Debates of Oct. 21st, 1999

The Late Hon. Alan Macnaughton

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a former Speaker of the House, the late Alan Macnaughton.

Alan Macnaughton was born in Napanee, Ontario, in 1903. He graduated in law from McGill University and after post-graduate study at the London School of Economics he began practising law in Montreal. He was a crown prosecutor for many years. But more important for us, in 1949 he won his first of six consecutive elections as a Liberal. In fact, in the Diefenbaker sweep of 1958, he was so regarded by his constituents that he was the only English speaking Liberal to win a seat in Quebec.

After 1958, Mr. Diefenbaker decided to adopt the British practice of having an opposition member chair the public accounts committee. Alan Macnaughton was the first member of parliament who chaired that committee as an opposition member, which he did with great distinction.

When the Liberals won the 1963 general election, it was not surprising that he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons. He served as Speaker during the Liberal minority government of 1963 to 1965, a very difficult and fractious period in the House. It was marked by such acrimonious debates as the famous flag debate. But Mr. Speaker Macnaughton was able to preside over these debates and these tensions with a great deal of skill, tact and diplomacy and was able to keep the House on an even keel.

One of his great achievements as Speaker was to start a wide- ranging process of parliamentary reform. Many of the things we take for granted in our procedures and our committee system, for example, were first developed and proposed during his speakership. Many of these reforms came into effect after he left the chair, but he was the precursor, the instigator.

In 1965, Alan Macnaughton did not stand again for parliament. His successor was none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Alan Macnaughton went on to serve, again with great distinction, in the Senate of Canada to 1978. After he left the Senate, he was active in the business community, but most important, in 1967 he founded the Canadian branch of the World Wildlife Fund.

I want to conclude by saying that Alan Macnaughton was a person of great warmth and charm. He was especially helpful to new members of the House of Commons, as I once was. I had the honour of serving in the House with him. As an MP, as the first opposition chair of the public accounts committee and, above all, as Speaker, he treated everyone with the greatest tact and courtesy. But underneath it all was an essential firmness and a strong belief in the importance of the centrality of our parliamentary institutions. He certainly made an impressive mark when it came to the reform of the House of Commons.

I want to say to his family and his many friends that, on behalf of the government and all MPs on the government side, we want to express our profound sympathies on their loss.

I want to extend my most sincere sympathies to the family of Alan Macnaughton.

Alan Macnaughton was a great Montrealer, a great Quebecer, a great member of the House, a great Speaker and a great Canadian. His record will live on in the smooth functioning of the House because of the reforms he undertook and the work he did in his years as Speaker.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition to pay tribute to a former Speaker, Alan A. Macnaughton. He presided over the Chamber from 1963 to 1966.

Mr. Macnaughton is remembered as a man and a Speaker who displayed a fairness in his deliberations and rulings, a deep love for democracy and a diligence to his task. Mr. Macnaughton was Speaker of the Chamber during some very turbulent and bitter times. More than once his quiet but compelling nature pulled proceedings from the brink of catastrophe.

I had some pages talking about his background, but the Deputy Prime Minister has done that and I will not repeat that because, as a Speaker, he would not want me to be longer than I should be, even in a tribute to him.

He was a great Canadian and the scope and breadth of Mr. Macnaughton's professional activities were impressive. He was a former president of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, the Canada-France Parliamentary Association and he served more than 30 years as a director-adviser to European and American banks. He was chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, chairman of the Roosevelt Compobello International Park Commission and deputy chairman of the historic 1973 United Nations Conference on the Environment.

Mr. Macnaughton also served on many corporate boards after he left Ottawa. Alan Macnaughton was a gifted gentlemen. His unassuming and distinguished manner was respected by all who knew him. As a lawyer, politician, Speaker, businessman and philanthropist, Mr. Macnaughton brought a dignity and a competence to whatever he pursued.

In 1995, his contribution to this institution and to his country was acknowledged when he was awarded the Order of Canada. There was nothing mediocre about this man. The words brilliant, refined, dignified and accomplished will mark his contribution. We will all miss him, but appreciate the great job he did for Canada.

We offer all our sympathies to his family and his friends, and he had many of those.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, we heard of the passing away of Alan A Macnaughton, on the eve of his 96th birthday.

He had a remarkably long life. His professional and political accomplishments were many.

He obtained his law degree from McGill University in 1926 and went on to post-graduate studies at the London School of Economics.

Mr. Macnaughton then practised law in Montreal before being elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1949, under the Liberals of Louis Saint-Laurent, in the Montreal riding of Mount-Royal. In 1958, he became the first opposition member to chair the public accounts committee.

In 1963, he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons and, in 1966, he was called to the Senate where he was to sit until the mid-1970s.

Mr. Macnaughton will be remembered as a highly talented man who is said to have had the greatest respect for democracy and its institutions. He will leave his mark as a skilled businessman and an expert in Quebec and Canadian law. Until very recently, he was still working at his Montreal office.

On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I would like to extend to his friends and family our sincere condolences.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our party to pay tribute to Alan Macnaughton who was the Speaker of the House from 1963 to 1965. He was first elected in 1949. He stayed in the House for seven terms until 1965.

Even though I did not know him personally when I came here in 1968—of course the member for Windsor West was here at that time—I heard about Mr. Macnaughton's reputation, which was a very positive one. He had a great influence on members on both sides of the House of Commons.

The reason he stepped aside in 1965 was to make way for a gentleman who some people may have heard of from the riding of Mount Royal, a fellow named Pierre Elliott Trudeau who became the member of parliament for that riding at that particular time.

When Mr. Macnaughton was the Speaker of the House, we should remind ourselves that it was only for two years but it was during a very difficult time in terms of being in your chair, Mr. Speaker. That was the other time in history when we had five political parties in the House of Commons like what you have today, Mr. Speaker. This makes refereeing this place a bit more difficult.

It was also during the days of the famous Diefenbaker-Pearson debates which became rather acrimonious at times and, as I understand, very heated. Mr. Pearson had just won the election from Mr. Diefenbaker in 1963. Mr. Macnaughton, who was respected by both sides of the House, was made the Speaker of the House of Commons by the prime minister of the day, Lester Pearson.

It was also a time when the House had a very divisive debate on the flag. I understand the debate went on for weeks and weeks before the days of time allocation or closure. Mr. Macnaughton made a very controversial but wise ruling at that time to split the resolution in two. He made his mark as a Speaker after only two years in the Speaker's chair.

He was a lawyer and a very successful business person. He was a very learned person, a very good academic and a very fine gentleman.

