Madam Speaker, I have been working on amendments to the Young Offenders Act since the day I was elected. Some of the comments made by my hon. colleague across the way I certainly could not comprehend.
This particular act we are dealing with was first tested in 1985 when a young individual in my riding killed three people: a mother, a father and their seven-year old daughter. The young offender received three years in total. There are no words to describe the feelings of my constituents.
What I am hearing from the hon. member is that the Liberal Party wants to appease the Reform. I do not think the Liberal Party brought these changes about because of the Reform Party. For a long time the Liberal Party has been a beacon for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Certainly I disagree with what my colleague is saying.
My colleague is saying that in a civilized world we should have something which is called an adolescent. This young individual who snuffed three lives was not an adolescent; he had already moved into the adult world. He committed a crime. As the saying goes: You do the crime, you pay the time.
I heard with great interest my hon. colleague saying that we do not need prisons, that we need rehabilitation. I quite agree we need rehabilitation.
What in the hon. member's view should a young offender get for committing a severe crime, such as a killing or a rape? Do we say: "You are a nice adolescent so don't worry about it. We will give you a pat on the back because you are not old enough to do it", or: "You did the crime, you pay the time"?
Closer to home, if a young offender were to kill a member of the hon. member's family, how would she want to see justice served? What kind of time would that young offender be paying?