even quotes a paragraph found in the brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with respect to certain amendments to the legislation. Our 1996 committee report was quoted:

In the Commission's opinion, the major ideas indicated in the Act, namely, the protection of the public through prevention, accountability of young people and respect for their rights, freedoms, needs and environment continue to be essential, and there is no need to question them.

• 1700

This prompted the Commission to state the following, and I would also like to know whether the Minister would be in agreement:

Centring the new legislation on the seriousness of the offence necessarily suggests that the present Act does not significantly address juvenile delinquency, particularly when the offence is of greater objective gravity. This new strategy perpetuates a collective prejudice that should be fought by informing people of the fact, among others, that the overall rate of youths charged with Criminal Code offences fell by 7% in 1997, and by 2% in the case of violent crimes. It is incomprehensible, therefore, that a situation of stability if not decline in youth crime results in the strengthening of repressive measures in regard to young offenders.

That seems relatively clear to me. When the Minister states that her bill is not repressive and that a commission such as the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec states the opposite, the matter has to be taken seriously. Naturally, being well acquainted with jurisprudence in this field, the Commission more or less quoted the same decision that I already quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision very clearly indicates how to interpret the guiding principles found in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act.

I feel that it would be futile to change anything whatsoever, since, after so many years, we have, in fact, developed jurisprudence based on the statement of principle found in the Young Offenders Act which is now known, assimilated and applied by Quebec courts. And the other courts would apply it as well if there was some type of obligation to apply the ins and outs of the Young Offenders Act.

Naturally, in its brief, the Commission referred to the objectives and guiding principles of the Act. I will not bother you by reading these parts out loud because they deal with all of the arguments pertaining to the special needs of the young person. I think that anyone who can read could refer to section 3 and very easily understand that the key aspect of this statement, the principle around which all else revolves is the one pertaining to the special needs of the young person. The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, of course, made mention of this principle in its brief.

The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse has exchanges with other groups, even international exchanges, and it has raised some questions about the imbalance that will be created by this new legislation. It raises several questions about several issues, including, since this is part of its mandate, the imbalance with respect to international agreements.

Listen to what it says on page 15 of the brief. I would have liked to have asked the Minister, if she had been present, whether she agreed with the opinion. The brief states:

• 1705

Furthermore, by altering the present philosophy of the Act, Canada would be contervening principles that are recognized in international law.

Canada has committed itself before the international community to recognize that the interest of the child must be an overriding consideration in any decision concerning children, including decisions made by the courts and administrative authorities, pursuant to article 3 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. In the first report it submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Canada referred to paragraph 3(1)(c) of the Young Offenders Act under the measures adopted in the best interests of the child. As it happens, the Committee recommended that the principle of the best interests of the child be reflected more clearly in Canada's domestic legislation, where applicable.

Let's take a look at paragraph 3(1)(c), which appears to be very important. Considering that Canada referred to this provision on the international stage, it appears to be an important jewel in the legislation. I will therefore quote paragraph 3(1)(c) of the Young Offenders Act identified by Canada before the United Nations:

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

If this was good enough to brag about at the UN, why didn't the Minister of Justice provide for any similar provision in her Bill C-3? I would have asked the Minister this question, Mr. Chairman. I would have liked to have asked the Minister this question if she were present today, further to the request I had made through my motion and which I have been discussing for several hours. I would have asked the Minister why Canada, in front of the United Nations, based itself on the Young Offenders Act, and more specifically paragraph 3(1)(c), in its plea and its attempt to provide more protection for the interests of the child. How is it, Minister—and this is the question I would have put to her—that you did not provide anything similar in your bill which seeks to criminalize young people? Why is it that you did not provide anything similar?

Unfortunately, the Minister is not here to defend her opinion. I know that the Minister came initially, but we also all know that the Minister has tabled nearly 200 amendments to her bill. She has more or less tabled a new bill. The least we could have expected from a responsible minister would be that she come to testify and present the arguments for the amendments that she has made to the Young Offenders Act.

• 1710

Another very important chapter deals with the decisions on measures. The Commission is, of course, well aware of what is currently contained in the Young Offenders Act and is trying to understand what may exist in the Minister's bill.

On page 16, we read:

Under the youth justice system, as presently constituted, measures are defined and selected in terms of the objectives of the Act: protection of society, accountability of the young person, taking into account his needs and respect for his rights and freedoms. The radical modification of the Act's objectives is expressed particularly in the new rules on choice of measures, which are now renamed “sentencing”.

Thus, the bill states that the purpose of the custody and supervision regime is to contribute to the protection of society. But it emphasizes short-term protection, while an approach that more explicitly encompasses consideration of the young person's needs and situation will in the long term do more to protect society.

In the new framework, it will be the provincial director and no longer the court, unless the province decides otherwise, who will determine the level of custody. This transfer of responsibility from the judicial authority to an administrative organ will significantly restrict the exercise of the young person's right to present his point of view and defend himself.

What does the Minister have to say about this? How can she explain such a comment? What is her response?

I understand that she cannot respond to all of the questions raised by everyone who has appeared before a committee because there are too many. Many people came here to say that they were very reticent, that they had some doubts about the real objectives of Bill C-3. I understand that the Minister cannot answer all of these questions, but all the same, I would have liked her to have come here, to the Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to answer these questions and especially to answer the questions that automatically arise from the many amendments that she has tabled.

I am still referring to the brief submitted by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec, where it states:

Furthermore, in making his decision, the provincial director is not obliged to hear the point of view of the parents or to consider the pre-sentence report, which takes into account the personal and family history of the youth and his present situation. These deficiencies clearly illustrate the lack of consideration the new system accords to the needs and circumstances of young offenders in the decision in relation to the custody setting.

More generally, the new regime is based on a gradation of sentence, which develops slowly in terms of the seriousness of the offence instead of the specific needs of the young person.

This is quite remarkable, so much so that even the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec has responded to Ms. Viau by saying: “Ms. Viau, I challenge you to find something supporting these criticisms in the Act.” We're focussing more on the seriousness of the offence rather than on the particular situation of the young person, and she has the audacity to use the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec as an example.

• 1715

The Commission said:

These deficiencies clearly illustrate the lack of consideration the new system accords to the needs and the circumstances of young offenders in the decision in relation to the custody setting.

More generally, the new regime is based on a gradation of sentence, which develops solely in terms of the seriousness of the offence...

Members of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec certainly do not have anything to congratulate the department for, as they clearly stated in their brief. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to use legal terminology, that the Minister, Ms. Viau and the people at the department have not read the Commission's brief.

The Commission uses a quote on page 15 of its brief:

The ill-considered application of cascading measures copied from the adult system perverts the spirit of the Young Offenders Act by reducing the young person through elementary mathematics to the sum of his offences, without regard to underlying factors.

That could not be clearer. I like this quote, because it confirms the example I gave earlier with respect to the application of the Young Offenders Act and Bill C-3. That is exactly what I was illustrating with my second example on Justin. Ill-considered cascading measures were applied automatically. I think that is what the government wants in the end. They want judges to be on automatic pilot: they would be fed with all the data, you would push the “sentence” button, and the sentence would be brought down. I am clearly under the impression that you want to remove the judge's discretion and ability to react. And this impact will not be limited to judges, because with your wonderful approach based on cascading warnings, you will also have an impact on police officers, the Youth Protection Branch and the director who implements the Act. You will not be helping young people by doing this. I gave you a very clear example earlier on.

Mr. MacKay, the Conservative who is a former Crown prosecutor, indicated that I was right; however, he does not fully share my point of view on C-3. When you clearly apply the Young Offenders Act in one case, and in the same case, you apply the Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons, that the Minister wants to adopt, you realize that there is a difference. You almost have to have undergone a lobotomy not to notice. There is a difference. All of the witnesses I have heard clearly see that there is a difference in application, and that is what is dangerous.

I like the quote that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec uses in its brief, because it supports the message I wanted to get across in telling you about the fictitious case of Justin:

The ill-considered application of cascading measures copied from the adult system perverts the spirit of the Young Offenders Act.

Not all members of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec are nasty separatists. There must be some federalists among them. If you don't believe me, at least believe what the Commission is saying. And for goodness sake, tell Ms. Viau and other people who want to quote the Commission to quote it properly, to quote the right things in the right places, and above all, not to take the Commission hostage by implying that it has said things that it has not.

• 1720

In passing, the brief prepared by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec is excellent. You can see that the Commission knows what it is talking about. I cannot necessarily say the same of all the other people who have discussed this bill.

What do we do? There is an important, if not very important chapter. If, in accordance with the motion I have tabled and that I am debating today, the Minister had come to the committee before clause-by-clause consideration to explain her many amendments and answer our questions, I would have asked her a series of questions, and I would have used the brief by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec as a working tool. I would have asked her questions about violent or repeat young offenders.

We all recall that the Minister amended, or rather repealed, the Young Offenders Act. When the Minister decided to repeal the Young Offenders Act, she said she was targeting all violent and repeat young offenders. So it was normal for the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec to examine the situation. What did the Commission have to say about that?

In recent years the Young Offenders Act has been significantly amended in relation to sentences for serious crimes and the procedure for transfer to ordinary court.

Mr. Chairman, do we have a quorum? I am going to catch my breath. What I am saying is very important and I would like everyone to be here. Are you stopping the clock? Do the interpreters at the back find this interesting? At least thanks to them, I have the impression that people are listening to me.

• 1723

• 1726

[English]

The Chair: I feel indispensable.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You know that I can hardly do a thing without you. I am very happy that we are resuming our deliberations. As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, one of the sections in the brief by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec deals with an extremely important topic: violent or repeat young offenders.

As you know, the Young Offenders Act has undergone several amendments over the years. I have been sitting on the Justice and Human Rights Committee—the Committee's name has changed over the years—and I have been the justice spokesperson since 1994. On several occasions, I have participated in studies of bills designed to amend the Young Offenders Act. One of the recent amendments to the Young Offenders Act dealt with the procedure for transfer. Before proposing to repeal the Young Offenders Act, the Minister could have waited to see what kind of impact these recent amendments would have.

As I said earlier, it took 74 years to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, as it was called at the time, and to replace it with the Young Offenders Act. In less than about 15 years, or more specifically since 1989, the Young Offenders Act has been amended on several occasions, and today's proposal is to repeal it and replace it with new legislation. We could have given it an opportunity to prove its effectiveness and taken the time to examine how the Young Offenders Act is being applied in reality, both in Quebec and in the other provinces. But that was not done. The Commission naturally honed in on that.

On page 16, the Commission says this:

For example, the maximum sentence for murder has gone from three years to five years less a day, then to seven or ten years depending on the characterization of the homicide. At the same time, Parliament has facilitated the transfer of offenders aged 16 and 17 charged with certain serious crimes (murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault) to adult courts by creating a presumptive transfer.

I will not surprise anyone by pointing out that this presumptive transfer is covered in subclause 16(1).(01) of the Young Offenders Act. I will continue reading the quote:

Where transferred, the young person may be detained provisionally, in some cases with adult inmates. Once convicted, the young person is liable to adult sentences, including harsher sentences. He may also be incarcerated in a correctional institution for adults or a penitentiary.

