Mr. Speaker, my apologies. It becomes a little frustrating when we read some of the things those hon. members have talked about.
There is another problem. The hon. members from the “ing” party across are confused. Some of the members want to scrap the Young Offenders Act and some of them simply want to amend it. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan stated in Hansard in March 1998 “As the justice minister dreams about changes to the Young Offenders Act, violent acts among youth are escalating and revealing why the Young Offenders Act should be scrapped”. Then we have others like the member from Wild Rose saying “When are you going to amend the Young Offenders Act?”
We have some of the extreme right saying to scrap it and then we have others who generally are seen as being on the even more extreme right saying to amend it. Their own policies in this place do not coincide with the policies of their own party.
I would like to hear one of those members stand up and tell me why they would not support replacing the Young Offenders Act with new stronger youth justice legislation. That has been announced by our minister. Why would they not support that? Do they just want to be negative? Do they not want to have input into it? This is a policy. They have a chance to have input into it. All Canadians will have that chance.
Why would they not support expanding the offences for which a young offender can receive an adult sentence to include a pattern of serious violent offences? I have heard members opposite call for that. The minister has said she agrees with that.
What seems to be the problem here? Why do we not just get on with it? Let us take that policy statement and build it into legislation. That is what the Canadian people expect us to do.
The minister would not agree to lower the age to 10 but why would it be 10 by the members opposite? Why not nine? Why not eight? In fact, as a parent of three young men I am a firm believer that if you have not put your values into your children by the time they are seven years old, then you may have lost them. The first seven years of a young person's life are probably the most critical years in their entire life. Why not seven?
Let us do what they have suggested. Seven years old, they commit a crime, we throw them away. They do it again, we throw them in a dungeon and lock them up. What kind of a society would we be purporting to represent if we were to adopt those kinds of policies?
The minister has said that the bill will lower the age limit for which young offenders are presumed liable to adult sentences from 16 to 14. Why would they not support that? It is a positive step in the right direction, things that many members opposite have called for, some who are not quite so extreme.
It would expand the provisions allowing the publication of the names of young offenders who have been convicted and who qualify for adult sentences. But no, what the Reform Party wants does not matter if they qualify for an adult sentence or not. If they commit a crime, their names should be published. They should be tarred for the rest of their life, instead of working with those young people to help educate them, to help teach them that violence is not a solution. They are not taught that by smacking them on the back with a cane or hitting them on the rump with a piece of wood. That party is spouting archaic nonsense. Those members should be ashamed of themselves.