On behalf of our party I express our condolences to his family and to his many friends. He was a great Montrealer, a great Canadian, a great Quebecer and a great member of the House of Commons for 16 years.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in paying tribute to the late Alan Macnaughton.

For those of us who sit in the House today, and as has been previously mentioned by speakers, the late Alan Macnaughton presided over the House at sometimes very contentious times. The flag debate, which was a lengthened version of the debate similar to that which the Speaker has presided over, and the pressures that were facing Speaker Macnaughton at that time were certainly historic in 1964.

With emotions running high during the months of parliament proceedings, the Speaker's job would certainly have been extremely difficult. It is a measure of Alan Macnaughton's ability that historians have judged him so favourably. During such a contentious time in our history, he contributed greatly to the House, conducted himself with class and dignity as both a member and a Speaker. He contributed greatly to the country at large.

After a distinguished career in law, he pursued his career as a parliamentarian with the same vigour and the same level of decorum and class. Canada is fortunate to have people of the calibre of Alan Macnaughton prepared to serve in parliament.

In a 1965 speech delivered at a dinner at the Guild Hall in London on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of Simon de Montfort's parliament, Speaker Macnaughton reflected on the democratic spirit which for him connoted equality, the brotherhood of all men and his definition of the civilized person.

To him that meant “one who understands human values, who appreciates the importance of high quality, and who knows the need for sacrifices and for putting oneself in the service of one's country”.

The annals of the House and the Senate as well as the records of the communities which benefited from his charitable work all testify to the fact that Mr. Macnaughton was by his own definition a civilized man. He was a man who gave to the world more than he took from it, which fits Governor General Tweedsmuir's definition of a true aristocrat.

We rejoice in Mr. Macnaughton's long life. We are thankful that he chose to enter public life, and on behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party we send our appreciation and our condolences to the family of the late Alan Macnaughton.

[The Speaker]

I will permit myself a few words on this occasion of the passing of a brother Speaker who did indeed preside in this chair. I would like to put a human face on Alan Macnaughton. I am sure that parliamentarians and all Canadians who are watching today might appreciate this.

About a year and half ago there were eight living Speakers who had occupied this chair and presided over the debates of the House of Commons, but it seems in rapid succession we have lost two of them. In July 1998, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux died very quickly.

I had an idea for some time to convene the Speakers from wherever they were across Canada just to bring us together to share an evening. This is where the human face of Mr. Macnaughton comes into it. Of the seven of us who were still alive, one of them was not able to make it. That was Mr. Speaker Lambert from Edmonton. However six of us did come to the dinner.

When I called the former Speakers, one could not come in the month of October and another could not come in the month of November. Although I knew of Mr. Macnaughton, I had not been that close to him before and I did not know how old he was. When I called Mr. Macnaughton I said “Speaker Macnaughton, I am having a dinner for the former Speakers. Would you care to join us?” He said “Oh, yes, I would like to do that'.' I said “You have two choices, sir. Would you like to have the dinner on September 30 or December 5?” He said to me “At my age I would rather go sooner than later”.

I did not know exactly what he meant so I looked him up in the parliamentary guide. Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on July 30 of this year was to have been 96 years old. He lived through a great deal, virtually all of this century.

I was at a hockey game with him in Montreal. When I was a boy growing up I said that Rocket Richard was my hero. I asked him if he remembered Rocket Richard. He said “Rocket Richard? Heck, I remember Howie Morenz”. That goes back into the early part of this century.

All that is to tell you that none of us here except the Deputy Prime Minister had the honour to serve with him. I am not sure if the Prime Minister did. I take great pride in saying that I am one of the great admirers of Speaker Alan Macnaughton.

As the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle mentioned, in a time of turbulence he remained calm and he brought us as a House and us as a nation through the very déchirant flag debate that we went through. He served the House well. He served the members of parliament well by giving them the best that he had.

I can only reiterate what all speakers today who have taken the floor to remember Mr. Macnaughton have said. In my view he was one of our outstanding Speakers. He was a wonderful member of parliament and ever so human.

In your name and in my own name, my colleagues, I extend our very deep condolences to members of his family in their time of sorrow. I am always reminded that they did have him and he was with us for almost a century, and that of course is to our benefit.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would like to split my time with the member for Surrey Central.

In addressing this bill I would talk about a number of matters. The question of what exactly makes young offenders or how do they get to be young offenders always goes through my mind. One has to ask these days if it is parents, family problems or an educational system where people fall through loopholes and do not get picked up. Is it the drugs that menace society today which encourage more and more crime to feed a habit? Is it the fact that role models are different today? Is it television and all those other things young people watch and are influenced by? Or, is it government legislation that more or less encourages or motivates certain things to happen?

I would suggest that it is a bit of all of those things. Having worked with a number of young offenders, it comes out that all these things put together creates a problem in society. The job of the House is to try to deal with all those issues and package something called legislation for young offenders that is meaningful and tries to change their ways, if individuals become young offenders, as fast as possible so they do not get too far down the line, become incorrigible, and we end having to incarcerate them.

I will get something off my chest, to start with. I can remember in 1991 setting out things we would like to see changed in the Young Offenders Act. We even fought an election in 1992 on that.

When the new Liberal government took office in 1993 I really do not think it understood the difficulties Canadian were having with the Young Offenders Act. It took us quite a while to convince them. It was not just the Reform Party. It was many people: young offenders, victims rights groups and so on. It took time to let it sink in over there.

What particularly galls me is that once the government saw there was a problem it went the route of promotions, public relations and media advertisements saying that it would do something. All along since 1993 and here we are in 1999 on the eve of the new millennium still debating this issue in the House. It is just amazing to me how the government gets away with that with the Canadian public. It is extremely disappointing.

There is another point I want to make. One member from across the way in the Liberal government said that the Young Offenders Act hit on the hard crimes and was lenient on the soft issues.

The problem with the government and what it does not understand is that it would not be bad if it was one B and E by an individual. Then we could say do not do this again or we will escalate it, much like progressive discipline in a business or a home.

There are individuals, young offenders with 10, 20, 30 and 40 convictions and little or no progressive discipline. This is a serious problem. They fail to acknowledge that perhaps five or six break and enters, three or four possessions of a weapon, one or two robberies, and two or three minor assaults amount to something that is far more serious.

In the courtroom today lawyers will say that their young clients do not understand. They will say it is simple possession, a minor robbery or a B and E, and the judges say “Yes, I know. Poor young fellow”, and off they go. They do not tend to look at the cumulative effect of consistently not making a serious issue out of it for the individual. It is a flaw in the whole issue of justice but in particular with young offenders. It is not being addressed here. Accumulation of numerous minor offences means there is a problem and it is more serious than one minor offence.