That is the case today. If the Minister had been here today, I would have asked her some questions on that. I would have asked her if she had really seen the results, and if they are so conclusive that they require these changes. Unfortunately, the Minister is not here.

• 1730

The text continues as follows:

Bill C-3 brings back the application of the adult regime after a conviction. It therefore replaces the system of transfer to adult court with the imposition by the youth court of sentences applicable to adults. While the Standing Committee on Justice recommended, in its report of the review of the Young Offenders Act, an additional three-year review of the current provisions, Bill C-3 instead proposes an expansion of the situation in which there is a presumption against the young person that would encompass the case of repeat offenders in particular. Furthermore, the bill proposes to lower the age at which the presumption applies, to make it apply as well to 14-and 15-year-old. Thus, young persons aged 14 and over who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or a repeat violent crime would be liable to an adult sentence under a presumption that the young person must rebut. The effect of this amendment is to expand the list of offences for which a young person is subject to an adult sentence and to lower the age limit for young persons subject to the presumption of the adult sentencing regime from 16 to 14 years of age.

That is why some groups have started wondering—and this is a question I would have put to the Minister if she had been here this evening, what will happen if we realize, two or three years after it has been implemented, if unfortunately that happens someday, that the Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons does not produce the desired results and there are still challenges in the West. Moreover, these challenges have just started. The bill has not even been adopted yet and people are saying it does not go far enough. What will happen? Will the age be dropped from 14 to 12, or even from 12 to 10? Will it be brought down to 8 or to the age of reason? Where will it stop? We have to think about that.

That is a question I would have like to ask the Minister this afternoon. However, she preferred delegating the task of talking to the media, but not to members of Parliament, to her departmental underlings. She knows full well that you can sometimes give other information to the media and they simply take note of it. There are some good journalists who ask questions and all of that, but this is such a highly specialized area that she prefers to talk to the media rather than to talk to the members sitting on this committee. I understand that, although actions like that often come back like a boomerang, as quickly as it was taken. The Minister experienced that on April 24 following all the open letters she generated. I'm convinced that the most recent statement, including Ms. Viau's bogus poll, will produce exactly the same results. You are undoubtedly going to hear about this again in the newspapers very shortly. There will probably be a political price to pay for that. Rest assured that I will be there when the time comes to remind people of this.

In this section of its brief, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse urges the Minister not to amend the Young Offenders Act, but instead to look at what has been done and the results achieved. Before changing anything, and especially before repealing the Young Offenders Act, the Commission recommends waiting until the Act can be properly applied and examining the results obtained by those who have applied it properly.

• 1735

Obviously, the Minister has missed the boat completely and that is unfortunate. It is very sad that some people have worked so hard for 15 or 20 years to build the system we currently have in Quebec, or have devoted almost their entire life to building it. They often did this after their regular working hours. They drafted briefs and analyzed sections that are not easy to understand. You have to be a specialist to do that and have a library with at least 15 federal acts that must be referred to regularly. The Act refers to at least 15 other pieces of federal legislation, although we can agree that it is more like 10. There are references to the Act itself. It is very complicated. These people have invested a lot of time to try and understand the bill and draft a brief. Some of them have sent in their briefs. Whereas others have come to table them themselves. The majority of them came from Quebec to appear before the committee and explain their points of view. Some witnesses have taken this issue to heart and spoke to us from deep down inside. They noted how little consideration the Minister gave to their briefs. I wouldn't be had like that very often. It would take some time for me to come back and for me to invest time in a similar federal issue or to table another brief in vain.

There's another very important concern in the eyes of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec regarding privacy. The Commission is not alone in expressing concern with the turn of events following the adoption of Bill C-12 and the disclosure of the names that will follow.

If I have not fully understood the evidence, please let me know. I have not heard anyone congratulate the Minister on this wonderful initiative that will stigmatize young people. I have not heard any witnesses congratulate the Minister on this decision to brand, young people grappling with serious criminal behaviour. On the contrary. I have heard criminologists, psychologists and people working in this field who know young people say that this disclosure would attract the interest of young offenders. They would find it amusing to see their name in the papers. Moreover, for someone to be accepted as a member of some gangs in Montreal, they have to first get their picture in the paper and be identified as the perpetrator of an offence. They would find it amusing to be able to see their names associated with certain offences.

I am trying to understand, but I cannot. If the Minister had been here today, I would have liked her to try to explain the merit of this objective to stigmatize these names for life.

I am sure that you remember the example I gave you of a young Quebecker I met several years ago. He had committed murder, which is rather serious, I know. Today, he has reintegrated society and works as a butcher in a supermarket. He is married and has two children. Someday, he will tell his wife about his past, but for the time being, he has not told her anything. If he has succeeded in reintegrating society, it is thanks to the non-disclosure of the identity of young offenders.

• 1740

One day he wants to tell his wife, but he hasn't done it yet. Mr. Chairman, this was all made possible because the young offender's identity was not disclosed. Would things have been the same if his name had been published in the papers? Could the young offender have returned to society so easily? No, he could not. You don't need to be a psychologist, psychiatrist or highly qualified analyst to reach that conclusion. But unfortunately, both the department and Minister of Justice insist on keeping that provision in the bill before us today.

The commission deals with many other points in its brief, but since we have little time and have a great deal to say, I will move to the conclusion immediately. Once again, Ms. Viau—or someone else from the department—should have had the grace to read the very clear conclusions in this brief, even if she did not have time to read the entire brief. It might have prevented her from making the wrong use of some comments by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec.

In its conclusion, on page 33, the brief states:

The objectives underlying bill C-3 will lead to a restrictive intervention in regard to young offenders that fails to take into account, in its treatment of accused youth, their evolution and reality.

This repressive approach conflicts with the therapeutic response framework that Quebec has successfully developed over the years...

But listen to what Ms. Viau, the Justice legal counsel has to say: “Ask them how they can claim to have such an extraordinary system, when the human rights commission of their province says outright that the youth system does not work.”

So what do they respond?

This repressive approach conflicts with the therapeutic response framework that Quebec has successfully developed over the years...

I would hope that Ms. Viau did not read the Commission's brief. If she had, there would really be no excuse for her statements.

The Commission continues:

... and which is fully consistent with the principles of the Young Offender's Act. The reform proposed in the bill also fails to comply with the international principles recognized by the Convention...

Please tell me if I'm bothering you in any way.

An honourable member: No.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Very well.

The reform proposed in the bill also fails to comply with the international principles recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the relevant rules adopted by the United Nations.

Here is the last paragraph of the brief:

The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, convinced that legislation based on this approach would conflict with the interests of young people in Quebec and be contrary to their rights, in particular the right to be dealt with according to their degree of development and maturity, recommends that Parliament not adopt Bill C-3.

I would like the department to let me know whether it has lost this brief, or would like me to contact Ms. Viau directly so that I can forward it to her. As always, I would consider it a pleasure to co-operate with her to ensure that she has all the facts and documents she needs. Obviously, given the comments Ms. Viau has made, she does not have this brief by the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec. And if she does have it, then she is shamefully sowing misinformation, which is even worse.

• 1745

Moreover, the Quebec Bar and its position is bring attached by some members of the Department of Justice. I have decided to tackle this head-on this afternoon.

Again today, right after our caucus, a journalist told me he had heard department people saying that the Quebec Bar was supporting Bill C-3. This sort of statement can be described as one of two things: either it is a false statement, thus constituting the sort of misinformation constantly disseminated by the department, or it is a statement meaning the Minister may have amendments I have not yet seen, and would like to see. I could have put these questions to the Minister of Justice herself, if she had testified before us as I asked her to do in my motion. I could have put those questions to the Minister myself.

After checking with them, I can say that the statement made by the Barreau du Québec in its brief tabled on February 2000 remains its official position. Of course, like in political parties or any other sort of association, there maybe one member of the group who does not share the majority opinion. That can happen. However, the official position of the Barreau du Québec on Bill C-3 is here in this document, which is in your hands as well.

Is there some problem with interpretation? I would like to be heard and understood. Please tell me when I can continue speaking.

• 1747

• 1755

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

[English]

The Chair: We started at three.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, he is still... [Editor's note: Technical difficulties] I'll end with that.

[English]

The Chair: We're two hours and thirty-nine minutes in. We have five hours. You can subtract two hours and thirty-nine minutes from five hours.

[Translation]

[Editor's note: Technical difficulties]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Very well, until about 21 minutes past eight. I will find it difficult to concentrate because of the food odours, but I think that is part of your strategy.

Before these technical difficulties, I was about to tell you that another position was somewhat exaggerated... [Editor's note: Technical difficulties]

• 1800

[Editor's note: Technical difficulties]... does not share the opinion of the Barreau du Québec on Bill C-3, but I can tell you that the official position of the Barreau du Québec is in this document I have here. If you don't believe that, just think about the members of the task force who examined Bill C-3 in depth to produce this brief. They could not in any way have changed their minds.

They include Ms. Anne-Marie Boisvert, Claude Boies and Normand Bastien, a lawyer who contributed to the Jasmin Report and took part in the study of Bill C-3. The task force includes Mr. Jean Trépanier, someone you must know. Just last week, Mr. Trépanier published an article in the papers yet again denouncing a number of provisions in Bill C-3. You must also know Jean Turmel, who is with the Quebec justice ministry, and Cécile Toutant, a criminologist with the Philippe-Pinel Institute.

Now these people have not changed their minds, unless I am missing something, or unless during the summer the Department of Justice changed its approach or amended some provisions of Bill C-3, or unless amendments I have not yet seen have been moved. The people from the Barreau of Quebec with whom I check know nothing about such amendments. Thus, Mr. Chairman, we must probably conclude that we are once again looking at disinformation from the Department of Justice.

At the outset, when the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-3, one of the arguments that caught the attention of the media, and an argument against which I have had to fight, is that the bill provides flexibility. I have had to give many examples to demonstrate that it does not provide flexibility, and that these were nothing but white lies.

In her press conference—I remember the press conference very well; we were in the press building, on the other side of Wellington street—the Minister stated that Quebec could do whatever it wanted, because it would have the flexibility it needed. That is how the Department of Justice marketed the bill to sell it—it said the bill had flexibility. But we have evidence now that there is no such flexibility. In fact, no one has mentioned flexibility in quite some time. And since flexibility was the only advantage they had to sell the reform in Quebec, and since flexibility was did not fly, they tried something else: disinformation. It is disinformation we heard on April 25, and it is disinformation we are hearing today from the Justice Department's Ms. Viau.

Earlier, I asked you how many hours I had left, because I want to set aside about an hour to go through the bill properly, point by point. I want to raise the questions I would have liked to have asked the Minister, and I want to do that in the last hour so that all my comments will be fresh in your mind when you come to vote on this bill.

