Debates of May 5th, 1999

National Housing Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 4, 1999, the questions on the motions in Group No. 3 are deemed put and the recorded divisions deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. At the request of the deputy government whip the divisions are deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders later this day.

The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, 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

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-68. We have waited a long time for this bill. The minister has delayed 18 months in bringing it in. I do not think there are many in the House who appreciate that delay. It is nothing more than a makeover of the originally flawed act and is more or less tinkering around the edges.

After testing public opinion on this controversial legislation through continued leaks to the media, the justice minister finally introduced Bill C-68. It is ironic that the bill carries with it the namesake of a previous piece of disappointing Liberal legislation which failed to address the needs of Canadians. I am speaking about the infamous false hope Firearms Registration Act.

As with the firearms act, the youth criminal justice act was done without appropriate consultation. Canadians want to know what surveys or consultations were done with parents of young offenders before the tabling of Bill C-68 occurred. What surveys and consultations were done with officers and judges who deal with young offenders? What surveys were done with social workers who deal with young offenders and with guards at the facilities where young offenders are incarcerated? The public would like to know because this bill, which was supposed to take into account the opinions of Canadians, seems to have left the vast majority of Canadians wanting more.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Canadians from across the country are concerned that the new youth criminal justice act is not a bill that will move forward societal attempts at dealing with youth justice in Canada. Some would argue that it is a regressive piece of legislation hearkening back to the days of the defunct juvenile delinquent act.

It took the Liberals over a year of analysis, 18 months to be exact, to come up with the very old idea that a repeat youth offender involved in less serious offences would be tried as an adult and then sentenced as a child.

The broader issues of poverty and homelessness are the root of much of the criminal activity at any level. The PC Party is facing this issue head on with the PC poverty task force. The member behind me is involved in co-chairing that process.

The government has drafted a bill which does not go far enough to protect Canadians from increasingly violent youth crime. We are being told that the Liberals have toughened up the bill by placing more violent youth offenders in jail and that youth will be diverted away from the justice system and into community based initiatives such as social services, which are already overloaded and in shambles. This initiative also encourages the police to find alternatives to jail when dealing with youth offenders involved in relatively minor criminal activity.

The legislation encourages formal cautioning by police for young people who have been in less serious trouble. This is all well and good, but how does the government expect the fine members of our Canadian police forces to take on this extra responsibility? The government has already cut Canada's police forces to the point that the police are barely able to function with existing workloads.

Coupled with their already overburdened jobs, they no longer have the time to play the role of parent, psychologist or babysitter. They are expected to come up with a well prepared meaningful statement of warning to the youth offender and his or her parents. Through the implementation of this act the government is stretching police officers beyond their realistic limits and thus the increased workload will not be possible.

The type of crime being perpetrated by youth is increasingly sophisticated as are the problems faced by youth. The challenges on both sides of the divide are immense. Cuts to other sectors like the elimination of ports police and constant budget restraints have a staggering impact.

The sad result for the Canadian public is to see police forces like the the RCMP trying to fight problems such as youth crime with last year's $74.1 million or 13% cut to the RCMP's federal policing services. This gouging of the RCMP leaves the force incapable of dealing with youth crime in a meaningful way. Do more with less, we have heard in the House before. It is a common theme presented by the Liberal government to nurses and public servants in all ranks.

What is missing from the legislation is a long term plan or strategy for funding. It is cynical on the part of the federal government to be downloading its implementation costs on to the provinces, but it is a familiar theme. The Liberals are forcing the provinces to abandon their youth justice proposals and to follow the federal model upon pain of further cuts. They do this by dangling the 30% funding in their faces and threatening to take it back if they choose to opt out, again a familiar plan.

It is a perverse irony that the government appears to be tougher on the far end and more proactive and progressive on the front end. Yet all this costs money; longer sentences and programming cost money.

If the government had allowed for proper consultation in the first place and actually listened, it could have come up with a deal that all provinces could have supported. Instead the bill resembles the sum total of many regionalized concessions that will make national enforcement of the youth act virtually impossible. A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen commented on the regionalized concession theme:

The bill provides considerable discretion on punishment, recognizing that provinces such as Alberta and Ontario want tougher penalties while others including Quebec traditionally rely less heavily on jail sentences.

We are supposed to be one united country with a national criminal justice policy, yet if a youth commits a crime in New Brunswick the youth may not serve the same sentence if he or she had committed the same crime in Alberta. In justice as in health care regional disparity should be of real concern to the government.

I am seeking unanimous consent to finish my speech because I do not think there is a long list of speakers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the hon. member asking for a specified time, or is he saying that he needs unlimited time to finish his speech?

[An hon. member]

Unlimited.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to finish his speech?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I give consent I would pose to the member exactly the same question. What amount of time does the member want? I am prepared to agree to a defined amount of time but not to an open ended request.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Five extra minutes.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I will give consent to an extra five minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It will be a 15 minute speech. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House and the deputy government whip.

The government has once again tried to be all things to all people, but has accomplished very little. It appears to be the parochial fence-sitter on this one. The new youth criminal justice bill tried to please everyone. However, by offering only piecemeal, halfway solutions, it in fact pleases no one.

It did not go far enough in lowering to 14 the age at which an offender could face adult sentences for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. The 14 year old age limit will also be a barrier for the justice system as it tries to seek justice against young repeat offenders who commit other violent crimes.

These much overblown changes to the bill were an obvious response to overwhelming public pressure to toughen up on youth offenders. The government has given the appearance that it has toughened up the act, but I question whether these cosmetic alterations will have their desired effect.

The obvious question is: Why did the minister refuse to listen to the recommendations of her departmental experts and lower the age of accountability to 10 years of age? Contrary to the attempts by the Liberals to distract the public, no one is suggesting that society take 10 year old offenders, lock them up in prison and throw away the key forever. No one suggests that.