In one year we had 14,035 B and Es from young offenders, 2,077 possession of weapons, 2,338 robberies, and on and on it goes. We had 30 murders. We must remember that those who murdered probably had a lot of B and Es, a lot of drug charges and so on. We failed to deal with it at that level and that is what is wrong with the young offenders philosophy.

I want to talk briefly about some of the issues in my area in British Columbia that are not being addressed by the bill. Joey Thompson of the Vancouver Province wrote:

Overheard during proceedings in the second storey temporary courtroom were artful methods of sucking in a judge, offered by sharpened pros to the cub offenders waiting outside for their case to be called.

One quick study eventually got before the judge and laid it on thick about how sorry he was for his crimes. The judge turned to the citizens in the public pews and delivered a heartfelt speech about the sincerity of the poor lad. Then he gave him a slap on the wrist and sent him away.

Minutes later, the offender was seen out the window running across the parking lot shouting to his friends, “Hey, it works”.

This is what I mean about cumulative issues. An article from the Abbotsford News

entitled “Team crime rally cry: When I'm 18, I'll quit”, quoted the police and indicated in part:

Repeat B & Es by teenagers is a disturbing trend...“It tends to be the same kids, which indicates that whatever punishment they are getting from the court isn't serving as a deterrent”...“The majority of times it's the same guys we're dealing with, They're released on conditions—and although the judges mean well—the kids do not uphold the conditions”.

It's not unusual to hear a kid say: “When I'm 18, then I'll quit”.

Another article entitled “14-year-old charged in cocaine sale” read:

A 14-year-old Abbotsford girl will be returning to Abbotsford provincial court on March 12 after she was arrested this week for allegedly selling cocaine in Clearbrook.

It continued:

Under provisions of the Young Offenders Act, the girl's name cannot be published.

Another article read:

With parliament...at his back, Mike Harris demanded yesterday that the prime minister get tough on young offenders.

On and on it goes. Another one entitled “Boy too drunk to convict of murder, lawyer says” read in part:

Wetaskiwin, Alberta: A 13-year-old Hobbema boy who beat a cab driver to death with a baseball was too young and too drunk to be convicted of murder, says his lawyer.

Recently a teen in my area pulled a pistol on a police officer. It was really an air gun pellet pistol but he could have been shot very easily. He was lucky he was not. This young fellow was charged but his name cannot be published due to provisions under the Young Offenders Act. He was arrested twice in May for threatening to blow up two east Abbotsford schools, and on and on it goes. Many of the parents were concerned about this. They hit roadblock after roadblock after roadblock trying to make sure their school was safe from this young fellow.

This young fellow's parents were good parents but there are problems. Nowhere today does society look after this young fellow. People everywhere want information on this and they are stymied because of the privacy provisions of the Young Offenders Act.

The government has to deal with reality with young offenders. The government has to do it this time. We have a litany of suggestions and they are not being addressed. We should allow police officers to use discretion in resolving minor incidents without laying charges. We should lower the maximum age of young offenders from 17 to 15. We should lower the minimum age from 12 to 10 and on and on it goes.

Where have these people been? Prior to the next election or maybe in the year 2000 we will be back here again talking about the Young Offenders Act. The government has to take better action than it has taken in the past, which has been nothing.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the great long police beat report from the west, I would like to make a few comments.

I would like the member to hear the speech he made. He is very critical of cases happening in his own riding or in ridings in western Canada.

Everything he says points to there being a problem. I agree with him, there are problems in western Canada, because the Young Offenders Act is not being properly applied.

This is so true that even in Ontario—he spoke of Mike Harris—a pilot project has just set up. There are figures to show that repression has been increased. Camps where repression is abusive have been established for young people. What are the results? Thirty per cent of these young people become repeat offenders after their release.

Members should look at what is happening in Quebec. There, the focus is on rehabilitation, returning to society. There is practically no recidivism. The opposite is the case. Young people who have been duly followed under the law and the powers accorded us under the Young Offenders Act are returning to society. They are becoming ordinary citizens.

In Quebec, we do not see the horror occurring in western Canada, which the member has just described. The member should perhaps look to see what is happening outside his province.

I would hope that the Reform Party never comes to power, because their policy on justice would be awful. The Reform Party is mistaken, and what I find deplorable is that by crying wolf they have frightened the government, which has given in to Reform Party policies.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that comes from an individual standing in the House of Commons who wants to separate from Canada. Is that not interesting. I find it ironic that the member may find the Young Offenders Act satisfactory to him in Quebec, but I can assure him that in my area the individuals do not. The difference is that the people in my area want me to come here and change it, not to quit and separate.

We asked for some things in this bill. We said that young offenders facilities need mandatory rehabilitation programs. Does that not sound like a rational thing to do? What does the government say? The government says that with the charter of rights and freedoms that sort of thing cannot be mandated. In fact, many young offenders say that if they had a little more discipline in their lives, that if they had been taught the right way, they could have learned a little better and changed themselves. But no, the government will not take that step.

We asked to establish a victims bill of rights under the YOA. This was not done. We asked that a person who commits two or more violent offences be designated as a dangerous offender. This was not considered. We asked for established federal standards for alternative measures with well-defined parameters. This was not considered. We asked that young offenders records be treated the same as adults. This was not considered. We asked for the publication of the names of violent young offenders. The government left this to the discretion of the courts, in other words, status quo.

Does the government really think that leaving things to the discretion of judges today is a good idea? I cannot believe it.

If we want good legislation, if we want things to be consistent, then we should have the courage in the House of Commons to say it and do it. We should not say, like on the child pornography issue, that we will be a little general about this and we will leave it to the courts to determine whether or not the possession of child pornography should be legal. That kind of cop-out is really hurting our country. It is hurting the issue of youth crime.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for over 10 years Reform members have been calling for reforms to the youth criminal justice system. It has taken at least four years, more like six years, for the Liberals to reach the point where we are at today.

In terms of changing our youth criminal justice system, it has been 864 days since the current justice minister was appointed to her cabinet position. Ever since, she has been saying that she would change the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion. I do not know what is timely about 864 days. We know that 35 violent crimes are committed each day in Canada and 864 days is a long time for my constituents and all Canadians.

How many violent crimes committed by youth could have been prevented in the last three years if the government had provided youth crime legislation sooner rather than later? The Liberals spent millions of dollars, had months of hearings and promised for years that it was coming.

Extensive committee hearings were held on the bill last spring, yet the government allowed the changes to our youth criminal justice system to die before third reading in the last session of parliament. That is an indication of how unimportant this bill is to the Liberals.