So, in her speech, the Minister made no reference to the issue of flexibility, but you will understand, that this issue raised a great deal of concern among those who have an interest in young offenders. If there had been genuine flexibility in the bill, there would have been what I call an “opting out” provision. That is flexibility; it would mean that the provinces that choose to do so could continue to enforce the Young Offenders Act, and to do all the things that they are doing at the moment, while those provinces that wanted the legislation to be tougher or more repressive would implement the Minister's bill, which would criminalize young people. I am referring to Bill C-3. If that had been the case, we could have said that there was genuine flexibility, but that is not the case. There is no flexibility.

• 1805

At the time of her press conference, the Minister mentioned to the Quebec bâtonnier at the time that the bill would be flexible enough to allow Quebec to do what it learned. That is how the Minister convinced the said President of the Bar to sit beside her at the press conference. In actual fact, however, when the Quebec Bar had a copy of the bill, when the bâtonnier had read the bill, it was quite clear that the flexibility was not there. People realized that the Minister's fine promises did not appear in the wording of the bill. From that point on, there was ambiguity about the position of the bâtonnier of the Quebec Bar. But the Quebec Bar quickly clarified its position in an extremely good brief it tabled in February 2000.

Naturally, we have been talking about flexibility from the beginning, and we realized from the beginning that the bill did not meet the expectations that had been created. Look what the introduction states. There seems to be a need to express some reservations, to raise certain points, because false information had been provided.

We read on page 3 of the brief:

In the spring of 1999, when Bill C-68, the predecessor of the present Bill C-3, was introduced, the Minister of Justice confirmed that the amendments in the bill would enable Quebec to administer the Act as it currently does. Throughout the analysis of the bill, the Quebec Bar will demonstrate that the flexibility that was announced the provinces would have in administering the bill does not reflect our expectations.

This is a polite way of saying that the bill does not do what was claimed. The bâtonnier and the members of the Quebec Bar had been given to understand certain things in an attempt to get their approval of Bill C-3. However, after they had a chance to analyze the bill, they realized that the flexibility was not there, and, all of sudden, the Minister lost her strongest supporters—the bâtonnier and the Quebec Bar.

The Quebec Bar did not turn to the support staff to analyze this bill. It called on the members of its Criminal Law Committee to draw on their expertise and comments. The latter also consulted some experts on the subject. In other words, the Quebec Bar, in the excellent brief it tabled with the Justice Committee, knows what it is talking about.

Naturally, we cannot look at Bill C-3 without trying to look at how the Young Offenders Act has evolved. The Quebec Bar considers it a good idea and it is exactly the same thing. In its chapter 1, it looks at the evolution of the youth criminal justice system and the interventions of the Quebec Bar.

More specifically, let us look at what it mentions on page 6 and following of its brief on Bill C-3:

Bill C-3 is another step along a more punishment-oriented path...

Before I continue with the quotation to give you some idea of the context, I would mention that just before this, the Quebec Bar talked about the way in which the Act had evolved and about the various amendments that had been made to it. There was never an attempt to go back and to be less harsh when amendments to the Young Offenders Act were put forward. There was always an effort to respond more to the Canadian right, to the westerly wind that was being felt. That caused the Quebec Bar to make the following comment:

• 1810

Bill C-3 is another step along a more punishment-oriented path, in the sense that there is now to be accountability for actions, by seeking to apply meaningful consequences while at the same time holding young persons more responsible, that predominates. In the Young Offenders Act, a fair balance is struck between protecting society and taking into consideration the unique situation of the young person who committed the offence. In Bill C-3, we are now seeing, as in the adult criminal justice system, a significant step backward: the emphasis is to be placed on identifying the offence committed as the cornerstone for judicial decisions made in respect of a young offender.

The Quebec Bar also responded to Ms. Viau's comments. Apparently, this was not the only brief that Ms. Viau did not read—there were several of them. That is disturbing. She seems to be the spokesperson for the Minister of Justice. I would be tempted to say that she is the political assistant to the Minister of Justice, but she is an official of the Department of Justice of Canada, paid out of our income taxes. Perhaps we should give her a salary increase that might at least give her the energy and desire to read the briefs that people take the trouble to present to the Justice Committee.

You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that I do not have any congratulations to extend to Ms. Viau, whom I am eager to meet.

At the time of the presentation of the government's Youth Justice Renewal Strategy by Anne McLellan in 1998, the Quebec Bar objected to the introduction of the new bill. The Quebec Bar contended that juvenile delinquency is a complex problem and that we must approach it from a variety of aspects.

You will appreciate that when the Quebec Bar writes such things, it is thinking of the Jasmin Report, which, unfortunately, I will not have time to mention, apparently. I know that I did refer to it early June, but I merely touched on part of the report. I am sure you will remember, Mr. DeVillers, that I said I hoped to arouse enough interest that you would read the Jasmin Report for yourself. Did you read it over the summer?

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I missed my chance.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: He missed his chance. I would have liked to have had more time to summarize the Jasmin Report. If I had had more than ten hours to present it, I think it would have been advisable for you to pay more attention to me. Naturally, Mr. Chairman, this is a question I would have asked the Minister of Justice: “Have you read the Jasmin Report, Minister?” I am quite sure she has not read it. Members of the Quebec Bar, thinking that the Minister of Justice would read their brief, probably thought, since the Minister would not read the Jasmin Report, they would include at least one quotation from it that is very representative of the ideology developed in the report. That is what they did on page 7 of their brief. The following is the quotation that they took from the Jasmin Report. It is not that long. Listen carefully, because this is addressed directly to the Minister.

• 1815

It is often easier to amend a statute than to change intervention practices. It may tempting to allow ourselves to believe that by making the law tougher we are providing a solution to the problems of delinquency. Simple answers are attractive when they deal with complex problems: they conceal the scope of the problems and create the false impression that something is being done to solve them. Substituting punishment for educational approaches is one of those simple answers. However, it amounts to forgetting that young persons are in the process of growing up, and to placing responsibility for delinquency on them alone, as if society and their environment had nothing to do with it.

I hope this quotation will not interfere with your digestion, Mr. Chairman, because it explains the Minister's behaviour. The Minister is using a simple solution to deal with a complex problem. We said that when we reviewed the whole issue in 1990, I believe. The Jasmin Report was tabled on February 17, 1995.

That must be Ms. Viau arriving. No? I'm eager to see Ms. Viau.

In 1995, the people who studied this issue came to this conclusion—namely that the problem of delinquency in young offenders is extremely complex, and calls for something other than a simple solution or simple amendment. The authors of the report were thinking of legislative change, something the Minister did not do. She went right along with those in the West who were calling for amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

I'll invite members of the Justice and Human Rights Committee to look at all the interventions by the Quebec Bar over the years in order to tell the government not to change the Act. The Minister responded to the initial comment with her numerous amendments. However, I don't think she understood what the Quebec Bar and others were saying when they spoke about the terminologies used by the Department in drafting Bill C-3.

The Bar said in February 2000:

The bill proposes to use terminology different from the Young Offenders Act. Where the existing Act provides for “measures” or “decisions” concerning a young person, the bill replaces those concepts with “extrajudicial sanctions”.

I would even say, since this is the only example they mentioned, that the bill also talks about sentencing. This is a very different vocabulary from that used in the Young Offenders Act.

The Minister no doubt tried to answer these questions, and that is what I would have liked to have asked her. The fact that we change a word in a sentence does not necessarily mean that we change the import of the sentence. I don't think the Minister has properly understood that.

• 1820

Later on, in its general comments, the Bar naturally focussed on the Declaration of Principles. The brief states:

While clause 3 of the bill affirms the goals in the Declaration of Principles, it is supplemented—or contradicted—by all the goals set out in the various parts of the bill. This plethora of principles will have consequences for the future interpretation of the provisions of the bill, and will thereby jeopardize legislative and judicial stability. It will be recalled that the Supreme Court took nearly ten years to give some meaning to the principles in the existing Act.

That does not sound like people who are supporting the Minister's bill. The comments of the Bar are very important. That is exactly what I said earlier, before analyzing the bill scrupulously. This jumps out at you on first reading. Everything stated in clause 3 does not appear in full in Bill C-3.

The drafters have completely carved up clause 3 and scattered it throughout the bill. Some things do not reappear at all; others do, but with all sorts of criteria and other provisions to water down the meaning of the words. And the Quebec Bar says the same thing. By scattering these principles around in various chapters, the drafters have actually managed to do the opposite of what is stated in parts of the Declaration of Principles. That is why they refer to the plethora of principles.

Had the Minister been present, I would have asked her whether her amendments are designed to solve this problem. I could have given her some examples to show that, even with her amendments, some of the very important principles are simply disregarded.

There is another point made in the general comments of the brief. Naturally, the authors of the brief look at the Minister's bill, and they realize that it amounts to a little Criminal Code for young offenders. And yet, two parallel systems that complement each other at certain levels is an approach that is working well. Although we know that adult courts are not a success—that is the least we can say—there is an attempt to apply them to young people.

The Bar says on page 14:

The Quebec Bar notes that the dividing line between the adult criminal justice system and the system for young persons is becoming less and less apparent.

This cannot have been said by someone who supports the Minister's position.

The brief states:

We doubt that changing the law to take tougher measures will protect society better than the existing Act does.

The Quebec Bar says it shares the Minister's concerns, but states that the approach used is of concern to it. It also talks about statistics, and says that they do not reflect a situation so alarming as to justify such a change.

I will spare you the statistics, but the ones we know about are mentioned, and nothing in these figures would justify any change whatsoever. Had the Minister been here, I would have asked her whether the amendments she will be tabling will solve the problem. What assurance can the Minister give us? She give us none.

• 1825

I don't know whether you have read the often-quoted judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada—R. v. M. I will give you the exact reference [1993] 2 F.C.R., 421. We know that it took several years before the principles that would form the basis of the Act were determined. A very important judgment was handed down in 1993. I'm going to read you part of it:

Section 3(1) attempts to balance the need to make the young offenders responsible for their crimes while recognizing their vulnerability and special needs. It seeks to chart a course that avoids both the harshness of a pure criminal law approach applied to minors and the paternalistic welfare approach that was emphasized in the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.

This quotation is often cited by many higher and lower courts.

The Bar says:

This delicate and difficult balance between holding young persons accountable for their actions, in terms of the offences committed, and the young persons' needs for rehabilitation has been developed over the years and has reached the point of maturity. We are not going to be able to recreate this kind of delicate marriage in a matter of a few months and there is the risk that the exercise will not only allow some important guidelines to fall by the wayside, but will also sacrifice lives.

That is a rather important finding. Does the Minister share this view? She has said that she gets along well with the Quebec Bar, that she listens to what it has to say, but does she share this view? The brief even states:

The delicate and difficult balance that has been developed over the years with the Young Offenders Act has stood the test of time. We do not believe that we can recreate this kind of marriage of principles in the near future, particularly since the principles and objectives that are specific to each major part of the bill will create an instability that will probably last several years. [...] Since the objectives of the Act cannot be determined and achieved rapidly, we run the risk of setting in motion a more punishment-oriented process, because of uncertainty as to how to interpret the new principles and objectives.