The government says we should try to rely on the social services to meet the needs of offenders under the age of 12. Nevertheless, the Liberals have poked so many holes into the social safety net that current young offender programs are not doing enough for the criminal acts of a 10 year old. On the other hand, if we can hold 10 year olds accountable for their actions and get them involved in the judicial process, there will be more programs available that could lead toward their rehabilitation. It is a mechanism too often necessary to trigger community response.

I wonder why the minister loaded the bill down with such bureaucratic nonsense that certain sections of the act will be difficult to enforce or even interpret. For example, the act proposes prison sentences for up to two years for parents of youth offenders who wilfully refuse to supervise their children after being released to their custody. The misconception is that there is no real accountability for parents in the first instance. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that virtually every defence lawyer could poke holes in the court's interpretation of the word wilfully. Thus, an opportunity to gain further accountability for young offenders will be lost, leaving the public to only shake their heads. The crown bar or lawyers will be the biggest beneficiaries of these changes. It will take a legion of lawyers and many, many months, if not years, to sort out this bill.

The bill has been described in many of the provinces as being woefully soft on violent offenders.

Our justice critic received correspondence from the Ontario ministry stating the obvious. Sixteen and seventeen year olds who commit adult crimes are not automatically tried as adults. Even for murder, aggravated sexual assault, manslaughter and attempted murder there is no guarantee that youths will be sentenced as an adult. Even on the third rape charge there is no guarantee of an adult sentence.

Most violent offences still require the prosecutor to prove an adult sentence is necessary. Jail sentences will be reduced in some cases as a result of these changes. The key word is reduced. Youth sentenced as adults for murder are still subject to more lenient periods of parole and eligibility than adults sentenced for murder. Mandatory jail time is not required for youths convicted of an offence involving a weapon. I do not think we would call that progress.

The Ontario solicitor general had this say:

What the people of Ontario have been asking for is legislation that will better protect our children and our communities, that will send a message to young people that they will be held accountable for their actions and would deter youth crime. Instead, the federal Liberal government has released a bill that has little regard for public safety and even less regard for providing meaningful consequences for criminal behaviour such as sexual assault, drug trafficking and use of a weapon.

This commentary is not limited merely to politicians. York Regional Police Chief Julian Vantino stated:

Many police officers and citizens right across Ontario, are frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems primarily concerned with the rights of offenders...It's disappointing that the federal government won't take the opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime.

The youth criminal justice act's definition of serious violent offence is so vague that it is almost useless. Thus, we will soon have a youth law where, in no case is an adult sentence automatic. Even in the case of first degree murder, a young person can avoid an adult sentence.

The following offences are not presumed serious enough to warrant adult sentences: armed robbery, sexual assault and drug trafficking. This is a shocking omission given the prevalence of youth in these serious criminal activities.

A young person can commit three serious violent offences with no guarantee of an adult sentence. Repeat offenders of non-violent crimes are not assumed to receive adult sentences. So much is left to judicial and prosecutional discretion or interpretation that it will take years to fully understand the effects.

Let us consider that a 17 year old who robs a bank, kills a customer and is found guilty of murder can still receive a lenient youth sentence. Most serious violent offenders still require the prosecutor to prove an adult sentence is necessary.

Just to conclude, I think the bill is flawed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that I start off my presentation today on Bill C-68 by reflecting on the irony of talking to a bill with the number C-68.

We, on this side of the house, feel that the association with that number is so bad that even if this had been a good piece of legislation we probably would have had some problem with it. Bill C-68 is probably the worst piece of legislation that has ever come forward in the House. I refer, of course, to the bill from the previous parliament dealing with the forced registration of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens while criminals get to carry on their activities untouched.

One of the problems we always have in opposition is what to do when we call on the government to bring in some meaningful legislation and it finally comes up with something that goes part way. Do we applaud them for the little bit of progress that we have made or do we lament all the good things that could have been in that bill that are not?

I hear the deputy whip on the other side saying that we should applaud them for the little bit of good they do. I can understand her feeling that way because when a government only does a little bit of good it wants as much recognition as possible.

With this particular bill dealing with youth justice, this should have been done in the last parliament but it was not. A lot of promises were made but it never happened.

What happened? We had an election in 1997. We got the perky justice minister from the west. The west is a good place, but there are not many Liberals from there. The justice minister, right off the bat, said that this was a priority for her. I will never forget waking up every night with the phrase “in a timely fashion” ringing in my ears, because that was the minister's answer every time we asked her when the bill would be coming forward.

I guess either the minister does not know what is timely or she does not know what is in fashion. We waited and waited. Finally, after much pomp and ceremony at a big press conference last year talking about what she was almost ready to do, it took her another six months to do it. It is no wonder she had so much trouble finally coming out with it, it was mostly fluff.

Why do we not accept what we have achieved thus far? Considering how long it has taken to get what little Bill C-68 has to offer, we might never get anything more. We therefore have to lament what is missing from the bill.

It would be one thing if we thought this was the first instalment, but it has taken us five years to get this little dribble out of the minister. Of course we have to lament all the things that should be in the bill. Members may rest assured that the Reform Party will try to amend the bill both in committee and, if necessary, at report stage.

If the government wants to know whether it should adopt the amendments we will be suggesting, it will have to do two things that are very uncharacteristic: It will have to listen to Canadians and it will have to listen to what they are asking for. It claims it does that from time to time. Maybe it does, but then it has to do the second part, which is something it has a tremendous amount of difficulty with, and that is actually implementing what Canadians want.

One of the things the government has come out with lately is statistics. Statistics are wonderful. Statistics say youth crime is down. Youth crime is not down at all. Convictions on youth crime and prosecution of youth crime is down, but in terms of actual problems out there we still have a lot of problems.

I have heard people say, “Oh, that Reform Party is so hard on the young people. Isn't it terrible. Why are you picking on young people”? The fact is that the number one victim of young offenders is young people themselves. We are not doing this to pick on young people. We are doing it to protect them.