Now we have Bill C-3, the government's proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act, that will create a new youth criminal justice system. Now we are back in the House debating at second reading stage of the bill. It has a new number but it is the same old bill.

The parents and families of the victims of youth crime become victims too. I have two young sons, Mr. Speaker. You met with my younger son when he was here. When I put myself in the shoes of the hon. member for Surrey North whose family has gone through a tragedy, and when I put myself in the shoes of the parents and families of victims, I feel like going home every weekend. I worry because the government is not doing enough. I can hardly imagine what it must be like when a young person is a victim of a violent crime.

The reforms to the Young Offenders Act called for by the public and advocated by Reform have been numerous in detail but the most substantive reforms can be grouped under eight categories which I will discuss. There is clarification of the purpose of the act; strengthening parental responsibility; recognition of victims rights; the provision of support services for victims; stronger differentiation between violent repeat offenders and non-violent first time offenders; strengthening sentencing provisions; publication of the names of young offenders; changes to the age of application in the Young Offenders Act; and provisions for rehabilitation and prevention.

To be fair, there are some positive changes offered in the proposals before us but there are areas in which we feel the government has been inadequate or misguided. We must continue to urge constructive alternatives and amendments to the act.

The first category is clarification of the purpose of the act. The old juvenile delinquents act made it clear that its primary purpose was the welfare of society, whereas the Young Offenders Act introduced by the Trudeau government focused more on the welfare of the young offender.

One of the commendable features of the bill is clause 3.1. It states that the principal goal of the youth criminal justice system is to protect the public, a protection to be pursued through the prevention of youth crime through the punishment of convicted offenders and through efforts to rehabilitate. That is progress.

The official opposition has been carrying the flashlight for the Liberals who have been walking in that direction. I am happy that at least they got that right. However, the bill does not go as far as Reformers would like. The Liberals have not seen the full light of day yet.

With respect to reforming parental responsibility, the bill contains at least two steps in the right direction. It requires compulsory attendance of a parent at court if it is considered by the judge to be in the best interest of the young person. It increases the penalty for a parent who signs a court undertaking to supervise a young person upon release and who wilfully fails to fulfil that obligation.

The third category is the recognition of victims rights. Victims of youth crime are frustrated by the government's lack of concern for them. The bill before us contains several provisions that represent a step in the right direction. For example, clause 52 has the provision to order a surcharge to be levied on any fine payable by a young person. I assume these funds are to be used to provide assistance to victims of offences.

Clause 113 permits a youth justice court, a review board or any court to keep a record of proceedings of young persons.

Clause 118 permits victims access to the clause 113 records.

Clause 39 states that the pre-sentence report is to include the results of an interview with the victim.

These measures fall far short of the demands of the official opposition, supported by this House, for a full-blown victims bill of rights. My colleague, the member of parliament for Langley—Abbotsford has already spoken on this. I commend him for being the champion on the victims bill of rights. On the other hand, the minister and her government still assign a low priority to victims rights in relation to the rights granted to persons accused or convicted of crimes.

The fourth, fifth and sixth areas of concern to the public and on which we consider the provisions of this bill to be inadequate, are the provisions pertaining to the differentiation of violent offenders from non-violent offenders, the sentencing of young offenders and publishing or prohibiting the publication of the names of the young offenders.

It is the position of the official opposition that a disproportionate number of non-violent offenders are locked up. This limits the space and resources needed for violent offenders. It increases rather than reduces the probability that these young people will be drawn into a life of crime rather than being protected and liberated from criminal influences.

We have consequently advocated a stronger differentiation both in law and in treatment between violent and non-violent young offenders and between first time and repeat offenders. We advocate a stronger differentiation than what is in the bill we are debating today.

On tougher sentencing, I believe strongly that our punishment to criminals is just a slap on the wrist. Appropriate punishment creates fear. That fear acts as a deterrent to any violent crime. On the other hand, if there is no fear and no punishment, that acts as a motivation to commit a crime. At this time when there is not adequate punishment, that acts as a motivation for young people to commit crime.

In conclusion, the bill contains a few steps in the right direction, but falls far short of what we wanted to see in the bill. We want a victims bill of rights. The Liberals do not want that. With respect to the bill's provisions for differentiating between violent and non-violent offenders, its provisions for the sentencing of young offenders and its provisions for publishing the names of young offenders, we find there are major deficiencies. With respect to changing the age of application of the Young Offenders Act, we think the government's approach is wrong.

Finally, the government has not gone far enough with measures concerning the treatment of young offenders, namely, the importance of prevention and the crucial role of the family with respect to youth crime prevention.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is rather incredible.

To quote Albert Jacquard “If a city needs a prison, it means something is wrong in this city”. Listening to my colleagues opposite, but mostly elsewhere on this side, I have the feeling prison is the solution for young offenders.

I was offended a little while ago when my Bloc Quebecois colleague, who is a separatist, gave some credible statistics, but was told he was not making any sense because he is a separatist. If I were an Australian, I would still be interested in taking part in this debate because I believe that young offenders must be dealt with the same way wherever you live. We all share the same goal, making sure we deal with them in the best way possible.

Statistics show, and I believe we get good results, that prevention is by far better than incarceration and heavier sentencing. Sometimes I have the feeling that putting young people behind bars, telling them they are no good and always punishing them makes things worse. The results are there to prove it; they are most disappointing.

Why are young offenders sent to prison? Because they have trouble living in society. In prison, they will be thrown in with other people who, for the most part, had trouble living in society. So I often think that prisons can sometimes be schools for delinquency.

Instead of punishing them even more, let us do the exact opposite of what is proposed in this bill and try to make them understand what they did wrong and rehabilitate them, so that, once their sentence is served, they can be reintegrated into the community. This is what a prison system should do.

I am very disappointed today. A young person who commits a crime probably comes from a tough neighbourhood, from a poor family or maybe a broken family. Do members really think that, before committing a crime, such a person would stop and think, along these lines “I have to be careful, because under Bill C-3 I will be given a longer sentence”? Do members think that will stop such a person? Let us get serious here. This measure will not solve crime.

I want to put a question to my Reform colleague. Does he really believe that a young person would stop and think about the consequences before committing a crime. Usually, 14 year olds do not watch the news, they would not know about the new legislation and they do not even have the right to vote. Does the hon. member believe that such a young person would stop and think about what could happen to him?

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, either the separatist member does not understand, or he did not listen to what I was saying. We on this side of the House are differentiating between violent and non-violent offenders. We also emphasize the importance of prevention and rehabilitation.

