Mr. Speaker, on reflection it is rewarding for me today to speak in the House to Bill C-68, an act which purportedly amends the Young Offenders Act. Basically what it does is renames the act. I am not sure of the consequence of the change. It is interesting the government changes the name to legislation but the contents of it basically remain the same.
I can remember way back when I was with Alberta energy and the Liberals changed the juvenile delinquents act to the Young Offenders Act. People were asking questions about what it did and how it affected things. It basically took the onus off the parent and off the individual and put it on society in general to accept all problems associated with youth crime. At that time I do not think we had near the level of youth crime that we have today.
Back then, somewhere in the seventies, I do not think we anticipated what is facing us today. There were a lot of complaints. We looked for answers across the nation. We asked questions and more questions. We asked both the Conservative and Liberal governments to look at the legislation that was in place, amend it, toughen it up, because it switched too far to the left, so to speak. Nothing much was done.
In the 1991-92 proceedings prior to the general election when we were all candidates, I can remember talking about it. There was a great cloud over the Young Offenders Act at the time. People across Canada were saying that it had to be changed and that young people and their parents had to be more responsible.
Basically the Liberals promised the Canadian public that after they were elected in 1993 they would make some changes. I was very much involved in the debate in 1995 on very superficial amendments to the Young Offenders Act. After all that time and complaining the new Liberal government made minor changes to the act. There was still no satisfaction from the point of view of the Canadian electorate and victims of crime throughout Canada, so we said no. We still needed the right changes.
After the election in 1997 it was still a major issue. The government said it was to make changes. Here we are today, and the changes are basically in name only. Some other minor changes are being put forward.
For the life of me I do not understand the hesitancy across the way, for the two of them who are listening over there. I do not understand the hesitancy of the Liberal government. It should look at the issue seriously and put the onus back on young people and their parents. It should try to improve the Young Offenders Act that will be called something else, which does not do justice to the problem.
The government refuses to acknowledge the question about young people being considered adults. As my colleague just said to the House, young people who are 17 and 18 are not automatically considered adults. Yet the age of permissive sex is 14 today. They can drive a car at 16. They can drink alcohol in some provinces under the age of 18. In my province it is 19. They can die for their country, but at 17 and 18 years old they are not adults. They are not considered to be able to make proper decisions when it comes to life and death issues.
When I talk at colleges and high schools across the country one of the questions I usually hear from young people is when politicians will consider them adults. They say that they are considered adults in some cases, but not when it does not suit us in the House of Commons. Sometimes we consider them adults at 18, but we say to drink alcohol they have to be 19.
The government does not have a basic fundamental philosophy. That is one of the problems with most of the legislation that comes before the House of Commons. If they murder someone they might be an adult but it will be fought in the court system. That is entirely wrong. It is the wrong message. When my children were 16 and 17 they said they were adults. If they went out and did something wrong they knew there were consequences.
What is wrong with the bill is that the government does not have a philosophy behind it. It is still in the mode of changing the name, which might appease some people, or having a good promotional exercise and some photo opts. It made some changes involving the family, which are good changes, but by and large when it comes to responsibility it calls them kids. Somehow I doubt whether that will wash.
Not too long ago I was sitting with a young offender who had sold cocaine big time. He was doing some community work. Nobody was allowed to know his name although I thought he was at the age where his name should be given out. He asked me what was my problem. He was doing his penalty, doing community work. He was actually raking leaves. I told him that he was on the wrong track and asked if I could help out, help him get back in school. Perhaps we could get him into a post-secondary institution later. After that, who knows what? He might get a good job.
And he said to me: “Listen, fellow, nice try. In my world I sell cocaine and heroine. I can make up to $14,000 tax free a month, and I do on a bad month. I have a lawyer on retainer and I drive a BMW. What are you talking about, go to work, go back to school?”
This young fellow is covered as a child in the Young Offenders Act. He is not a child. He is an adult who deliberately makes decisions much like we would or our children would at that age.
I have great difficulty understanding why the concept of what a young person is today is not over there. Why not make penalties fit crimes? Why not hold young people and their parents accountable today? It works, instead of leaving it open for everybody to assume things might go right.
I could talk on the Young Offenders Act all day, but I only wanted to make that point. I am serious that when it comes to young offenders we would do better to treat young people as responsible citizens, responsible for all their actions rather than assume they have to be 19 years old before they are adults.