The courts have taken a lenient sort of approach in dealing with youth crime because that is obviously the message and signal coming from government, the appointer of judges. The RCMP are having a harder problem because it is dealing with severe cutbacks in budgets. Cuts have to be made somewhere, but we are basically turning our backs on minor youth crime which may then become major crimes.

We have always promoted and agreed with a three-fold approach. The first approach is early intervention. Our number one priority under the criminal justice system, be it with our youth or adults, is to prevent crime.

The second approach would be when a first time offender is apprehended for committing a non-violent crime and timely action to prevent the crime was not taken, every effort should be made to ensure that person does not offend again. The best way to do that is to try to find some way to keep them out of the criminal justice system through a diversion program.

The government talks about that in the bill, but diversion programs have been going on for quite awhile. I have one in my own riding in Trail, B.C. It is run by a lot of very conscientious and dedicated volunteers, citizens from the community. The success of that program is absolutely astounding. They have dealt with a lot of young offenders through that program and, from the last figures I have heard, they have had one single case of a repeat crime. That is a pretty astonishing record and one the government would do well to emulate. It tried to emulate it in its own fashion in this bill by promoting a diversion program.

However, even when the government copies us it just cannot get it right. It includes repeat and even violent offenders in that. Under the Trail program, those types of people are specifically banned. This is a single opportunity for those who have made a mistake to turn themselves around. It applies to non-violent and first-time offenders. They get one opportunity. They get one second chance. The government wants to give people three, four, five and six chances because it just does not want to deal with the problem.

That has to be one of the great flaws in the bill. At the same time, there is no question that diversion costs money upfront. It saves a tremendous amount of money in the criminal justice system but the government has to be willing to put some money upfront. It certainly has not identified that it is prepared to put up the kind of money to make this diversion program truly work.

There is also a need at the far end of the scale for those few young offenders, the small percentage, who are repeat violent offenders. That is the small element the government must get tough with. Every time we mention this the government says “Oh yes, these radical Reformers want to crack down on everybody”. We want to the best of our ability to ensure we can prevent crime. When we cannot get someone early enough to prevent it, then we want to make sure that it does not occur again.

As I said, it does not matter if we are talking about young offenders or adults. Where we fail, where people simply will not respond to that earlier intervention and the kinder treatment for a first offender, we need to send out a message. The message is that we intend to protect law-abiding citizens and their property. That is our priority. If people will not follow the rules even after they have been given a chance, we have to be prepared to deal with that.

The government fails miserably on that part. The government has said that it will crack down on certain areas of violent crime, but it left a whole lot out. What does that suggest? That it is picking and choosing at random? Violent crime is violent crime. The government should recognize it and treat it as such.

The government still wants to place us in a position where a young offender, particularly someone 16 or 17 years old who has perhaps committed a violent crime, has a trial to see where the trial will take place. It sounds like bureaucracy to me.

The government also says that the public will have access to information in certain areas, but it bans it in a lot of other areas. The government is not clear on this. There is also a lack of standardization.

Mr. Speaker, I got your signal. I trust it was the right finger. I know how some Liberals feel, but I am sure not you.

Where we have a problem is with the standardization. We have a problem right now with certain criminals judge shopping because they are known to be limited in other areas.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Keep it on.

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

Mr. Speaker, we woke up the deputy whip again. I am so glad that my speech has finally got through to her.

We need to have some standardization. We do not want the same thing happening in youth crime where we say “If you are going to commit crimes, there are some provinces that are soft on crime”.

The government has a lot of work to do. As weak as this bill is, it has some possibilities only if it listens to Canadians, if it listens to the voice of Canadians through us, if it looks seriously at amendments and puts partisanship behind it, if it can do that. Let us work together to make this the kind of bill Canadians have waited for.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 was introduced at first reading by the Minister of Justice in March 1999. It is a product of the strategy to renew the justice system for young people, which was introduced in May 1998.

The Bloc Quebecois and all the stakeholders in Quebec are opposed to that reform, because it is useless and dangerous in terms of its anticipated impact on crime reduction in the long run.

The current legislation has allowed Quebec to enjoy the lowest youth crime rate in Canada. In the rest of the country, it has decreased youth crime by 23% between 1991 and 1997.

Given these results, one wonders why the act should be changed. Did the minister make this reform strictly for political reasons, or did she yield to the pressure of the right in Canada?

Why did the minister not see fit to refer to the Quebec model for youth justice in the principles and the preamble of the bill? Since she alludes to Quebec in her comments, she should have made explicit reference to our province, as was pointed out by the Quebec coalition opposing this bill, which feels that:

The alleged flexibility given to the provinces to implement the act is in fact just a series of limited powers that rest on the shoulders of crown prosecutors. Nowhere in the bill do we find confirmation of the right of the provinces to apply their own model.

Some extremely repressive measures are found in Bill C-68, which includes 14 and 15-year old children among those offenders who could be sentenced as adults. I emphasize the fact that these are 14 and 15 year olds. Anyone who has been active in education with teenagers or, better still, who has raised a good family that included teenagers, knows that at age 14 and 15 they are not yet adults. They are still children in some respects.

Bill C-68 establishes a sentence of custody for young people at higher risk and repeat offenders in cases of violent offences.

In addition, it is worth noting that the publication of the names of adolescents would be authorized if the adolescent receives an adult sentence or a youth sentence for violent crimes, if the adolescent is at liberty in the community but has committed a crime or been charged with a criminal act or if the adolescent authorizes release on reaching adulthood and is not under custodial sentence.

Here again, you have to know something about adolescents. The Bloc Quebecois contends that this publicity will give importance to certain young offenders, especially in the case of young people who are members of street gangs or groups. It might be an idea to look at what is going on in the schools across the country. The phenomenon of gangs is everywhere.