The fact is there is no appropriate punishment when the punishment by the court is only a minor slap on the wrist. That indicates to our youth that there is no deterrent to commit crime. They do not understand the importance of not committing a crime. There is motivation to commit a crime because there is no punishment.

If there is severe or appropriate or reasonable punishment for someone who commits a crime, this will put fear into potential criminals. There is a deterrent for them. The hon. member should understand that.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I had not really intended to take part in this debate now, but I find it absolutely unbelievable that at the end of the 20th century, almost at the beginning of the 21st century, the Reform Party would still trot out the theories of justice of yesteryear.

I still cannot believe that someone would still say “To solve the problem of crime we just have to put people in jail because that will scare them”.

This is beyond belief. It is as if these people had never heard of restorative justice, presumption of innocence and the very foundations of modern justice.

I am really extremely disappointed.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that as we are entering the new millennium we want to build a strong bridge between this millennium and the next millennium where all of us can progress toward safety and freedom of expression and thus create a society where all of us can live peacefully. To do that the government has to get it right. The government has to have measures in place. Someone who commits a crime must serve the time. If someone commits a crime but does not serve the time, where is the justice?

The hon. member of the government should ask his justice minister to make the appropriate amendments quickly. This bill should only pass when all the amendments wanted by Canadians are made.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Témiscamingue, Bill C-6.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the government bill dealing with youth issues.

It is a balancing act. Hearing my colleagues on both sides of the issue speak on the question of youth in the justice system, I cannot stand by without saying thank God I am a Liberal and thank God I am part of a government that balances the needs of society along with the needs of individuals. It balances the needs of youth and the need for proper security for our people. In this bill we have seen just that.

I am extremely delighted to see the approach that has been taken by the minister, in particular the approach dealing with rehabilitation. That is the most effective way of dealing with the whole issue of offences in our society. It does not make any sense to put all youth who commit crimes or offences in one room and keep them there for 15 or 20 years. If at the end of the day we do not do anything with them, when we let them back out on the street, they are going to commit other offences. There is no doubt in my mind.

This government has said there is a price that those who commit offences have to pay. In the meantime we have a series of requirements we expect individuals to follow. If they follow those requirements and meet the requirements as set out by law, then at the end of the day they will do well for themselves and for society.

I am delighted with an example in my constituency of Ottawa Centre. Debra-Dynes has been an incredible and extremely successful initiative. The police force in conjunction with the community, the private sector and youth have set up a team. They have approached this whole issue on a team basis, on a joint effort basis. The results have been exceptionally good.

Not everything in our society is bad news. There is a lot of good news. I hope my colleagues in the Reform Party are taking note. For example, from 1991 to 1997 there has been approximately a 25% decline in youth crime in our society. That tells me one thing, that what this government has been doing along the way has been good. All issues of prevention have served our youth well, have served our society well and have served justice well.

Having said that, there is still a lot of work ahead for us to do. There is still very high unemployment when it comes to youth. Still over 15% of our youth cannot find jobs. We still have a dropout rate of over 25% of youths who do not finish high school. That is tragic. That is not just the responsibility of the federal government. We are doing our fair share. We have to do more and we are doing more. But it is also the responsibility of the provincial government, municipal government, school boards, parents, of everyone collectively in our society.

Looking at the statistics, in particular when we look at the ages between 16 and 18, approximately 24% of all crimes being committed by youth are committed by those who are of age 17. Another 22% of all crimes committed by youth are committed by youths of age 16, and 30% of crimes committed by youth are by those over the age of 14, between the ages of 14 and 15.

I say this because I see a huge crack in our system and that is in the definition of a child. The definition is that a child who turns 16 can tell his mom and dad goodbye and he is on his own. No one is responsible for him; he is on his own. If he comes from a broken family, from a situation where there is abuse at home, the support that exists for him between the ages of 16 and 18 is minimal.

There is not enough support for our youth, for those in particular who are between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Those youth are falling between the cracks. As a result a person over the age of 16 years is no longer a child and has somehow become an adult in society. Yet the person cannot vote, cannot collect employment insurance and cannot legally drink alcohol.

We define our children in different ways. Under certain laws we define a child as anyone who is under the age of 14 years. Under other laws we define a child as anyone who is under the age of 16 years. Under other laws we define a child as anyone who us under the age of 18 years. There is a lack of synchronization and harmonization of our laws, not only federal but also provincial. There is a need all across this land for us to say that a child is anyone who is under the age of 18 years.

By doing so we would be saying to families and to society that they have a responsibility, mandate, role and objective to support children until they turn 18 years of age. It would then be society's responsibility to support a child from a broken family or an abusive situation until he or she turns 18 years of age. By doing so we would have each child either in school, in an apprenticeship program or in vocational training until he or she becomes an adult under the law.

That is presently not the case. When somebody turns 16 years of age he somehow becomes an adult but falls between the cracks. As a result we have to follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which is unequivocally clear that a child is anybody under the age of 18 years and that is the end of it, because it is well known that children need the support of their families, the support of society and the support of the community as a whole until they become adults. Only then can we treat children as adults and only then can we say they are on their own.

It is not fair for us as a society to look at somebody between the ages of 16 and 18 years who is falling between the cracks and crack the whip like some of my colleagues in other parties wanted. We cannot do that. We have to stand up to our responsibilities and our accountability to the people and to our youth. We must have a system whereby we can do all the necessary and important things to ensure fairness and justice in society and to ensure our youth are getting the support they need.

Then we would not have the 25% dropout rate we have in our schools now for youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Then we would not have the high crime rate that exists for our youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Then we would not have the high unemployment rate for youth between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Because they are not in the educational system and are not receiving the necessary support from the different levels of government in society they are falling between the cracks.

We have to commend the government and the minister on their initiatives in trying to put forward an approach that takes into consideration the need for rehabilitation and the importance of prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth five tons of cure.

It is not an easy situation. It is an extremely complex but we have to work collectively. We cannot hit a kid on the head with a two by four and say that he has to obey the law. We must have a cohesive and holistic approach. We have to balance the needs of the child and those of society. We have to deal with the needs of the child. We have to provide the support necessary for the child through the educational system, the family system and society as a whole.

I am delighted to see the family being asked to get involved when it comes to a child getting in trouble with the law. I am extremely excited about the fact that we can tell children through this act that we want them to go to school as part of rehabilitation. We want to make sure they do not hang around with gangs. We want to make sure they come home every night at 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock or whatever time the court may decide.

By doing so we are going to the root of the problem. In a sense that is rehabilitation at the highest level. We are required now to tell the child, in particular the one who is at risk, to go back to the educational system, an environment where he or she will receive the necessary support to build a better life.