Is this really an ally of the Department of Justice speaking in this way? I would like to know those who, in your view, do not support the bill.

Before I continue, Mr. Chairman, would you give me five minutes so that I can eat the food I have before me? Give me five minutes, and I will resume right afterwards.

[English]

The Chair: We agree that we're not going to look at the clock...?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Are you suspending the meeting?

[English]

The Chair: We can just let time pass. You can eat and we just won't look at the clock.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's good.

• 1829

• 1836

The Chair: Are you ready to continue?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I will continue my remarks. I was speaking about the brief tabled by the Quebec Bar on Bill C-3, and more specifically about a chapter entitled “The polarization of the bill depending on the seriousness of the offence”.

The Bar examined the whole issue of the seriousness of offences and drew certain conclusions.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would like them to keep it down a little. You gave me the floor, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Alcock wants to have a chat, I would appreciate him going to the back of the room to do so, as other members did.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): No, I was interested in what you were saying, Michel—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You are too close and you are bothering me a little.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: —but you seemed to be straining a bit and I wanted to make sure—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If you make me angry, you're going to be here quite late this evening.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Oh, no. Now I am terrified.

I was just trying to listen to what you were saying, Michel, because I missed the earlier part.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, would you tell the member to show a little more respect and to allow the person who has the floor to speak? I was given a course at the beginning of this hearing. I would like you to call him to order. Mr. Alcock is a fairly experienced member of Parliament.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: We can have a talk about respect if you want to.

The Chair: Proceed, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, but tell him to be quiet. He's bothering me.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Oh, no.

The Chair: You can continue. He's not saying anything.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In any case, there's nothing to be done about some members. I think he is in that category.

The chapter entitled “The polarization of the bill according to the seriousness of the offence” in the brief tabled by the Quebec Bar to the Committee on Justice and Human Rights is very important.

If the Minister had been present, I would have asked her a question about serious, violent offences, and I would have asked her to compare the provisions of Bill C-3 and the series of amendments she has tabled.

• 1840

We read on page 20 of the brief:

The consequence of classifying offences according to their nature, that is, “a violent offence”, “a serious violent offence”, “a non-violent offence”, etc., will be to identify the profile of the young person in trouble with the law. This polarization between violent and non-violent offences is not particularly suited to young persons' situations. A young person convicted of assault may be infinitely less of a problem than a young person convicted of theft.

By trying to categorize offences, the Minister is polarizing offences, and that is harmful. One offence may not necessarily be more serious than another. Everything must be analyzed according to the needs of the child, of the young person, regardless of the offence. I don't think the Minister understood this argument. She has not understood the difference between the Quebec approach and the one she has put forward in her Bill C-3.

The Minister has definitely not understood this, because she would have made amendments along these lines to her bill, or she would not have put forward a bill like the one we have before us. Unfortunately, the Minister is not here to answer our questions. The only criterion that has produced results, the only criterion that the courts have really interpreted, is the one regarding the issue of special needs. In the bill we have before us, Bill C-3, the Minister clearly is not taking these needs into consideration.

There is something else that I would like to quote. Had the Minister been present, Mr. Chairman, I could have asked her whether the amendments she proposes would settle the issue of the reduction in principles. I think not. The Quebec Bar arrives at the same conclusion.

The following is at page 22 of the brief submitted by the Quebec Bar:

Furthermore, the Declaration of Principles that is found in clause 3 of the bill would be affected by all of the principles that are found in the various parts of the bill. The notion of the needs of the young person is identified in the preamble to the bill.

The following is important:

However, the preamble sets the basis of a political will which is not found in the Declaration of Principles in section 3 or even in the principles that we find specifically mentioned in each of the chapters, including the chapter on sentencing, where the special needs of teenagers are not mentioned at all. This dilution of the various principles will mean that the interpretation of the case law of all these provisions will be painstaking and will lead to uncertainty as to how to treat and deal with young people.

You know, Mr. Chairman, that in Bill C-3 as it stands before us, we have as is indicated in the brief from the Quebec Bar, a Declaration of Principles which is very different from the declaration that is currently found in the Young Offenders Act.

• 1845

The Declaration of Principles has been used by the courts and especially by judges of the Superior Court in order to set a framework and to highlight those provisions which must be applied in order for the Young Offenders Act to reach its primary objective, namely public safety. If the young person is rehabilitated and reinserted into society, public safety will result in the long term.

The Declaration of Principles found in clause 3 of the Young Offenders Act is very detailed. Although the Minister's bill does contain a Declaration of Principles, as the Quebec Bar indicates so well, the principles that are set in clause 3 do not necessarily apply to each of the chapters. I would therefore like to continue quoting the Quebec Bar:

However, the preamble sets the framework of a political will which is not found in the Declaration of Principles in clause 3 or even the principles enunciated specifically in each chapter...

Even if we put into the bill a section entitled “Declaration of Principles”, all that we find in the preamble, which is perhaps more of a principle that was recognized in the Young Offenders Act, is nowhere to be found.

As others have done, I wondered why the Minister had put these provisions into the preamble and not into a clause of the bill, as was the case for section 3 of the Young Offenders Act. It's quite simply because the Minister knows full well that a preamble does not mean much. Motherhood statements were made at the beginning, in the preamble. In this way, we could invite all those who would criticize the fact that such and such a thing isn't to be found in the body of the Act, to read the preamble in order to find it mentioned. But when we ask for more information and we look at what does exist, we realize that a preamble is not as important as a specific clause in a bill.

I consulted the work of a professor from the Law Faculty of the University of Montreal, a Mr. Pierre-André Côté, entitled Interprétation des lois and published by the Thémis publishing house. It is the third edition of this publication. And you can see how he feels about preambles:

Rarely nowadays does a preamble precede the operative part of a public bill. When such is the case, the text of the preamble is deemed part of the act and can serve to explain its objective and ambit.

A certain school of jurisprudence considers the use of the preamble admissible only in cases where the meaning or the ambit of a provision is unclear: this is another example of the application of the literal interpretation rule.

The preamble will only be useful to the judge. I recognize that the preamble is part of the act because it is within the act. I agree with the counsel's premise that the preamble is rarely used. I have seen many federal bills but I have to admit that I have rarely seen such a preamble as the one which can be found in this bill.

The preamble here is part of the act; no one will deny that fact. However judges will go to the preamble only if a provision is unclear, if they're having a hard time interpreting a specific section and if they want to know the exact intention of the legislator.

I can tell you that with such a wording, judges won't have to read the whole preamble. They won't have to consult the preamble when it comes to extrajudicial measures or sentencing. They won't have to go to the preamble to conclude that this piece of legislation is more repressive. They don't need the preamble to see that, at the end of the day, the needs of the child need not be taken into account, that only the protection of society is to be considered. Obviously, if young offenders are put away, there are fewer problems in the short term but in the long term, we may wake up to a few surprises.

• 1850

In its decision in the case of the Queen versus T.(V.) - [1992] 1 R.C.S., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the preamble. The judges say clearly that they do not need to do an in-depth analysis of the preamble. Here's what they say on page 11:

I am unable to accede to the submission of the appellant that section 3(1) is merely a “preamble” and does not carry the same force one would normally attribute to substantive provisions, especially since Parliament has chosen to include the section in the body of the Act. Yet, I am equally unable to attribute to that section the clarity necessary to accept the respondent's interpretation.

It is obvious in that case. Section 3(1) is not a preamble; it is a section clearly entrenched within the Young Offenders Act. That is the whole declaration of principles. If we look at caselaw on that topic, we see that the preamble is considered less important than if it were in the body of the Act.

I have here another decision from the Quebec Law Reports: Court of the King's Bench. Of course, it's not a recent decision but it is still a case that is cited as an authority. It says:

There is no doubt that when the legislative provisions of a statute are ambiguous, we can use the preamble to shed light on what seems vague, which is not the case when the words used in the body of the statute are clear. This rule is enunciated...

The judge goes on to quote other cases where this rule is enunciated. I could quote other decisions of the Supreme Court or other authors who addressed this issue of preamble and declarations. Here Mr. Bisson, who was legal counsel in 1980, reaches the same conclusions. Even the Quebec Bar has given its opinion on this issue which it addresses in its brief, as did the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse of which I spoke earlier.

So if the judge concludes that the text is ambiguous, he can read what the preamble says. However, if he is of the opinion that there is no ambiguity, that the section in question is not difficult to interpret, he won't even need to read the preamble. We know that the courts often use the declaration of principles in the Young Offenders Act to interpret that piece of legislation, to understand what are the underlying principles and the objectives set out by the Young Offenders Act.

I understand the minister who is from Alberta. She did not want to be criticized for having copied in her bill the declaration which can be found in the Young Offenders Act because that declaration of principles, in the present act, bothers the Canadian right. So it is purely for political reasons that the minister decided to do what she did, to put the declaration in the preamble and not in the body of the act. If she had had no other reason, the minister would have put the declaration of principle of the statute not elsewhere so that the judiciary could be guided by these important statements in their interpretation of Bill C-3 that the minister wants us to pass.

• 1855

Of course the Quebec Bar also expressed an opinion on the presumptive transfer of youths aged 14 and 15. The Quebec Bar is opposed to that procedure. It even says on page 23 of the brief:

The Barreau du Québec disputes the validity and effectiveness of the methods that are being proposed, since the existing justice system already reacts more seriously to the most serious cases.

If the minister comes tonight, I will ask her if this is her idea of an ally. Can she still say that the Quebec Bar supports the direction she wants to give to her bill? I do not think so.

If the minister were here tonight, I could also ask her questions on the many amendments she tabled. Does the minister want to remove from her bill, with her amendments, the presumptive transfer? The real impact of these new provisions will surely be negative for young persons; the number of repeat offences will probably rise as will, more importantly, their seriousness.

It is true that recidivism is a problem. There will always be too many repeat offences, although the statistics for Quebec are not that bad. But, as I have always said, there is always room for improvement. Does the minister really think that by completely revamping the Young Offenders Act, by repealing it as she is doing, by turning back on 30 years of experience and that by tabling such a complex bill, she will manage to reduce the number of repeat offences? I doubt it. When we read the Quebec Bar's brief, we see that they share my opinion. They also doubt that the minister will be able to reach that goal with her bill.

Earlier I mentioned the disclosure of young offenders' identities. Needless to say, the Quebec Bar is 100% against that practice. Here's what they say:

The Barreau du Québec is still of the opinion that a young person's identity should not be disclosed, particularly when a specific sentence is imposed on him or her.

What does it take for the minister to understand? Do we have to spell it out for her?

The Barreau du Québec maintains that the publication of young persons' identities will have a perverse effect...

Even if publication is limited to serious cases, it could become a social status factor for cases where the delinquency is more structured, and thereby not help in combatting delinquency. In addition to these reservations, there is the fact that publicity could tarnish the reputation of well-intentioned parents and innocent brothers and sisters.

Surely the minister cannot have taken that into account. It doesn't seem to bother her much.

Then there's also this matter of automatic procedures. Once again, as far as the publication of names is concerned, the Quebec Bar is positively opposed to the practice.