We therefore support the current restrictions intended to protect the reputation of innocent families. Publicizing the identity of adolescents could also have the unfortunate effect of creating a false sense of security among the members of the public. We might think that, once we know the identity of the offender, we are safe and there is no more problem.

We must also look at the cost of applying the law. In Quebec alone, the new Young Offenders Act should cost an additional $69 million in implementation costs over a three year period. How much of the money set aside in the finance minister's last budget will be left for crime prevention? Because it is through prevention that crime is reduced, not through punishment. There are costs associated with prevention, but the long term results are much more promising.

We therefore call on the federal government to transfer full jurisdiction for youth justice, along with the associated funding, to Quebec. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice has failed to convince the rest of Canada of the effectiveness of Quebec's approach. In fact, the proof is in the crime rates.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the future impact on Quebec's crime rate of the tougher approach other provinces will be allowed to take. We also wonder about the latitude judges will have in handing down sentences intended to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and standardized throughout Canada.

Judges cannot ignore sentences given elsewhere. Case law, by its very nature, requires that judgments handed down elsewhere be considered and similar sentences given for similar offences.

Finally, various experts from Quebec spoke out against this bill. I am thinking of the association of organizations interested in the new young offenders legislation, criminologists André Normandeau and Cécile Toutant, lawyer Jean Trépanier, and André Payette, the spokesperson for the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, who has seen many things in his work at the Supreme Court of Canada and as Quebec's president of the bar.

By placing the young person's responsibility foremost in a new statement of principle, the minister is running the risk of destabilizing a system which has, up until now, been able to substantially reduce the juvenile crime rate.

Finally, the government has not explicitly recognized in its bill the possibility for Quebec to maintain, and particularly to expand, its youth justice model. The presumed flexibility in the bill is an illusion, since it is not included in the preamble or the guiding principles of the bill.

In Quebec, as in some other provinces, alternatives to detention have been put in place. Considering that incarceration is not the appropriate solution for most cases that come under the Young Offenders Act, it is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois that it is essential for such alternative measures to be given more attention.

In her letter of May 3, the Quebec Minister of Justice reminded her federal counterpart:

—that the planned reform is based on false premises. Youth crime has been on a steady decline for a number of years already, everywhere in Canada. This is particularly true in Quebec, which has the lowest crime rate in Canada.

According to the Minister:

The bill—is neither necessary nor justified, and is liable to imperil the rehabilitation model that has been implemented in Quebec. Concretely, if our model is to be maintained, this means that Quebec will have to be excluded from the bill, which is based on a repressive philosophy and which Quebec will have no choice but to apply, like all the rest of Canada.

For all these reasons, we are asking that this bill be withdrawn or, if the minister does not comply with that request, that Bill C-68 be amended by adding after clause 3 a clause 3.1, which would read as follows:

3.1. This act is not applicable to Quebec.

We also wish clause 196 to be replaced by the following:

1. This act replaces the Young Offenders Act, except in Quebec, where it remains in force.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-68.

I along with most members in this House have a clear sense from constituents and Canadians everywhere of their need to feel safe and secure in their neighbourhoods. I do not think anyone here can say that they are not fully aware of the worry and concern citizens of this nation have everywhere about peace and quality of life and security in their communities.

It is a topical consideration today given the shootings that have happened in the schools in Colorado and Taber, Alberta. Those incidents have made us all stop, pause and think about what we can do to work with our young people. We must ensure that embarking upon criminal activities and violence is dealt with in a meaningful and positive way at an age when it can make a difference and we can see a reduction in crime and violence.

Bill C-68 is an important step in addressing the broad range of concerns around youth justice issues, but it is not the whole picture. It is not a comprehensive approach. It does not deal with the range of issues that parliament should be dealing with if we are going to make a real difference.

My own community is an example of where the government needs to be involved and how we can support the kind of spirit of community, the self-help initiative that is springing up everywhere in this country. My community, the north end neighbourhood, is typical of an inner city. Inevitably we will be dealing with difficult situations as long as there is no leadership and as long as there is a policy vacuum in terms of quality of life and economic opportunity.

I am not here to say that we should just eliminate poverty and ensure economic opportunities for everyone and that will put an end to violence and crime. I am not that naive but I do know that quality of life at the community level plays a role.

I looked at my own community of Winnipeg North Centre. In my own neighbourhood we have seen business after business close up shop and move out. Banks have moved their branches from my neighbourhood to a suburban community. The local drugstore has shut down. We have lost the local post office. We have lost the one meaningful recreational opportunity for young people, the North Y in Winnipeg.

Put all of that together and picture a community of boarded up businesses and homes. They are boarded up because this government and the provincial government have abdicated responsibility for the deteriorating housing stock in our communities and for the lack of economic opportunity. If we put all of that together we have a crisis. We have a critical situation.

How can we begin to address the matters of youth justice and deal with a perceived if not a real increase in violent crime among young people unless we look in our own backyards and realize what the causes are of that kind of behaviour and what is making young people want to join gangs as they are doing in large numbers in Winnipeg and in other inner cities right across the country.

In the face of all of that it is encouraging that communities are deciding to do something about it. In the case of Winnipeg North Centre we have had community after community establishing on a volunteer basis safety patrols. These patrols are made up of volunteers who devote their weekends and their evenings, from 10 o'clock at night until 3 o'clock in the morning, to patrol neighbourhoods. They chase away prostitutes, make it difficult for someone to commit a crime, pick up used syringes and create a sense of security and safety for people who live in those neighbourhoods.

That is incredible devotion and an incredible contribution to the issue we are dealing with today under the auspices of Bill C-68. That is the kind of effort we need to recognize and we need to support in conjunction with those groups. I want to especially single out those volunteers who constitute the Northend Patrol under Community United for Change, the Manitoba Avenue Patrol, the Night Owls, the Flora Place Patrol and the Weston Brooklands Patrol. Those are five groups that have sprung up in a year to start to take control over the situation and to make a real and lasting contribution. They are supported, as much as possible, by community based policing efforts, a program that is doing well in Winnipeg. It needs to be supported and I am sure it has been replicated in other parts of the country.