That is why I have put over 32 private members' initiatives before the House asking the government to amend every piece of legislation at the federal level so we can harmonize our laws and change the definition of a child to be anyone under the age of 18 years. By doing so we will be sending out a signal saying that a child needs the support of his family and society until he or she is aged 18 years. Only then can we say that we have done what we have set out to do, and that is to continue to build a better society.

We have one of the finest societies on earth, but it could be and will be an even better society. It is not fair that every year illiteracy costs us over $10 billion on a regular basis in terms of lost productivity. It is not fair that over 25% of our population still has difficulties reading, writing or filling out application forms. It is not fair that we still have the highest level of unemployment in our youth population. It is not fair that we have the highest amount of crime committed by our youth, those between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are without the necessary support required from us collectively.

To that extent I just want to end by thanking the Minister of Justice for putting the bill before us and for once again putting forward something that is fairly balanced. Nothing is perfect and the bill will go before a committee. It will come back here at report stage. It will go through the consultation that is necessary for every bill. If somebody somewhere has a proposal, suggestion or amendment that meets the objectives of the bill I am absolutely confident the minister will be receptive to looking at it and if it fits the objectives we will deal with it then.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech in support of the member's private member's bill in the House of Commons.

We have to recognize the difference between punishment and rehabilitation. When one wants to talk about rehabilitation, which is the most important part of the project when talking about young people, one wants to ensure that people are not left out of the ability to be counselled in the right way and in the right place and to have those resources available.

I have family involved in the rehabilitation of people in the corrections system. It is certainly my opinion that the way the system works is not adequate. The courts or other institutions dealing with young people do not have the option of sending those people for proper rehabilitation because they are not a part of the age group to which the Young Offenders Act applies.

I would like the member to address that point and to address the fact that it does not matter what we say or do in this place there is an obvious shortage of resources available when we are talking about correcting something that has gone wrong. We really need something for many of our children that starts long before that. If the hon. member who spoke would like to address those issues I would appreciate it.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sensible question. If anything, this is what the bill deals with. There is a whole notion of the bill that deals with the question of rehabilitation and trying to identify what is best depending on the situation we are dealing with.

According to the bill we would work in a partnership or in consultation with all the stakeholders, whether we are talking about the provincial government, if they are involved; whether we are talking about the justice system as we know it, the courts; or whether we are talking about the communities where there are community initiatives.

I mentioned the Debra-Dynes project as one example that is being used. It is as an extremely successful initiative that is being brought about by the Ottawa-Carleton Police Service Board. It is extremely successful. The youth who are very much at risk are brought in. They have exercise rooms. They have teams of all sorts. They have community projects of all sorts.

In a sense it creates a diversion. It keeps the youth busy. When we keep them busy in athletic activities or by getting involved in community projects and other things, we are taking their minds away from doing drugs or getting involved in trouble again or other potential problems.

Those kinds of initiatives are required of us as a society. We do not have to always rely on the government to provide and come up with the solution. We as a community and as a society have a responsibility to put forward initiatives that could help, could improve the quality of life of our youth, and could ensure that we have a safer community and a better community.

To that extent I want to say to my colleague that his question is dead on. It is very much dealt with through then bill when it talks about the importance of partnership with the different levels of government and when it talks about the rehabilitation aspect to address the specific needs of the child.

I am grateful for his question and I am quite pleased with what the government is proposing to deal with the rehabilitation aspect of the issue.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Two things, Mr. Speaker. First, it is false to say that Bill C-3 represents a balance between what the Bloc Quebecois wants and what the Reform Party wants. That is simply not true. Everything the Liberal government put in this bill is designed to meet the objectives of the Reform Party. That is altogether another matter.

Second, the hon. member spoke about responsibility. On that subject, we can agree. One has to be irresponsible to change legislation that works. When dealing with legislation that works, the minister's responsibility is to try to improve it. We are not saying that the Young Offenders Act should be left alone because it is the best act in the world. There are things that could be amended, simplified. Right now, there are cases where young offenders are tried twice, and presumptions of innocence are suffering. There are things that need to be clarified and improved. However, the entire act should not be scrapped in favour of amendments that could be technical.

I would like the member to tell me the minister's justification for repealing an act that is working. When we look at the statistics, we see that there is a 23% decrease in youth crime. Since 1995, violent crimes have decreased by 3.2% and sexual assaults by 1%. Fifty-three per cent of charges against young people involve property offences, not violent crimes against persons. I think the government is getting it all mixed up. The system is not perfect. It can be improved. But, please, let us not make the mistake of throwing out 16 years of enforcement, 16 years during which judges have established an interpretation that is well known in Quebec, that is being enforced, and that is yielding results.

I appeal to the members from Quebec across the way to wake up, to tell the Minister of Justice that this does not make sense. The government must not throw out 16 years of experience for the sake of a few votes in western Canada. I call on the members from Quebec to wake up and oppose this bill. We cannot pass it, because it flies in the face of everything being done in Quebec. There is a consensus.

Who do the Liberal members from Quebec represent in the caucus? Western Canada or Quebecers? The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Quebec bar association and 18 organizations have formed a coalition against the bill. Where are the Liberal members from Quebec today, when they should be telling the minister that they do not want this bill?

I know the member is bright, that he is reasonable and does his homework before he speaks. I would like him to tell me that he agrees with me: Quebec is enforcing the Young Offenders Act with very good results. I am sure that, deep down, he does not want to see western Canada throw away all Quebec's experience with respect to this legislation.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question deals more or less with matters of jurisdiction. He is asking what happens with this bill in a case where Quebec already has laws concerning young people.

I am not a constitutional lawyer. I think that when the consultation process gets under way, it will be interesting to consult with the provinces about the way this piece of legislation could be implemented. Besides, this bill will be referred to a committee. It is probably best that these issues be dealt with at that stage.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate since the end of question period, and I am flabbergasted at some of the things I have heard. For example, a member of the Reform Party said that this bill does not go far enough.

Actually, the bill is going in the wrong direction. It has already gone far enough, and even too far. Still, the Reform Party is not satisfied with a bill that is going in the wrong direction, it would like the bill to go even further in the wrong direction. Let me explain.

One of the purposes of this bill is the general protection of the public, of course, but its primary purpose is to ensure the welfare of young people who have committed a crime or an offence. Obviously, we do not want to cheer these young people for their wrongdoings, but we not want to turn them into criminals for life either. After all, these are our children. They are not strange beings from a distant planet. They have been brought up by their parents, here. They have been brought up by a community that has, or has not, given them certain resources, of sources of interest, of motivations. Those children have studied in our schools and have, or have not, received the training, the upbringing and the values they needed. Those young people are our children.

