For months, even years, Canadians from across the country have been calling on government to get tougher with youth crime. The recent highly publicized events that took place in Colorado and Alberta and the murder of young Reena Virk in B.C. have pushed this issue one step further. They are vicious acts which really need to be addressed.

I believe all provinces were united in their belief that immediate steps had to be taken to protect society against individual youths who for whatever reason have chosen to follow the path of hate and destruction. Calls from throughout Canada could be heard in support of amending the Young Offenders Act to more aptly respond to the more serious acts of violence that all too often are threatening our friends and family.

There is no doubt that our justice system needs a major overhaul as it concerns young offenders. Canadians have become tired of hearing that young criminals do not pay enough for the error they commit against our society.

There is no question that the time has long since passed whereby those youth who commit violent crimes finally pay their debt to society. It is with this realization that the provincial justice ministers met with the federal justice minister to discuss appropriate ways of implementing changes to the Young Offenders Act, changes that would reflect society's revulsion toward the leniency the present system has been according to our young offenders.

It was only natural that Canadians awaited the change to the Young Offenders Act with great anticipation. Finally they thought that this government was committed to cracking down on young offenders. Finally they thought that the government was going to take youth crime seriously.

Canadians from coast to coast were bitterly disappointed to discover that the government was not serious in its commitment to try to put an end to youth crime. They found out instead that the government was only interested in providing cosmetic changes that fell far short of what the provinces wanted and what the Canadian electorate expected in terms of protection against youth crime.

One of our key recommendations put forth to the minister was the lowering of the age of application for the Young Offenders Act from the age of 12 to 10 years. It was a private member's bill before the House. Although this request received wide ranging support across the country, the minister chose to ignore this recommendation. This was in spite of the fact that offenders have progressively become younger. This begs the question why the federal minister would ignore the advice of not only her provincial counterparts but also of her experts who recommended that this particular change be accepted.

The federal minister wants us to believe that young offenders under 12 years of age will be better served in facilities for youth than in prison.

How can that be possible, when the federal government first refused to honour the agreements in the first bill on young offenders? And now, in this new bill, it is not even offering 50% of the money needed to provide these programs to our young offenders.

The government did not live up to the funding agreements contained in the previous Young Offenders Act. This act does nothing to restore the federal share of funding for youth justice. The lack of financial resources contained within the new youth criminal justice act can only result in more youth falling through the cracks.

This piece of legislation specifically ignores provincial demands for mandatory minimum sentences for weapons offences. I think it is quite reasonable to expect that Canada's legal system operate in uniformity when it comes to passing judgments against our young offenders. The Liberal government could well have provided some direction to our provincial justice ministers. Instead it chose to once again ignore their requests.

The size and complexity of the clauses and subclauses contained within this bill will invariably lead to confusion and further backlog in our courts. Our judicial system is already struggling with huge caseloads and serious lack of resources. This act will serve only to further complicate crown prosecutors and judges about their respective roles in the youth justice system and will not adequately serve Canadian interests.

There have been many reasons associated with committing crime among Canada's youth. It has often been suggested by some that one of the reasons behind youth crime is that they find themselves living in extreme poverty. Although I do not believe that poverty in itself is a cause for youth crime, it certainly can be a mitigating factor.

Like the Young Offenders Act, the government has also failed to address poverty. Millions of Canadians continue to struggle to survive while living in poverty. Over 1.5 million Canadian children live in poverty. Our party has been working with poverty for the last while. The government showed Canadians its true commitment to Canada's poor when it voted against Bill S-11, a bill that would help improve their lives by adding social condition as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

The government had an opportunity to make a profound and lasting impact on Canada's justice system that would serve all Canadians for years to come. Instead the government chose to employ smoke and mirrors in hopes of giving the appearance of strengthening legislation when in fact its changes fall far short of what the provinces expected and what Canadians demanded.

Like most Canadians, I am disappointed with the contents of the bill. It will not have the desired effect of helping our judicial system combat youth crime in Canada. Therefore, I must oppose this proposed legislation.

The House resumed, from May 6, consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Speaker

It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-71.

Call in the members.

Budget Implementation Act, 1999Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to vote in favour of Bill C-71.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 420Government Orders

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the third time and passed.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

The Speaker

The next deferred recorded division is on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-66.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the question now before the House.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

National Housing ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to vote against Bill C-66.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 421Government Orders

7 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing), be read the second time and referred to committee.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Speaker

The next deferred recorded division is on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-393 under Private Members' Business.

We will take this vote as we usually do. The mover of the motion, the member for Sarnia—Lambton to my right, will have the first vote. Then we will have those in favour to my right, coming down to the front row and those in favour to my left, coming down from the fifth row to the front row.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 422Private Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed; and of the motion that the question be now put.