It is that community based approach, working with volunteers, working with communities, working with organizations which want to ensure that the pride of neighbourhood and spirit of co-operation is alive and well, that we must build on. That is what we need to address when we are talking about Bill C-68.

It makes an attempt to begin to address the broad issues that cause crime and violence among young people. It recognizes the responsibility of communities, parents and families, and it begins to suggest that our youth justice system must look at how effective we are in terms of consequences and punitive measures, but it also must look at how we actually play a role in terms of rehabilitation and the prevention of youth crime in our communities today.

That is an important effort, but does it go far enough? Does it support what is happening in our communities? Will it make a difference?

The NDP critic for justice has clearly spoken about our concerns with respect to the level of funding committed by the government to back up its legislation and has actually said that $206 million over three years is not exactly a lot of money if it is applied on a per capita basis. It is not a lot of money if we are seriously looking at a meaningful, comprehensive system of youth justice. There is no question that we have to look at resources and we have to have the political will to make this concept a reality.

I hate to say this, but Manitoba had the highest growth in youth crime between 1990 and 1997. Manitoba has had a 34% increase in violent youth crime in the last seven or eight years. That is an awful record. That is an awful thing for me to have to stand and say, but our job here today is to figure out why that has happened and what we can do to reverse that trend. We have to look at ourselves, we have to look at the federal government and we have to look at the provincial governments.

In the case of Manitoba we are dealing with a situation where the federal government has failed to back up its commitment to deal with this issue in terms of real dollars and real initiative. We are dealing with a provincial government, the Manitoba Conservatives, who continually point fingers. All they do is point fingers at the federal government and say “You are the bad guys. You fix the problem. Give us more money and the whole problem will be solved”.

We know that both levels of government are culpable of this inability to deal with a very serious problem. As a result, we have the worst backlog of court cases anywhere in Canada. There are serious concerns about dangerous releases and ineffective controls and standards for release. We know we have problems around weak prosecution. We have not dealt with opportunities for young people. All of those issues, those problems, those concerns, are at the heart of the issue we are dealing with today. The responsibility for dealing with them rests in large measure with the federal government working in tandem with the provincial government of Manitoba.

The community will is there. The efforts are in place. Communities are willing to help themselves, but they need the support of government to back up those efforts and to ensure that wherever we go and whatever we do there are meaningful programs in place so that young people will face up to what they have done and know that the consequences will be immediate and effective.

While this bill goes some distance in recognizing that, I am afraid it does not address the scope of the problem and will fall short unless we can convince members of the government to back up this initiative with meaningful policies and significant dollars.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak at second reading of Bill C-68, an act respecting criminal justice for young persons.

The legislation responds to some recommendations put forward by Reform and the justice committee. However, Bill C-68 falls short in several key areas and will need significant revisions to meet the needs of our youth and the demands of many Canadians.

Over a year ago Reform proposed a three-pronged approach to deal with the complexities of youth crime. This approach included early detection and intervention as an effective means of crime prevention; community based resolutions and sentences for non-violent offenders; and lowering the minimum age to 10, with the maximum age of 15, plus publishing the names of all violent offenders. Reform also proposed that distinctions be made between non-violent and violent offenders, diverting less serious offenders away from formal court proceedings and incarceration, while ensuring that all violent offenders are put into custody.

This side of the House has been very active in fighting for changes to be made to the Young Offenders Act to make it more effective because violent crime by young offenders has more than doubled since 1986. Clearly, the present system is not working.

During the last parliament I saw firsthand how the Young Offenders Act failed a seriously disturbed sexual offender and, more seriously, how it failed a young girl and her family. Seven years ago in Courtenay, B.C., which was part of my riding at that time, six year old Dawn Shaw was brutally raped and murdered. Her killer was 15 year old Jason Gamache, a repeat sexual offender who had been convicted previously of two sexual assaults on four year old children, one girl and one boy. Jason was convicted in Nanaimo in 1991 and moved to Courtenay with his mother to attend court ordered sex offender therapy through the John Howard Society.

His probation order clearly stated that he was to have no contact with children under 12 years of age. Yet Gamache's neighbours, the local authorities and even the Courtenay RCMP were not aware of Gamache's criminal record of sexual assault because of the privacy sections of the Young Offenders Act. The only people who knew of Jason's criminal background were his mother, the John Howard Society and his probation officer.

On October 24, 1992 Jason was playing hide and seek with Dawn and other children. He carried her on his shoulders into the woods, raped her and then stomped her to death. The footprint etched in the dirt on Dawn's face clearly matched that of Jason's and was one of the clues that identified him as the murderer.

This little girl's murder was a tragedy that should never have been allowed to happen. At the time of the murder Jason Gamache was on probation. He was being supervised by the corrections branch and was receiving sex offender therapy. Yet, despite his probation order, Jason was allowed to live right next door to an elementary school in a low income housing complex filled with children. This should never have been allowed to happen. Clearly, there was no effort to enforce his probation order. Where is the accountability?

Dawn Shaw's parents had the right to know that the boy next door, the boy who was babysitting their children, was a repeat sexual offender. Yet, when Dawn Shaw was reported missing, Gamache aided in the search for her and spent hours babysitting her siblings.

Clearly, the criminal justice system failed Dawn Shaw and her family. It is time that the government put the benefit and welfare of children before the rights of criminals like Jason Gamache.

In the last parliament I tabled over 4,000 signatures on petitions in memory of Dawn, demanding changes to the Young Offenders Act. Yet this bill before the House fails to address this serious concern.