When they were born, they all had the same opportunities. Most of them are doing well, very well even, but a minority of them have problems. It is not necessarily their fault, very often it is not their fault at all. Society, the community and their family often have an important impact on how they have turned out. Fortunately, in such situations, solutions can usually be found.

As a matter of fact, the Young Offenders Act has allowed us to take action and come up with some positive solutions. As my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was saying earlier, since the current law was passed, the youth crime rate has dropped by 23%. Quite a decrease. The rate of repeat offences has also dropped.

Since other laws also give us the means to support a young person having difficulties and help him or her in the rehabilitation process, it is in Quebec that the youth crime rate is the lowest and the rehabilitation rate the highest.

What we have is a situation that is both rather remarkable and ironic. We have in the current legislation everything we need to intervene and help young people reintegrate society in a meaningful and responsible way. The current legislation is working. However, the Liberal government has introduced a bill that is headed in the opposite direction from the current, which is working and produces results.

This is reverse engineering. This bill is doing the opposite of what allows us to reach the desired goals. Public security and, more importantly, the rehabilitation of our young people should be at the heart of the bill before us today. However, according to every study done so far and all the data we have, this bill is a step backwards. It will not help to lower the youth crime rate, nor will it facilitate reintegration or maintain the excellent rehabilitation rate we have now. This bill is regressive.

Earlier, a Reform Party member, answering my colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, ridiculed what he had said because he is a sovereignist. I am going to tell House something. In Quebec, things are working. We have the best results with youth crime, namely the lowest rate. We have the best rehabilitation rate.

The federal government opposite wants to enact legislation that is going to set us back in the pursuit of this cause, coast to coast. If this bill becomes law, it will be one more reason for Quebec to want to become sovereign and to separate from a country that wants to mistreat its children.

Quebec has followed a very different path over the last 20 years, and since the Young Offenders Act took effect, we have had the best results. But the federal government refuses to use legislation from Quebec and the situation in Quebec as a model. It refuses to heed the advice of experts from all over the country.

To win votes in western Canada, a Reform stronghold, it is willing to sacrifice—and this is the right word—our young people with iniquitous and punitive legislation that does not favour rehabilitation and that will not steer young offenders away from a life of crime.

Members will agree with me that this situation is absolutely unacceptable. I find it hard to understand how it is that the Liberal government, that usually has a better grasp of these kinds of issues, does not realize that this bill will lead us straight to disaster.

Do we want Quebec and Canada to become a place where people feel unsafe on the streets, like the United States? If that is what we want, then the Liberal government is proposing the right bill. And if we want the situation to be even worse, we just have to follow the Reform Party.

But if we want safe communities, where it is possible to rehabilitate young people who have strayed from the straight and narrow so they can become full-fledged citizens, reintegrate society and make a positive contribution to our life, then we must not change the law. Let us enforce it as it stands now, with all the measures that lead to the full rehabilitation of offenders.

Quebec has set a good example in this area, and nobody has ever denied that. What I am saying has never been denied. Witnesses who appeared before the committee during the last session explained at length what I have been telling the House for the last few minutes.

I would like to quote what some people said, because I think it is important for the House to understand that the bill before us is going in the wrong direction. I will quote a criminologist from the University of Montreal, André Normandeau. This is taken from an article published in a Quebec City newspaper,

Le Soleil

, on March 13, 1999.

Mr. Normandeau said “People in western Canada”—he is talking about British Columbia and Alberta—“always react as they did 20 years ago, at a time when the crime rate increased each year. They have kept more of a punitive approach. Changing the law is the easy way out, but, more importantly, it does not work. Violent criminals, who represent 10% of offenders, do not react to coercion”.

Those are the words of a criminologist. He says that the law, as it is now, has worked. If we change it in the way the government wants to do now, we will be going in the wrong direction.

Not only will it not work, it will have the opposite effect. Mr. Normandeau goes on “The behaviour of prosecutors and police officers in other provinces will influence what goes on in Quebec. For instance, a Quebec police officer will quickly start acting like his colleagues from Saskatoon. He will then need the same complicity from the crown prosecutors, and then we will end up in a vicious circle”.

Let me quote from another criminologist, Cécile Toutant, a member of the young offenders sub-committee of the Quebec Bar Association. The Quebec Bar Association represents all of the lawyers in Quebec. Ms. Toutant is a highly competent professional who knows first hand what is going on in the field.

In an interview she gave on J.E., a very popular television program in Quebec that the rest of Canada has probably never heard about—which is another of the characteristics of our two cultures and our two nations who live alongside each other, and someday there will be a political solution to this situation—Ms. Toutant stated that she was concerned about the reform because some measures will become automatic, like the transfer to adult courts.

This criminologist argued that, even with what the Liberals call the flexibility of the system, the measures that we condemn will be applied. She concluded by saying “Why allow what is unjustified? Why allow what is inappropriate? In fact, why pass this legislation?”

On March 19, during a press conference of the group of organizations that are concerned with the situation of young offenders, Mr. Jean Trépanier, another criminologist, and a member of the Barreau du Québec sub-committee on young offenders, also condemned this false flexibility of Bill C-3.

According to him, this so-called flexibility we were talking about before the bill was introduced is in fact a political trap. Unfortunately, Quebec judges will have to fully enforce the law, since they will not be able to ignore sentences that will be imposed in other provinces.

In conclusion, because of your legislation, members of the Liberal government, young people from Quebec will not be treated fairly, they will no longer have the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and the safety in our society as a whole will be affected. The reason for this is that young offenders who are not rehabilitated become criminal adults. We must not forget that. They do not disappear because they are put in jail. They will get out, one day or the other, with vengeance in their heart.

Of course, prevention is good, but when a young person has committed an offence, rehabilitation becomes essential to ensure the long term safety of the community and to ensure that we have a citizen who will work with us toward social objectives, instead of having one who will be in and out of jail all his life.

I would also like to tell the House about a representative of the Quebec youth centres association, André Payette, who said it all in a nutshell “It will be a real mess if the bill is passed.”

What could be clearer? The bill is going in the opposite direction from what should be done. I recall what my colleague from the Reform Party said earlier “The bill does no go far enough”. The bill is going in the opposite direction, and that is already too far.

Let me quote also from a court that everybody knows well around here, the Supreme Court of Canada. In a recent decision, the court agreed unanimously that too many offenders are put in jail in Canada, particularly native offenders, and that happens not in Quebec but in the central and western provinces. The supreme court said that judges should get more involved in reducing the incarceration rate, for the rate in Canada is one of the highest in the western world.