The minister attempted to respond to another important point through her amendments. I am referring to the harmonization of sentencing as dealt with in clause 37. I know that the minister is tabling an amendment that she would like to discuss, it deals with regional harmonization. What exactly is a region? I'm familiar with administrative regions. I come from Lanaudière and Lanaudière is one such administrative region. Are these the regions the minister refers to when she talks about regional harmonization or would it be the Laval-Laurentides—Lanaudière region? Is the region based on a judicial district or is Quebec itself considered a region? Would Western Canada also be a region? Are Central Canada, Quebec and Ontario considered to be regions? And what about the Maritimes?

• 1900

When the right-thinking people of society and the Department of Justice came up with this fine bill which, according to the minister, is in keeping with the approach adopted by Quebec over the past 15 years, what exactly were they thinking of? Since Mrs. Viau feels so directly concerned, as was quite clear from the newspapers, it may be that she is one of the drafters of this bill.

Even with regional harmonization, although no one appears to know what that means for the minister, the bill does not meet the expectations of those who had doubts about its drafting. At that particular time the Quebec Bar had not seen the minister's lovely amendments on regional harmonisation. I cannot speak for them on the subject of regional harmonization but I can tell you what they thought about the minister's harmonization in general.

On page 59 they note:

Clause 37(2)(b), talks about sentences being similar to sentences imposed on young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances. The Barreau du Québec believes that harmonizing sentences, by putting the emphasis on the offence, undervalues the young person's situation and the causes that led him or her to commit offences. In addition, this principle introduces a sentencing concept that is applied to adults and is poorly suited to the youth situation. In fact, in criminal law, the offence is the thing considered first and foremost in sentencing. Any reference to a proper balance between the needs of the young person and protection of society has been eliminated here. What we see here is how the system that applies to young persons will become less and less different from the adult system, if the bill is adopted.

Does this leave the door open to a future acceptance by the Quebec Bar of a new principle of regional harmonization? No. There's nothing leading me to believe that the Quebec Bar might accept regional harmonization. Harmonization is something that is discussed at great length in their brief. Before voting on Bill C-3, I would invite the members opposite to take the time to read at least the brief from the Quebec Bar in weighing their decision, if their decision can be influenced.

There's reference to custody and supervision. There's also reference, among others, to confidential information. The Quebec Bar is not the only one worried about this. The information commissioner in Ottawa was also worried about the possibility that information now considered confidential may end up in newspapers or in the hands of persons who do not have honourable intentions.

The Bar of the province of Quebec provides a table, which everyone is familiar with, showing each province's rate of indictment and custody sentencing. In both cases, Quebec has the lowest rates for each of these categories.

• 1905

However, as I showed you in my example using Julien's case, under the Minister's Bill C-3, which contains so many stages, including reprimands, an avalanche of measures and a whole lot more, Julien would only be arrested four, five or six years down the road, and put under observation and custody, whereas under the current system as provided for the Young Offenders Act, Julien would have been put into custody long before committing an offence thanks to the various elements I mentioned, simply because it would have been in his best interests to be taken from his family and from the street gang which he regularly hangs out with. If this bill is passed, that possibility will disappear.

And as with all the others, the Quebec Bar said that Quebec's success in this area is due to a fact that it applies the law wisely and, most importantly, because of the fact that the bill contains a detailed and significant declaration of principles which, over the years, has been slightly amended in order to better meet the needs of youth and protect the public. But the new bill does not contain a declaration of principles. The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec has said so, as has the Bar of the province of Quebec and many others.

To be frank, I have not heard anyone change their position so far. All these groups from Quebec are against Bill C-3 and, after having studied the many amendments which the Minister proposes to table—and will probably do so in the House—all these groups said they have had enough of the Minister's bill, since it is still extremely complex. The bill does not recognizes at all the way the system works in Quebec.

In Quebec, we have the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs. On May 11, the Coalition sent the Minister a letter. The Coalition pour la justice des mineurs has many member organizations, many of which spoke before the committee. Others did not. Perhaps they sent briefs instead, but they put their faith in the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs to defend their point of view.

I will tell you who these groups are. There are many of them and some new ones even joined the Coalition this summer. On May 11, the membership included: the CEQ, the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec; the Centre Jeunesse de la Mauricie et du Centre-du-Québec; the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec; the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec; the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Quebec Division; the Child Welfare League of Canada, Quebec Division; the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec; the Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, which are health care organizations and whose members include psychologists and educators; the Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Québec; the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du Québec; the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal; the Commission des services juridiques; the Association des substituts du Procureur général du Québec; the Centre Jeunesse Chaudière—Appalaches; the Centre jeunesse de Laval; the Centre jeunesse Gaspésie/Les îles; the Centre jeunesse de Lanaudière; the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants and Montreal's Philippe-Pinel Institute.

• 1910

I could also mention people and organizations outside Quebec who have joined the Coalition. They even include Dr. James Hackler from the Sociology Department of the University of Victoria. As well, there is Tim Quigley from the University of Saskatchewan; the Société de criminologie du Québec; Dr. Louis Morissette, a physician and psychiatrist with the Philippe-Pinel Institute; the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse; Mr. Marc LeBlanc, head of the École de psycho-éducation de l'Université de Montréal. Other members include Marge Reitsma-Street, from the University of Victoria, as well as Jean Trépanier from the École de criminologie and of the Centre international de criminologie comparée de l'Université de Montréal. Even the British Columbia Criminal Justice Association is a member.

These people were members of the coalition on May 11, 2000. They all read Bill C-3, as well as the many amendments proposed by the minister. So, what do they say in the letter they sent the Justice minister? They said that nothing has changed. All they do is tell the minister that her amendments do not meet their expectations and that they will maintain the position they took when we began our study of the bill. They wrote:

Since those first interventions, you tabled your amendments to the bill with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The coalition meticulously studied those amendments. It is with great regret that we concluded that the amendments were mostly technical in nature and that the few—barely—substantive ones fell laughably short of changing the bill's repressive nature.

To illustrate the magnitude of the task of making the bill just a bit less awful, we would like to submit the following suggestions.

They don't talk about improving the bill, just to make it less awful. They add that the bill's underlying philosophy should be completely changed. This is no small teat. The entire philosophy underpinning the bill would have to be changed in order to make it less awful.

I don't believe that the membership of the coalition is entirely made up of big bad separatists. If that was the case, I could not understand why we lost the last referendum. I know people who are fairly close to the Liberal party and who work with the Philippe Pinel Institute. But even they cannot agree to the Justice minister's proposed approach.

So, we would have to completely change the bill's underlying philosophy. If the minister were here this evening, I would have asked her if her amendments corresponded to a change in philosophy. I would have asked her the question, but I already know the answer. It's no. And the coalition, which went through the bill with a fine-tooth comb, concluded the same:

First, it is imperative to clearly state the importance of meeting the needs of youth and protecting the public. This principle must be enshrined throughout the body of the bill and not only discreetly inserted in the preamble. This is exactly what I was saying at the beginning of my speech. This is exactly what the Bar of the province of Quebec has said. This is exactly what the minister should do if she wants to make her bill less awful.

• 1915

The handful of amendments proposed for the preamble and for clause 3 of the bill fall short of changing the mechanisms outlined in it. Maintaining adults' sentences for youths of 14 years of age, for instance, clearly illustrates that the few amendments proposed by your government do not go far enough to significantly alter the bill.

Therefore, even in light of your proposed amendments, the bill continues to ignore the facts, which have been well documented by your experts and which are familiar to them, which point to the conclusion that the best way to protect society is to provide young offenders with a good education allowing them to develop a sense of responsibility. The authorities can seem to accept the fact that they are dealing with young people who have not grown into mature adults yet and who have made mistakes at a crucial stage in their development. The way we respond to this mistake will determine a young person's future as well as that of society.

If she were here this evening, I would ask the minister why the coalition, whose members all, directly or indirectly, apply the Young Offenders Act in their daily work, are all against her, against her bill and against her position. Madam Minister, you have shown nothing but arrogance by telling them that they are wrong and that you have drafted a bill which respects the approach followed by Quebec over the last 15 years!

I understand that the Minister did not want to appear here. Naturally, the coalition is also concerned about the justice system that must be distinct for minors, although that is less and less the case. We feel that it is absolutely essential to conserve a justice system that is specific to young people. On this very point, the bill and the government amendments outline an adult justice system applying to minors. We could quote dozens of examples taken from the bill. A sentencing regime based on the nature of the crime and on the principle of harmonizing sentences hardly takes into account young people's needs.

I do not know how many times I will have to mention young people's needs for you to understand that the bill comes up short in this regard. Even with the amendments and the “needs” added in here and there, you are not meeting the expectations of people in Quebec. You are not meeting the expectations of the Coalition, which has many members.

I would have liked the Minister to have been here this evening. Name me one organization in Quebec that shares all of your views on Bill C-3. Quite honestly, I do not know of any in Quebec that do. Oh yes, there might be one, since, during the Liberal party convention, I seem to recall the adoption of a resolution among those lines after the Minister had tabled her bill, as if she needed to feel that there was at least some support among party supporters. And that's a fair move. But apart from the Liberals, who are the Liberal party's other allies in Quebec? Certainly not the Quebec Bar, as you noted in the brief it tabled, and in light of everything I said earlier, certainly not the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec, given the brief they tabled.

• 1920

I am trying to understand and come up with another response that would justify the Minister's action. Is she acting simply out of political opportunism, to win some votes in Western Canada? The next election will be held shortly. Naturally, the results in my riding will be the ones that will interest me first and foremost. Secondly, I will be looking at the results in the Minister's riding. I am eager to see if it will have paid for her to have gone against principles as important as these ones.

There is justified concern about the idea of a separate justice system for minors, because there will be less and less difference between the two systems.

The other aspect that is raised is the fact that the bill is incomprehensible. You are undoubtedly going to say: “If Bellehumeur, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, the little idiot from Berthier, does not understand all of the clauses in the bill and says that it is complex does not really matter.” But when I hear the same comments about the bill from the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs, which is made up of about 30 organizations as well as the most well-known lawyers who apply the Young Offenders Act, and we recall the evidence provided by judges who have a wealth of experience, like Mr. Justice Jasmin, who came to tell you not to change the Act and that above all the Act was highly complex, you can see that it does give support for my position. You can see that if someone does not understand anything, it is not me, but the Minister. The Act is very difficult to understand. You need to read the sections of the bill to realize that it does not read like a Harlequin romance. However, the general public is expected to be familiar with these acts, because of the principle that says that no one should be ignorant of the law.

Moreover, parents are being asked to participate more and more in dealing with youth crime. That is a good thing. We must develop the principle and we're in a position to develop it under the Young Offenders Act. An important argument is being made here to justify an amendment to the Act, although the bill has been drafted in such a way that parents will never understand it. Several groups even came to tell us that this Act was depriving parents of the little jurisdiction or knowledge they had of the Young Offenders Act. Parents are being denied that, to the great benefit of specialized lawyers in the field.