Although Bill C-68 proposes to allow the publication of names of young offenders, this provision is seriously limited. The bill does not allow for the publication of names of youths who are charged. Names can only be published if young criminals are convicted and given an adult sentence, as well as 14 to 17 year olds who receive a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat serious violent offences. Repeat sexual offenders like Jason Gamache would still be protected under this new bill and that must be addressed while this bill is before this House.

Dawn Shaw's life could have been saved with the elimination of this section of the act and the establishment of a young offenders registry, including repeat sexual offenders. Such a registry would have provided Dawn Shaw's parents with a warning, at least a chance. Young offenders legislation must include the publication of all repeat sexual offenders' names. The rights of innocent children must be protected ahead of those of the violent offenders. In order to do that the records of young people who commit serious crimes should be treated the same as adults in all respects.

The RCMP in my riding told me that, regardless of age, if there is a dangerous offender in the neighbourhood, people want to know. Parents must know if the person associating with their child is a convicted rapist like Jason Gamache.

Canadians also want a young offenders act that broadens the number of offences where young offenders can be charged as adults. Yet Bill C-68 severely restricts the offences where an adult sentence can be imposed. The list includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage-taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious violent offences.

Additionally, for these offences the judge must first consider the least restrictive sentence and only impose adult sentencing as a last resort. For youth sentencing purposes maximum sentencing has not changed in this new bill. It is still ten years for murder with six in custody and four under supervision in the community, seven years for second degree murder with four in custody and three under supervision, three years for any offence having an adult sentence of life imprisonment, and two years in custody and one under supervision for all others. That has not changed.

Violent crimes committed by 14 to 17 year olds are no less violent than those committed by adults. 1996 statistics show that youths are charged in 10% of all homicides and 12% of cases of attempted murder. However, just 13% of convicted violent young offenders are put in jail. Clearly, young people who commit adult crimes should do adult time.

Jason Gamache, who killed Dawn Shaw when he was 15, was given a life sentence but would have been eligible for parole this December. If 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to get their driver's licences and old enough to get married, they are also old enough to be held responsible for their actions.

In addition, Bill C-68 has not changed the rules for public access. Proceedings under this act permit the court to exclude any or all members of the public from the courtroom. Reform's blue book policy supports public access to court proceedings in cases involving 14 and 15 year old offenders and in cases where the public's right to know supersedes the need to protect the youth's identity. This is a change Canadians support and want to see in the legislation.

Canadians, the Reform Party and an all party justice committee, with the exception of the Bloc, called for the lowering of the age to cover youths 10 to 15 years old. Yet Bill C-68 fails to change the age of application. The act does not apply to young offenders 10 and 11 years old and continues to treat 16 and 17 year olds as young offenders. Because of this, 10 and 11 year olds will not benefit from the rehabilitative aspects of the act.

Another concern is that the legislation allows the provinces to opt out of its provisions. Youths may escape facing adult sentencing, depending on the policies of each province and each court. Provinces could choose whether to seek adult sentencing, the publication of names and access to records. Canadians do not wish violent young offenders to receive different treatment, depending on the provinces they come from.

Canadians believe the Young Offenders Act should hold parents of young offenders financially responsible. This is in the act and we welcome it. This is one of the concerns that the RCMP in my riding were hoping to see addressed in the new legislation.

In conclusion, I cannot give my support to the legislation as it stands. There are too many holes. It is my hope the government will listen to Canadians and make the necessary revisions to give Canadians the justice and protection they deserve.

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

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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, Justice; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Transport; the hon. member for Mercier, Technology Partnerships Canada.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to clearly understand what the bill before us, which deals with young offenders, involves. It is important to clearly understand why this bill, if it is passed, would have an effect that is just the opposite of what is intended.

I want to mention a number of things that are obvious to me but which, unfortunately, are not understood by some members of this House, including, it seems, the Minister of Justice.

Teenagers are young people who must receive a proper education to behave properly in society. Threatening them with imprisonment and other repressive measures is not the way to instill in them the values that are necessary for proper behaviour in society.

Some Reform Party members related horror stories about young people committing absolutely horrendous crimes. But, for heaven's sake, when these young people were born, they were normal babies who should have been able to develop and eventually make a contribution to society.

Something went wrong somewhere. These children did not get the education they should have received. They were not made aware of the human, moral and societal values that would have allowed them to be productive members of society.

Looking at this bill before us, one realizes that this is not a bill that will provide young people with a better set of values. It is a not a bill that will help them fit better into society.

It is a bill that will have the opposite effect: putting them into the prison setting. It will put them in contact with hardened criminals and expose them to exactly the opposite of the moral values we would like them to adopt. In fact, it will turn them into hardened criminals.

These children, young people, adolescents we refer to are not aliens from another planet. They are our children, the children we have raised and educated, or the children we have not raised, not educated, not trained in how to live properly in society.

Engineers have to be trained. Doctors have to be trained. A person can take courses to learn carpentry or car repair. Unfortunately, good parenting is not something one learns in school. There are no diplomas for parenting.

Most of us manage to do a pretty good job at it, I would venture to say. Proof of that lies in the vast majority of young people who will take over from us and of whom we have every reason to feel proud. Unfortunately, not all parents are as successful.

Perhaps they themselves have physical or mental health problems. Perhaps they have financial difficulties, ones with which this government's policies might have something to do. Maybe they have a work related problem. But these parents who, at a given point, need support to ensure that their children can be, to use the common phraseology, well brought up, are not getting that support, nor are their children, unfortunately, in many cases. And then we wonder why some of these young people go wrong.

I repeat that a young person's first real crime is not the horrendous offence too often described by Reform members. Often, it is something simple, elementary, a sort of alarm that goes off, meaning “Take care of me, I have a problem”. However, if the parents are unable to deal with that sign, the young person will get involved in more and more serious situations, that could end in a most deplorable offence.