Members do not have to be very good at maths. The government wants to lower the age limit to 14. You were once 14, Madam Speaker. Think about it for a moment: to be behind bars at that age, does it not make the system look a bit stupid? As lawmakers, we should have enough common sense to realize that there are other things to do with a 14 year old to educate him, instead of putting him behind bars. We are not in the Middle Ages. I am not surprised that members of the Reform Party say this kind of thing, for they have a somewhat reactionary mindset, if I may say so.

But when members of the Liberal Party talk that way, I am sorry, but I do not understand. Somebody somewhere is asleep. They should be able to stand up and say “No, wait a minute, it is true, we are going the wrong way, all the statistics show it”.

The supreme court tells us that our jails are already too crowded. If we put 14-year olds behind bars, there will be even more people in jail, and for a long time, because by the time these young offenders get out, at age 16 or 17, they will have attended crime school instead of CEGEP. CEGEPs may not be perfect but, frankly, I would rather send a young person to CEGEP than to crime school.

When it comes to choosing between helping a young person get back on the right track or seeing him acquire all the skills necessary to remain on the wrong path, common sense dictates that we invest in reintegration.

This young person who is sent to jail at age 14 and is released at age 17 will go back again at age 18 and will end up in a penitentiary. An inmate in a penitentiary costs $100,000 a year to taxpayers. A social worker hired to look after a number of young persons for two or three years, or a social worker hired to look after teenagers for a time would cost much less, even with full pay. They would save money to our society. Common sense clearly dictates that we invest in reintegration. For every dollar invested in reintegration, we will probably save $10 in incarceration costs.

This is about your money and my money but, more importantly, it is about our young people. Let us use our judgement. This bill goes against common sense. It goes against human decency. It goes against the history of humanity, which seeks to improve the way human beings treat one another. The best way to start treating one another properly is to show respect for our children.

If Canada and the Canadian parliament cannot respect our children, this will be yet another reason for me to separate my Quebec from a country that does not respect its children.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the words from the Bloc member from Portneuf. He is a member of the Bloc who I have a great deal of respect for, his separatist bent notwithstanding. The member has been to my riding at my invitation. I said, with my tongue very lightly in my cheek, that he should see what the best part of the country looks like before he gives it up.

I have a youth diversion program operating in my riding which has been very successful. The last time I spoke with the people running the program, they had run over 100 young people through the program and had only one incident of a repeat offence.

There is a lot of confusion about what the Reform Party really wants for young offenders. Our whole approach is divided into three categories. The first category is early intervention. I believe that is the kind of thing the hon. member supports. Early intervention would mean interceding early and perhaps preventing people from turning to crime or to some anti-social behaviour that might lead them to crime. It helps them to get the right type of assistance and aid.

The second category is the diversion program, which I talked about earlier. I am sure the hon. member supports that as well.

There is a third category that everyone likes to categorize the Reform with, the tougher hand. We believe that stiffer measures are appropriate for those young offenders who cannot be reached through early intervention, through diversion or through any other way, and who commit violent or anti-social offences over and over again. For the protection of society, and for the protection of other young people who are the number one victims of young offenders, we believe there must be stiffer measures for people who assault, rape, break into homes and beat elderly people.

Would the hon. member support the concept of this sort of tri-approach: early intervention; diversion to keep them out of court and give them a second chance; and, strict measures for those who will not benefit from the other two aspects and who continue to break society's rules? Does he agree that we do need to have some tough measures for the worst of the worst?

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question.

It is true that I had the pleasure of visiting his riding, I think it was in 1994. The hon. member came to visit my riding too. That has been a very beneficial exchange and I have a great deal of respect for this member of the Reform Party who, like several other colleagues of his, is more open-minded.

However, to answer the particular question he asked me, I will say that, while his position appears to be consistent, the fact of the matter is that the bill would destroy the very foundations of that position. First of all, the bill focuses on measures of the third category, which are aimed at the most difficult cases. It is clear that it puts less emphasis on measures of the first and second categories.

So, if less emphasis were put on these measures, that is on the care of young people convicted of minor offences, if fewer efforts were made in that respect, these young people run the risk of committing more serious offences for lack of help. They will then be facing measures of the third category because they will have become difficult cases. What the bill will do is merely create more difficult cases.

Following this reasoning, the present legislation would have to be retained so that all of the emphasis may be put on the first two measures, in order to have a minimum of individuals move on to the third.

And now what can be done with that group? The last thing we want to do—and I am sure that my colleague from Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan agrees with this—is to block their rehabilitation. If not rehabilitated, when they are back on the street, the semblance of security we enjoyed for the two, three or four years of their incarceration will blow up in our faces when they do get out again one fine day and, instead of being rehabilitated, are really hardened criminals.

The tougher the cases, then, the more needs to be invested in rehabilitating them. This is the only way, not just to ensure the safety of our communities, not just to save money, but also to save the young person himself.

The arguments being used by my colleague for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan are exactly the opposite of the laudable objectives he wants to pursue. He must realize this. In Quebec we have demonstrated the right way to apply the Young Offenders Act in its present form.

I would invite him to come back to my riding with me and I will show him directly how well things are working. Perhaps then he will be able to remind the people in his part of the country that, if we want the first two measures to work properly, there must be more investment so that the third becomes the exception. For those cases, we have to make sure that the results are exceptional as well, so that public safety is guaranteed and the young offenders become full-fledged members of society.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I have heard all sorts of arguments in the House.

There were those who thought that a person almost had to be put to death to be properly rehabilitated. Then there were those who said that these young people had to be put behind bars if we wanted them to be allowed back into society, but that there was no certainty they would be rehabilitated in jail.

I also heard people, such as the member for Berthier—Montcalm and the member for Portneuf, who explained what needed to be done for our young people, for young offenders. The focus needs to be on rehabilitation if we want to help them improve their lives. We are legislators and we want—I think that this is what all members here want—to improve society. I do not think that a bill such as this is going to improve society.

I have attended the opening of courts in my region. I have spoken with the chief justice of Quebec. She told me that the other parties in the House would have to examine Quebec's legislation, sit down with us and take a look at it and, if necessary, improve it. I think we have the deaf talking to the deaf.

I hope that Reform Party members will sit down and ask the member for Berthier—Montcalm to explain Quebec's young offender legislation to them. I hope that they will keep an open mind.

The Minister of Justice is a woman. Women sometimes see things differently than men. They are the ones who bear children. It is important to give children everything possible so that they have a better life. I do not think that a bill such as this is going to help them. I appeal to all parliamentarians here today to think carefully about what is going on with respect to this bill and to remember that we are considering a bill for the future. The young people of today are the citizens of tomorrow and we cannot jeopardize their future.