If I were to show solidarity, as the Bar does with respect to its members, I should applaud the Department of Justice officials and even thank them, because it has enabled lawyers to make more money, that is for sure. Some professors are also going to make money because they will give courses so that people can understand the bill.

But I am not here to congratulate you. On the contrary, I'm here to tell you that you are on the wrong track. This Act is completely incomprehensible.

Yesterday, I read you a section of the bill. If I had time, I could read several others for you; I could even read section 1 and continue through to the end. You would see that the bill is not at all easy to understand. I hope that the members who will speak on such an important bill will have at least taken the time to read it instead of blindly relying on the Minister of Justice.

• 1925

The letter also states:

As you can see, your bill, even with the amendments you have proposed, contains fundamental and structural flaws and it cannot remain simple, hold young people accountable and reflect the justice system adapted to their reality. We are extremely disappointed that, despite the widespread criticism from all across the country and the lack of firm support you have received, you have decided to proceed with this retrograde bill.

There is also strong opposition to this bill in Quebec; but on the contrary, I have not seen anyone go flat out to support the adoption of Bill C-3. You are sitting on the fence, and I am convinced that no one will be satisfied with this bill. That is why I say that the Minister will perhaps pay the price at some point. I hope that you will pay that price in the next election.

Instead of moving in this direction and bowing to lobby groups who fears are unjustified, your government should instead encourage provinces that have not yet done so to fully use, like Quebec, all of the opportunities provided in the Young Offenders Act and that prove to be effective.

There again, the Minister seems to have clearly missed the boat.

I am convinced that Committee members saw what I wanted to do yesterday. It goes without saying that I would have liked to have questioned the Minister so that she could explain her many amendments and answer my questions on young offenders. The main objective of this exercise was to save time. I thought to myself that if we could save time, the Minister would probably have an opportunity to meet with these people, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, who would tell her that the bill in its current form is not good. They would have told her that the Young Offenders Act is a good piece of legislation and that perhaps all that was necessary was to give some provinces the required financial means so that they could apply it properly. Knowing that the federal government has billions of dollars and a budget surplus that even Minister Paul Martin had not forecast, I thought that perhaps some day, the Minister of Justice would decide to invest more so that the other provinces, like Quebec, could apply the Young Offenders Act.

If in ten years, once all of the provinces have applied the Young Offenders Act like Quebec, the government realizes that there are problems, it could look into improving the Young Offenders Act.

I do not know if the Minister wants to go down in history for changing the Young Offenders Act or if she wants to do it to put Quebec in its place with respect to a bill as important as the Young Offenders Act. I thought that by saving some time, the bill would not go through all the necessary steps and there would less chance that it would eventually be applied. But I thought above all that it would enable the Minister to do some verifications in the field and hear the views of people from the coalition and other organizations that came to make presentations to this Committee. I thought that with more time, the Minister could tour the provinces and verify the allegations made by people who appear before us, namely three judges, including two who are still practising in the field, and another who is retired.

Let's look at the example of Mr. Justice Michel Jasmin. You cannot say that Mr. Justice Jasmin is a person who does not act in good faith or that he does not know the field. He wrote an extremely brilliant report that was published in February 1995 in which he clearly outlined the situation. The document remains relevant today and continues to apply to the situation we are currently experiencing. After analyzing the situation in detail, Mr. Justice Jasmin said in his report that the Act should not be changed because it is not the Act itself that is problematic, but its application.

• 1930

Even in 1995, with this bill, Quebec found a way of improving the application of the Young Offenders Act. I have never claimed that it was a fantastic and wonderful act and that there was nothing else to do with respect to the Young Offenders Act. I've never said that. I have always said that certain aspects of the Young Offenders Act could be improved. But the Minister is not attempting to improve it; she is attempting something else. She's leading us into the unknown. No one can tell us today how Bill C-3 will be applied in ten years.

I had asked the Minister to tell us what guarantees we had that the provinces that are currently complaining about the Young Offenders Act could properly implement the Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons. She could not give us any guarantees because she did not have any. Even if I am a big, bad separatist, I look at what is being done elsewhere and see that some provinces do not have the infrastructure they need to implement a bill containing extrajudicial measures or alternative measures like the ones proposed in Bill C-3. What will those provinces do? They did not have the infrastructure to apply the Young Offenders Act and they will not be better equipped to apply the new legislation.

I can already hear the department telling us that they plan to earmark $340 million more for the application of that Act. Some provinces have 15 or 20 years of catching up to do. Just to build a building to accommodate young people who are participating in alternative measures requires time and money. I am convinced that these estimates of the order of $340 million represent a minimum. These estimates are similar to the ones you came up with to implement the Firearms Act. The same department had said that it would not be all that costly, but the bill is three or four times higher than Mr. Rock's estimates.

I am convinced that the federal government will not provide unlimited funding. And I repeat, then Justice Minister Allan Rock acknowledged that the federal government owed $96 million to Quebec, who had correctly applied the Young Offenders Act. But we didn't see a penny out of that. Yet today, we are being asked to sweep all that away and pass another bill, with no guarantees, and are told that we will pay for its application. So please forgive me if I have some doubts regarding your assurances that you will foot the bill at the end of the day.

During his testimony on March 23, 2000, Justice Jasmin asked an important question. I thought, if I gave the Minister time, she might find the opportunity to examine something that had slipped away from her. Justice Jasmin said that, if he were in Parliament's position, he would stand the bill for now and ask provinces how they would apply the current legislation, and what youth policies they had implemented.

I concede that the ultimate goal of my request and of the motion I have tabled is to gain some time. But I'm not just doing this for myself, or for Quebec, but to ensure that the Minister has a chance to see what youth policies other provinces have implemented. She would discover that some provinces have no youth policy, and do not have the infrastructures required for a bill like C-3. Good intentions are simply not enough.

• 1935

I suppose we could play politics and say that the Minister is acting in bad faith. However, I am sure she is acting in good faith but is being badly advised. I don't know. If Ms. Viau is one of her advisers, then she must be receiving bad advise.

I thought that, if she had the time, the Minister would go see for herself. If I were Canada's Minister of Justice, the first thing I would do if I came across such a broad consensus against the bill as we see in Quebec against this bill, would be to go to Quebec and see what they had to say, see whether they could persuade me that their position was the right one.

But did she herself go meet with the people of Quebec? I know that Privy Council personnel and departmental officials did meet with people from Quebec. They went almost as far as arm-twisting. I know that the government finds some of those representatives particularly bothersome because certain organizations receive federal funding.

I know that the government tried a number of ways to convince some of those groups that they should support Bill C-3, but since they stand by their convictions, they refused to accede. The organizations were convinced that they had to oppose the bill, even though it was implied that their funding could be reduced since it would be the Minister's decision at the end of the day. In spite of the pressure, they still refused to support the bill.

So, if I was the Minister of Justice, I would be very tempted to go see for myself. I would have met with Justice Jasmin three days after his testimony here. I would have gone to meet with him at the court house or Youth Court in Montreal, so that he could take me around the place and show me exactly how things work. Then, I would have talked about concrete cases, and seen what could be achieved and what could not be achieved under Bill C-3. I would also have done exactly the same thing in other provinces demanding an amendment.

My sincere objective this evening is to give the Minister a chance to review this matter before doing something she will regret later. The Minister of Justice may go down in history as the person who axed a piece of legislation of which many jurists and others were proud—the Young Offenders Act.

Of course there may be reason to laugh. This member of Parliament from the Bloc Québécois has been talking about the bill for almost 30 hours now. The poor guy! The bill is going to be passed in any case. There is no doubt that some members are saying that Bellehumeur knows nothing. There is no doubt that the officials must be killing themselves with laughter in the evening and saying: “Did you see how Bellehumeur went on? It changed absolutely nothing”.

I can tell you, however, that the coalition and all the people in Quebec were opposed to the bill will at least know that someone in Ottawa listened to what they had to say, even if that was not the case of the members of all parties. More than one told me this, and I hope something will come of this some day.

I'm going to close now, because I have only about 30 or 40 minutes left to try to review the matter one final time and to summarize in my own way the federal government's reform of the Young Offenders Act. I'm going to be stressing certain points, while others I will go over more quickly, because I'm coming to the end of my time. The Chair will soon be cutting me off. Exceptional measures will be used. The great democracy of Jean Chrétien and the Liberal government will go into motion. Now, in the home stretch, I would like to give you a general overview of Bill C-3 and go over the points on which we still have some reservations and objections.

• 1940

First of all, I would have liked to go through the entire Jasmin Report, to which the authors devoted so much energy and so much voluntary work. Some members of the drafting committee told me that it was written after office hours. Normand Bastien, among others, who works in a law firm at the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal was telling me that it was often after office hours that he took part in the meetings where the work was done.

Why did he do that? For a single, very good reason: because he believed in the cause, and because he saw that, increasingly, the federal government was getting involved in this area. This had to stop at some point. That is why they felt they needed a significant response in the form of a proper report, drafted after consulting all the individuals who work directly or indirectly with young people at any point in the commission of offence in the context of the Young Offenders Act. That is what they did, and the report is very well done.

I know that in May and June, I asked the committee members to read it. I know that some of them admitted quite honestly that they had not read it. I trust you will have at least a little energy left after the meetings of the Justice Committee, perhaps tomorrow or the day after, at least sometime before the bill is passed at third reading, to read at least the main headings of the report. I am sure you will find some of them interesting enough that you will have the curiosity to read them.

I will not claim that the report reads like a novel, but one thing is sure: it reads much better than the Minister's report. It contains some very concrete examples similar to the two fictitious cases I mentioned to you. I think that they helped Mr. MacKay understand Quebec's position very well, and that is what caused him to withdraw subsequently. Perhaps I may have even convinced him. I hope you will read the Jasmin Report. I'm sure you will find it convincing as well.

Generally speaking, the bill entitled “an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts” is a bad act. Allow me now to be more specific.

In my opinion, the bill proposes a new approach to criminal justice for young persons and changes the definition given to a certain number of words. For example, “conference”, “non-violent offence”, “violent offence”, “serious violent offence”, “presumptive offence”, “extrajudicial measures”, “adult sentence”, “youth sentence”, “custodial portion” and “extrajudicial sanction” are all new expressions which are not to be found in the present Young Offenders Act. The language and the definitions used by the Department have changed.

When I spoke about the preamble to the Act, I commented on the principles and on the aims of criminal justice for young persons. You know what I think of the preamble and you also know what the judges of the Superior Court think of it. It isn't worth the paper on which it is written. One thing is clear: the judges won't need to read the preamble to interpret the Act which is very repressive. They won't need to read the preamble to the Act to understand its intent.

The general declaration of principle cannot be compared to the one which now appears in the Young Offenders Act: it's like night and day. The same can be said about the specific principles and aims of the Act.

• 1945

To give you an idea of the complexity of the principles and aims of the Act, let it suffice to say that without mentioning the preamble, those principles and aims are scattered in six sections which are subdivided in 16 subsections, 34 paragraphs and 14 subparagraphs.