In Quebec, under the existing legislation on young offenders, we have taken a preventive approach. For more than 20 years now, when a child is in difficulty, and the school system or the neighbours or even the parents notice, resources are available for intervention and prevention. This approach works.

Let us look at the statistics. Quebec has the lowest rate of juvenile crime. It is very low, a lot lower than a number of years ago, and the rate of repeats is also very low. In short, we have a formula that works.

Even in the rest of Canada, the level of juvenile crime is on the decline. Canada too has a formula that works, not as well as that of Quebec, because it has not invested the same money as Quebec in prevention, but things are moving in the right direction.

English has the expression “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. Right now, with the Reform Party, members are doing exactly the opposite. They are taking something that is working and scrapping it, so to speak, for something more repressive.

Obviously, any young person who is disturbed or in distress will not hesitate to commit a heinous crime just because it might carry a tougher sentence or he might be tried in adult court.

In fact, there are two or three possible scenarios. He could care less. He is upset and will commit the crime without checking the Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act for the severity of the penalties and whether or not he will be tried in adult court. Unfortunately, he has lost his head and it is too late now.

The other possible scenario is that the young person will see the prospect of being treated like an adult as reflecting glory on him. And so, in order to be treated like an adult, he does something that makes no sense at all.

Quebec's approach is to prevent the young person from committing a crime by helping him to be a full member of society when he is experiencing difficulty or psychological distress. The Reform Party's approach is to let him commit the crime, but then punish him with extraordinary brutality, just to show others how spiteful people can be.

Parents are not spiteful; they are kind. We in this House represent the parents of Quebec and of Canada. We must show our children kindness, not spite.

The minister should withdraw this bill. But if she is bent on imposing it on the rest of Canada—heaven help them, their children deserve better—then she should at least respect Quebec's experience, which is conclusive. She should simply spell out in the bill that the legislation does not apply to Quebec.

It is obvious that Quebec cannot let Canada force it to mistreat its children. We will not stand for it.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this important piece of legislation, Bill C-68. There are many aspects of this bill that are a major step forward in dealing with people who run afoul of the law.

I listened with interest to my friend from the Reform Party. I must say I agree with him on one point. Actually, I agree with him on many points. He said that young people age 16 and 17 are very mature people.

I have visited possibly hundreds of schools over the last number of years and have talked to young people age 16 and 17. I am convinced that in most cases they are as mature and knowledgeable about issues as most of their parents. Let us face it. There are some goofy young people, but there are also some goofy older people; people who do not think too much about things, or who are a little emotional or a little bit off the wall or whatever. We could find them in a classroom as well. On balance, when it comes to making mature decisions, when it comes to taking life seriously, the world seriously, their studies seriously, their arts, sports or whatever seriously, 16 and 17 year old young people are adult minded.

It brings to mind a discussion we have had many times about what is the appropriate age for voting. It is fair to say that at the moment somebody somewhere decided people have to be 18 to cast an intelligent ballot in Canada. I see my friend from Toronto and I know he would agree that most of us in the House believe that most young people who are age 16 and 17, given an opportunity to take federal or provincial politics seriously and vote in an election, would in fact do that.

As a matter of fact the record shows in those countries where people are able to vote at age 16 or 17 the participation rate is higher than that of their parents. The evidence is clear that when we expect young people to act as adults, they inevitably do; when we expect children to act like children, they do.

My wife and I raised to boys. I remember when they were at that age of 16 or 17. At times we expected them probably not to behave very maturely and they never let us down. They never did. They always behaved immaturely. But at those times when we expected them to do what was expected of young men, when we asked them to act responsibly and behave responsibly, I can say they never ever let us down.

What do we say to young people today when we say, “Yes, you can get married and raise a family. You can drive a vehicle. You can drive trucks, muscle cars or whatever on our highways. You can join our armed forces and serve overseas. You can work in the workplace and be recognized to receive employment insurance”. In other words, all sorts of things trigger off at age 16. But there is one thing they cannot do in our country and that is they cannot vote. What kind of a signal does that send to young people? Obviously the signal it sends is we do not have faith in their wisdom to cast an intelligent ballot.

A person who is incarcerated in jail can vote. A person who is mentally challenged and over the age of 18 can vote. But young people who are interested in politics, who are well versed in government issues, who have watched the issues and are concerned about their country and are age 16 or 17, we say to them, “Sorry. You can participate in political parties. You can decide who the leader of your party should be. You can work in campaigns. But you cannot vote”.

There seems to be a real problem here. As we look over Bill C-68 and ask ourselves whether or not young people who are 16 or 17 years old should be considered adults when it comes to accepting responsibility for their misdeeds, we ought to also consider whether these young people age 16 and 17 should be participating in the electoral process to decide on what the future of their country should be.

I realize this is a bit of a stretch in the discussion in terms of Bill C-68 but there is some connection. We are talking about the role of 16 year olds and 17 year olds in terms of accepting responsibility.

My friend in the Reform Party made a very eloquent case. He said that in his judgment young people age 16 and 17 who are in the workplace, and in that case the workplace was the selling of cocaine, certainly know the implications of their behaviour, and so it is part of the critical discussion. Let us face it. I agree with most of the provisions of this legislation. It is a major step forward in dealing with young people in a thoughtful and professional way. It is a more appropriate way than we have seen in the past.

There is one major fault which I should speak about before I go on any further. This debate gets us around the real causes of youth crime. If there is a fundamental cause of youth crime, it is poverty and the fact that people are not able to get the things they think are appropriate. They cannot afford them.

If we talked to most people incarcerated in Canadian jails, who are youthful, not necessarily 16 or 17 years old, but youthful, and we trace back their origins as young people, I would be surprised if most did not come from a life of poverty, but not all. That does not mean that poverty results in crime. I just say there is a correlation that we ought not to ignore.

What are the fundamental causes of crime? What are the fundamental causes of young people misbehaving? That is what this legislation fails to address.