When the Quebec Bar says the Department has taken no account of the declaration of principle, that's what it means. The statement of principle has been completely gutted though courts understood it very well. The declaration has been interpreted several times by the Supreme Court of Canada and because it mentions special needs, they were taken into account when deciding what measures to take in regard to certain young offenders. The declaration of principle has been gutted, made useless and scattered throughout a bill that does not make any sense.

That's the explanation we got from the Minister. Is there a common thread that goes through the Act? I hope the implementation of the Act will show that it is the case. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think it is the case.

As concerns the needs of the young person, I can't stress enough how they were expressed in section 3 of the declaration of principle contained in the Young Offenders Act. I reread it because it is absolutely crucial to the understanding of the Young Offenders Act and to the understanding of the Act that the Minister wants to force upon us.

For those who not here when I talked about the UN, Canada boasts of giving specific rights to young offenders and offering them the best rehabilitation services. As proof of that statement, Canada gives as an example subparagraph 3(1)(c) of the Young Offenders Act. I can't wait to see at the next UN forum on the rights of children, Canada's representatives standing up to say how it was a good thing that part of the Act was eliminated.

This subparagraph reads as follows:

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

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

This subparagraph has been interpreted several times and quoted by judges of the Supreme Court of Canada because certain judges had misunderstood it in implementing the Act, especially in the West.

No doubt it was too good. No doubt it was too clear. The minister decided to axe it and not to keep an equivalent section in the bill that is turning youth into criminals, namely Bill C-3. All the essential components of Quebec's approach have been completely eradicated from the federal approach as reflected in Bill C-3. As far as the whole dimension of the young person's needs is concerned, it is nowhere to be seen in Bill C-3.

You may say that the minister has provided for amendments. These amendments are but a scattering of meaningless words because all the wording following the word “needs” does not mean anything with regard to inherent needs of young persons. And this will obviously impact on practice; that is obvious. Today, the minister cannot give us any assurance that it will be otherwise. The new philosophy or approach put forward by the federal government will change Quebec's approach and practices toward young offenders. That is obvious. The federal reform is essentially focussed on the seriousness of the offence and on the judicial record of the young person. If there is anything new in the bill, compared with the Young Offenders Act, that is it. It will be a disaster.

• 1950

It will have a negative impact on practices in the courts of Quebec. According to the spirit of Bill C-3, it is up to the youth protection system to deal with specific needs of young persons, as if you could separate the offence from the social maladjustment of the young person and the root causes of this problem. It is absurd to confuse all these different aspects.

As far as extrajudicial measures are concerned, the minister seems to have re-invented the wheel, but these measures already existed in the Young Offenders Act. They are called alternative measures. It would be beneficial for me to read a provision of the Young Offenders Act that perhaps some members of this committee have not read:

(d) where it is 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;

If it is deemed that society will be better protected by applying alternative measures to the young person, we should do so.

I have listed earlier some of the alternative measures that are authorized not only by the Department of Justice but also by the Department of Health and Social Services. That was done in cooperation because the problem is not of a strictly legal nature. One of the reasons for the success that we have had in Quebec is that departments do not work in isolation with regard to the treatment of young persons. The Department of Health works in cooperation with the Department of Justice, as well as the Department of Social Affairs. But they seem to have some difficulty understanding this. Part 1 of the bill deals with extrajudicial measures. It comprises nine sections. It is subdivided into three parts: principles and objectives, dealt with in sections 4 and 5; warnings, cautions and referrals, in sections 6 to 9; and extrajudicial sanctions, in sections 10 to 12.

We have seen as well, in the cases that I have explained, that this cascade of warnings, cautions and referrals will do nothing to help the young person. This will only multiply the number of interventions. As we can see, some warnings can be given by the police, some cautions can be given by the prosecutor. What we see most of all is that it is all very complicated.

In the Young Offenders Act, it is much clearer. More importantly, that legislation gives enough discretion to work with the young person. Today, the minister is proposing a bill that is based on a series of automatic measures. There is no discretion anymore. It will have to work as set out, without any verification, because the minister has decided that it will be so. As it has been amply noted; the minister did not consult the provinces as she was bound to do. Above all, she did not go in the field to see how things were being done. Well, if she did, she went to other provinces than Quebec.

The whole sentencing process is quite painstaking and complex. What's more, the chapter on sentencing replicates exactly the same things that are found in the Criminal Code. So it is easy to see why those who apply the Young Offenders Act are concerned, as the Act that applies to youth will resemble more and more the Criminal Code and the adult courts. I don't believe that this is how society will achieve the goals that it set for itself several years ago, with respect with reintegrating young people in trouble with the law.

• 1955

Sentencing is found in part 4 of the bill. I am sure that there are some people who didn't know this. This part contains 45 clauses that are subdivided. This section contains the purpose and principles. I mentioned earlier that the Minister had taken section 3 of the Young Offenders Act, cut it up into ribbons and ended up with a patchwork, well she has done the same thing with this chapter on sentencing.

Section 37 and 38 outline the purpose and principles. Section 39 outlines the pre-sentence report. You may remember the fictitious example that I gave of Claudine. I hope that some of you were listening and remember. This delightful pre-sentence report that we obtained, after the trial, at the sentencing, indicated that Claudine should never have been treated under the adult rules. The report indicated that if the judge, and especially the Crown prosecutor had had this pre-sentence report in hand, they would not have objected to an appeal by her counsel for a new trial, so that she would receive a youth sentence.

Examples such as these come from the Act, and not from the planet Mars or from the sports pages of the National Post. The pre-sentence report is in section 39, specific sentences, in sections 40 through 60, adult sentences in sections 61 through 80 and the effects of termination of youth sentence in section 81.

There is no denying that this part on sentencing is the most complex part of the Act. I've consulted with a number of lawyers. Some of them who know criminal law inside out are not looking forward to these provisions being enforced. My colleague next to me will understand. On the one hand, they are anxious to apply these provisions because it will be very difficult; they will take lots of time and rack up huge bills. But on the other hand, when it comes to their conscience, because they do have one, they just do not think that it makes any sense to create a bill as complex as this.

Given that we've already examined the principles and objectives on a number of occasions, I will not dwell on these issues. I do hope however, that you will take the time required, before voting on this bill, to look into this correctly.

I would also invite the members of the Justice Committee to consider the difficulty in calculating sentences and the length of committal to custody, and to try to see if there could be additional sentences. It is very complex. It is so complex that the federal Department of Justice has published a book entitled Sentence Calculation: A Handbook for Judges, Lawyers, and Corrections Officials, for the adult court. I'm sure that the Department of Justice will publish a similar guide for sentence calculation for adolescents, because it is basically the same system as for adults, and the federal government felt the need to create this for judges. I am sure that we will soon see such a publication for the enforcement of the Act for young people in trouble with the law. I do not know if you come to the same conclusion as I do, but justice will not be better served by such complexities.

I think I've spoken enough about the adult sentencing aspect, because no one seems to be disputing what I said.

• 2000

When it comes to appearance, I am sure if you know it, but given that we want to make young people into criminals and that we want to treat them like adults, all sorts of steps have been created: the appearance, the preliminary investigation, the trial, the options, the re-option and the applicable sentencing. There is even publicizing the identity of the young person for some presumptive offences. I do not need to tell you that this will do nothing but stigmatize these young people. I like this because there is a lot of interaction.

In the case of adult sentences, the place of committal to custody is decided. This will also cause certain problems. I am curious to see how the courts will solve them.

I would like to speak to a point that I mentioned back in May. It has to do with the rules for admissibility of young persons' statements.

The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec is concerned. The Privacy Commissioner, in Ottawa is also concerned when it comes to distributing information on certain young people. Therefore, there are also all the rules of admissibility for young persons' statements.

When an adult or a young person is arrested, there is an attempt to obtain a statement from that person. Even if that person is a young person, they have recognized rights, including the right to representation and the right to know why they have been arrested. However, significant amendments have been made to the admissibility of extrajudicial statements, which are found in section 145 of the bill.

The first change is found in subparagraph 145(2)(c)(iii). You can see immediately that it will be simple. It applies to a case where the young person and one of their parents are involved in the same offence. The bill establishes that, in exercising their right to consult with parents or another adult, they will not be able to consult with the person who stand co-accused or under investigation in respect of the same offence.

The second amendment introduces the possibility for the court of admitting into evidence the young person's statement, even though the rules of admissibility have not been entirely respected. This is worrisome. It is in subsection 145(5), which reads as follows:

(5) When a waiver of rights under paragraph (2)(c) or (d) is not made in accordance with subsection (4), the Youth Justice Court may admit into evidence a statement referred to in subsection (2) if it is satisfied that the young person was informed of his or her rights, and waived them.

Now, between you and me, surely we can agree that it is fairly easy for a police officer to intimidate an adolescent. Not everyone who comes before a police officer is tough as nails.

Subsection (6) states:

(6) When there has been a failure to comply with paragraphs 2(b) to (d) the Youth Justice Court may, having regard to all the circumstances and the principles and objectives of this Act, admit into evidence a statement referred to in subsection (2) if it is satisfied that admission of the statement would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Are people aware of the pressure that will be exerted upon Crown prosecutors?

One of the last points touches on the whole issue of flexibility. I'd like to save that for last. It won't be very long.

At the outset, the Minister, as I mentioned earlier in the day, spoke of flexibility in order to sell the bill. To hear the Minister speak, you would have thought that the bill was made of rubber it so flexible, but when very concrete examples were given, which I will repeat this evening, the Minister had a hard time talking about flexibility again.

• 2005

In sections 7 and 8 of the bill, included in extrajudicial measures, a program authorizing the police to administer cautions to young persons instead of starting judicial proceedings under this Act is outlined. This is new, but it is not necessary, given that police discretion has always been recognized and that in Quebec, the Crown prosecutors have already established a program whereby warning letters are sent. Therefore, this flexibility that is suppose to exist, in sections 7 and 8 of the bill among others, is ridiculous, because in Quebec, there are already the means required to do this. There is a program whereby letters and warnings are sent.

There is also supposed to be flexibility with respect to establishing a extrajudicial sanction program. This is found in paragraph 10(2)(a) of the bill. This is already provided for in the Young Offenders Act. Quebec, as early as 1984 was already taking advantage of the possibility that was provided to it, under section 4 of the current Young Offenders Act, to establish an alternative measures program which will be renewed under the transitional provision found in subsection 162(5) of the bill.

Therefore, this flexibility which is supposed to exist also when it comes to extrajudicial sanctions, does not exist, because we are already able to do this today with the Young Offenders Act.

Section 23 is also supposed to demonstrate flexibility, by providing that the Attorney General may establish a “program of pre-charge screening that sets out the circumstances on which the consent of the Attorney General must be obtained before a young person is charged with an offence”.

True this is new, but it is not necessary. Quebec has already established, under the Crown Prosecutor Act, a procedure whereby the Crown prosecutor reviews police requests to commence legal proceedings before prosecution is authorized.

There is talk of so-called flexibility required to allow Quebec to do what it wants. This is not necessary because Quebec is already able to do what it wants right now, because, it has to do with the administration of justice, which is under provisional jurisdiction.

The bill also contains provisions to establish committees of citizens called “youth justice committees”. This is found in section 18 of the bill. This is presented as something new, but the person who drafted this bill did not seem to see that it was already provided for in section 69 of the Young Offenders Act.

Discretion was also left to the provinces to delegate to administrative authorities or to the Youth Justice Courts the power to establish the level of committal to custody, whether it be opened or closed. Does section 87 of Bill C-3 really bring anything new into the picture? Is that what they mean by flexibility? It is already provided for in subsection 23(3) of the Young Offenders Act.

The Minister stated that the bill was also flexible in the case of offences subject to adult sentences, because of the presumption established by the Act. Section 62 of Bill C-3 allows for the Attorney General to accept a request by young persons to be subject to youth sentences. This has already been provided for in section 16 of the Young Offenders Act. What is new, however, is the possibility whereby the Crown Attorney gives notice that an adult sentence will not be sought against the young person. This is found in section 64.

• 2010

However, as we have already explained on a number of occasions before, this is really more of a theoretical discretion rather than a practical discretion given that it will only be after a guilty verdict is rendered that the Crown prosecutor will be able to consult the assessment reports required by the court.

Remember the example of Claudine that I mentioned earlier. Apparently there is yet one last flexibility, that the minister found in this bill. That is that the court may prohibit the publication of the identity of a young person who is found guilty of a presumptive offence and who is given a youth sentence.

Yes, this is new, but you know our position: it is the status quo. You also know the position of all those who came and testified to this effect. There was not one person who was in favour of stigmatizing young people. On a number of occasions I asked that question, who wanted that? I never got an answer from the minister.

After all of these hours of pleading my case before you, I do not know if I have managed to convince you, but I hope that at least when you go to vote for this bill, you will feel something in your heart, but we can agree on one thing: Quebec does not agree with the position that the government has taken on this bill.

And I will go even further. If the justice system ever made sense to Quebec in the past, I believe that that is no longer the case. In the same week, the province asked the minister to take action on a contentious issue in Quebec, that of organized crime, and the minister hesitated to do. She told us that Hell's Angels and other criminal bike gangs had constitutional rights nonetheless.

On the same day, she announced, by tabling a notice, that she was tabling a motion to gag Quebec, through the Bloc Québécois, in the debate on a bill as important as this one, a bill that would affect the future for many young people in trouble with the law. In Quebec, there is a strong consensus to reject this bill.

So in the same day the minister announced that she was going to ram it through and yet say no to an urgent request from Quebec to provide for anti-gang legislation with teeth. On this same day, she told us that she was going to force Bill C-3 through as quickly as possible, even though there is a consensus within Quebec that we do not want this legislation.

I do not wish to play politics with this, but you must understand that Quebeckers have difficulty making sense out of the department. Quebeckers will jump to conclusions rather quickly. If we were back home and if Quebec were a sovereign country, we could do whatever we wanted. And incidentally, deep down inside, there is a part of me that thanks you, because these are concrete examples that we will be able to use during the next federal election and, of course, during the next referendum, so I thank you for all this.

However, with respect to the legislation, I have nothing to thank you for. I do not know if I will ever meet the drafters of this lovely bill. I do not know if I will ever meet those who advised the Minister of Justice on the drafting of this wonderful bill C-3. I do not know if I will ever learn if Ms. Viau, the woman who has made newspaper headlines with her rigged poll that I spoke about at the beginning of my talk, is one of these great advisors to the Minister of Justice.

• 2015

It seems to me that during the 25 or 30 odd hours that I have been debating this bill, that if I were one of you, I would have tried to follow at least a little bit to understand the Quebec approach. If I had wanted to do my job well, it seems to me that I would have tried to understand what is happening in Quebec and to follow the case from the member opposite. I may not have always shared his opinion, but, at least I would have done as Peter MacKay did when he was here. He listened to me very attentively when I provided my two examples and he was able to confirm that that was in fact what would happen. But currently, I have the distinct impression that throughout these 30 hours, other than the interpreters, no one listened to me.

Mr. Chairman I think that we will probably deal tonight with the passing of the whole version of Bill C-3 without amendment. Frankly, I would have liked the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to be here. I would have liked her to testify so we can ask her questions about the direction of her bill and all the issues I raised tonight. Unfortunately the Minister did not see fit to answer my invitation.

She prefers probably to hide in the comfort of her ministerial office. She prefers to send her second fiddles to talk to the media rather than to come openly to defend her bill in committee among her peers. That's her choice, but there is still a number of things I would have liked to tell her. I hope you will inform her that I'm disappointed Mr. Chairman to see how badly she treats Quebec's interests.

You are showing me that my time is up. Since I am very respectful of the rules of the House of Commons, since I have been gagged and since the ten hours I was so kindly allowed to use are up Mr. Chairman, I will stop talking now.

A voice: Hear! Hear!

[English]

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

You'll forgive me if I don't ask anyone if they have anything to say. I will proceed directly, as instructed by the House order...and I'll read specifically the motion in relation to Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts. Not more than ten hours will be allotted to the consideration of the committee stage of the bill, and at the expiry of the time provided for this order, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the said bill will be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order, and in turn any question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed.

I go immediately to clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. I request a recorded vote.

[English]

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, in order to speed the process, I request a recorded vote on each clause.

• 2020

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation expressed, I would simply like to add my comment that I vote yes on all the clauses.

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)

• 2025

(Clause 13 agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You don't give us the results. I'd like to hear the results of each vote.

The Chair: It was for “yeas” and three “nays”.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It's a total of seven. So we have no quorum. The result is four to three. It gives a total of seven and even with the Chairman, it's eight of us. So there is no quorum on this clause. Now you will give the result of each vote. If some members are too lazy to stay in their seat and do their work, they may go. There is no quorum because they are sitting in the back row chatting with the staff. A total of nine votes is necessary on each clause. The previous result was four to three, that is a total of seven, both in English and French.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Clerk, can we have the results of clause 13, please?

The Clerk of the Committee: Four yeas, three nays.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is seven.

[English]

The Chair: Six have abstained.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, Mr. Chairman you called seven people only and the seven people voted. There was no abstention among the members called.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: A point of order. We need not get into this great kerfuffle here. Let's simply take the vote again. If there is some confusion as to who voted and who didn't vote, if there is some confusion as to who abstained and who didn't abstain, take it again.

The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

(Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2030

(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 19 to 25 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 28 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 29 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

• 2035

(Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 32 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 33 to 35 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 36 to 38 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2040

(Clauses 41 to 45 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 46 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 47 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 48 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 49 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

• 2045

(Clauses 54 to 58 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)

The Chair: Shall clause 61 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. I would like to have a recorded vote but first can I make an observation, Sir? Could the clerk please call me “Mr. Bellehumeur” instead of simply “Bellehumeur”? It sounds a bit casual, as my whip says. This is an observation from my whip who knows how things work in this world. He tells me: Listen, ask them to call you “Mr. Bellehumeur” because otherwise, it will sound a bit disrespectful.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Whip.

[English]

(Clauses 61 to 71 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)

• 2050

(Clause 72 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)

(Clauses 73 to 76 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)

(Clauses 77 to 80 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)

• 2055

(Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)

(Clause 83 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)

(Clause 84 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1)

(Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 87 and 88 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 89 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 90 and 91 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 92 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 93 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2100

(Clauses 96 and 97 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 100 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 101 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 102 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

(Clause 103 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 104 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 105 to 108 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2105

(Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 111 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 112 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 113 to 115 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 116 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 119 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

• 2110

(Clauses 120 to 126 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 127 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 128 to 140 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2115

(Clause 141 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 142 to 144 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clauses 145 and 146 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 147 to 149 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

The Chair: Shall clause 150 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. I request a recorded vote, but I have a question first. Why don't you call on Mr. Saada who is present?

[English]

The Chair: He's abstaining.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No, I'm not abstaining. I'm not voting.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, the clerk is not supposed to overlook a committee member who is at the table. Either the member is there or not. It is not up to the clerk to determine whether Mr. Saada wants to vote or not. He has to ask him. If he wants to abstain, he will say so.

• 2120

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, if Monsieur Saada wants the clerk to recognize him, he'll ask and he'll be recognized.

Please carry on. We're doing clause 150.

(Clauses 150 to 172 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2125

(Clause 173 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 174 to 179 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2130

(Clause 180 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 181 to 188 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 189 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 190 to 197 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

• 2135

(Clauses 198 and 199 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Schedule I agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Preamble agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Title agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(Bill C-3 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

• 2140

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

Mr. Reg Alcock: I actually have a serious question—not that I haven't had many of them. Shall the committee order a reprint for the use at report stage? Isn't that commonly done after you've done amendments?

The Chair: I didn't call that.

Mr. Reg Alcock: You didn't?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Oh, okay. Good.

The Chair: I'm on top of you.

An hon. member: You were good, boy, I'll tell you.

The Chair: It's a good thing I went to university for seven years to do this.

Now we have some business. The chair recognizes Mr. Bellehumeur. I hope it's not for a long time.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This will be very short. I'm sure you will agree with me. I would like to thank the staff who worked for us these past few evenings and especially the interpreters, because I'm certain it is not easy to interpret the same member for hours on end. He'll often repeat the same things. So I would like to thank them. Also, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for keeping the Committee on track. I noticed and appreciated your sense of parliamentary debate and even if we dissent on this bill, I want to thank you for your contribution.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the justice department officials who sat through this with us.

The Chair: I'm going to speak on behalf of the committee in a minute, but there's some business that I'd like to conduct first.

Bill C-244, an act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code: that piece of legislation was referred to us on March 21. According to the Standing Orders, after how many days...?

The Clerk: After 60 sitting days.

The Chair: After 60 sitting days, if the standing committee to which it was referred has not been able to deal with the bill, it will be reported back to the House.

So basically we have two options. I would be prepared to entertain a motion to ask the House tomorrow for an extension of 30 days to deal with some additional witnesses, or alternatively, we could defeat that motion and it would then be reported to the House without amendment.

I want to add one piece of information to this, to be fair to Mr. Strahl. We contacted Mr. Strahl. He would prefer to have it go back to the House unamended. So I want that information in people's minds as we proceed.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move an extension.

An hon. member: I second that.

The Chair: So it's moved and seconded that I seek the opportunity to extend tomorrow. There are no questions, I'm sure.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On behalf of all members of the committee, I would like to thank everybody who deserves to be thanked. Unfortunately, my notoriously bad memory won't allow me to go back to May.

All ideological and other differences aside, I want to express some admiration for the physical stamina of Mr. Bellehumeur and, generally speaking, the civilized way this rather complicated and difficult exercise was undertaken by all members of the committee, quite frankly. All of the people from Justice and the minister's office and all members.... And I want to make particular notice of Mr. Cadman, who I don't think has missed a minute. So for everybody who is here and everybody who has participated, thank you very much. And particularly to the people at the monitor, who went for hours and hours never having to push a button, thank you for that.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, quickly, I want to thank you, because you generally handled this with great professionalism. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.