I must say I support most clauses. The bill opens up the discussion in terms of what is appropriate for young people age 16 and 17. If we are saying that people age 16 and 17 ought to be held responsible for their behaviour, surely in legislation coming next we should say that young people age 16 and 17 should have the opportunity to vote in future Canadian elections.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-68 today.

It frightens me when I see what is happening these days. I think all my colleagues in the House have been shocked over what happened in Taber, Alberta, and in Colorado. We ask ourselves what has gone wrong. This did not happen when I was growing up as a child or when I was in high school.

Some time down the road whatever party is in government will have to address the charter of rights and freedoms because responsibilities were left out when it was drafted. Today everybody has their rights and their freedoms but for some reason we do not feel we have responsibilities, and we do.

To be fair to our young people, they have to know that they are accountable for what they do and that they have responsibilities. Someone said to me that no one would have the courage to even mention that. I have the courage to mention it. I pray that some day we will have a government that will address it.

I worked as an assistant to a pastor in a church back in Saint John, New Brunswick. Every night I would go home with a headache and so would he. One day I said to him “Reverend Dan, do you go home with a headache every evening?” He said “Yes, I do”. I said “Do you know what is wrong with us”, and he said “No”.

I told him I would take him out in the alleyway the next day at noon hour and he would see a man who was giving drugs to high school children. I said: “There must be about 35 of them. This has to stop”. He said “Elsie”, and I said “I have been watching”. It was marijuana.

I hear on the Hill about the possibility of decriminalizing smaller amounts of marijuana. I did a lot of research on it out of California and New York City. We do not want to decriminalize marijuana. We want to get children away from it as much as we can, because the minute they start to smoke up it goes into the cells of their brains.

I said to the pastor “Please, Dan, let me bring them in. I will buy the hot dogs. I will buy the pop. The church will not have to pay for it. Let's get them out of that alleyway”.

The first day I went out they all ran but five of them who were pretty cocky little men. They stood there and I said “I will not call the police, but tomorrow before he gives you those drugs, come on in and and eat with me and just talk”.

They did come in. Before we were through we had about 30 young people who came in every day. Later they thanked me for taking them out of the alleyway. They said “He gave it to us. We did not know it would hurt us”.

We asked those young people how they got along with their moms and dads. They did not get along with mom and dad because they were fighting with them to make okay what they were doing. They had guilty consciences.

A few years ago on Christmas eve my doorbell rang at home. A young man was standing there who said “Hi, Mrs. Wayne. How are you?” I said “I am fine. Who are you?” He said “Don't you remember me?” He looked familiar. He said “My name is Terry. Thanks, Mrs. Wayne, for taking me out of the alleyway”. I said “What are you doing today, Terry?” He said “I am a draftsman in Toronto, but if I had not gone out of the alleyway I probably would have been on cocaine or heroin”.

Each and every one of us have a lot to do. Everyone has their rights. Today's family has a difficult time. For some reason when we are here we forget about the traditional family and how mom, dad, nanny and grampy want some help with their children. They want us to adopt laws that are better for the children and will show them the right way.

Over 1.3 million children are living in poverty. I never thought I would ever live to see the day that I would have to stand in the House of Commons and talk about 1.3 million children living in poverty. We have to look at what has happened to society.

I have a little granddaughter and a little grandson. I often call my son and daughter-in-law when I am home and ask what they are watching on TV. My husband and I are in the TV repair business and of course they have TVs in their bedrooms, each one of them. They make sure grampy gets them there. I worry that they see violence and sex on TV which they should not be seeing at their age.

We talk about freedom. Everybody has freedom, but what about those children? Why do we not allow them to be children for a while like we were while growing up?

My party and I are worried about Bill C-68. My colleague from Charlottetown mentioned about when the government took out the port police. I was mayor at the time. I fought it hard because I told them that the minute the port police were gone they would see cocaine and heroin like never before. Members should it in my community. I cannot believe what has happened, I truly cannot.

My party is calling for lowering the minimum age at which young offenders may enter into the youth justice system. If they break the law they should have to take responsibility for it and we should know who they are. They should not be allowed to live next door without their neighbours knowing they are there. Definitely we should go public.

We need some form of rehabilitation. The new youth justice strategy will be administered by child welfare agencies and/or mental health providers. I also worked for many years with the mental health group in Saint John. They are not the ones to help these children. We need to take these children right from the time they are in our arms and build a better foundation for their future.

I do not want the people in mental health to deal with these children. I do not want them to go down that road. I want us to correct the situation right now. Over $6 billion were slashed from transfer payments for health care and social service programs. All of that is gone. My party believes that our focus should be on rehabilitation programs for young offenders which put the emphasis on basic education, social skills, personal responsibility and community. We must develop the programs.

The funding cuts have also affected the programs in place for early prevention of youth crime, but I say and will always say that if we help make the family unit stronger and protect it up here there will not be the youth crime we see today. Youth crime needs to be a major focus for our communities. Something needs to be done about the young people who have no regard for the laws of this great country. We need to help them that see there is another way to achieve goals.

I was at our airport in Ottawa at 6.40 Tuesday morning going home. I saw the police pulling up. I wondered what had happened. There was a mother at the airport. She was as high as a kite and she had her child with her. Members should have seen that little child's face. He was saying “Please, mother, please”. They took her out and put her in the police car, and the child was crying. That child does not have any hope for the future. There is no hope for the future because the mother has gone in the wrong direction.

All of us in the House know that our children are our future. We need to make sure they are secure and successful and become proud, productive members of society. It is our duty, each and everyone of us here, to help them stay on the right road. When they do not, we must take responsibility for not having helped, for not having adopted the right policies for them, and have a plan for dealing with them that is fair and makes them responsible for their actions.

Bill C-68 does not do that. I am sorry to say that and I ask my colleagues to take a second look at it.