Debates of March 26th, 2001

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the fact that we need to be able to divert non-violent offenders. Diversion should not occur from the judicial system because that is where they enter the system when they commit crimes. There are many community based programs, going back to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, that can be implemented for these young people. Some of them are probably living in the condition of delinquency.

We do not believe that for violent offenders we should be looking at some alternative measures, that there should be some community programs for violent offences. We believe that community based programs or alternate programs may be used for non-violent first time offenders.

Young people can make errors. They get mixed up in the wrong crowd or hang out with people who have bad reputations. They blend in and all of a sudden they find themselves involved in criminal activity on a first time offence. We should see how our communities can bring them back in.

The hon. member mentioned that there are already some community programs in place. Other community programs are being considered where the community itself, understanding their young people and the needs of the community, could probably do two things. They could educate them and help them integrate back into that community or for the safety of other young people could hold them in check.

We are not opposed to alternative measures, but we are opposed to those with third or fourth time offences going through alternative measures. We are opposed to violent criminal acts bypassing incarceration. They are placed in a community program where it is a slap on the wrist and we believe they should be incarcerated.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember a little nine year old boy coming down the street into my backyard one day. His pockets were bulging and overflowing with candy and stuff. When I queried him about it and asked him if he had any money to pay for it, he said no, that he had just helped himself.

What I did as a father was what any father should do with a child who has been caught shoplifting: I marched him back to the store. I made him apologize to the owner and give back the candy. Fortunately he had not started eating it so he was able to give it all back.

Is it not public disclosure of the things we do wrong one of the best ways for us to make sure it does not happen again? Is it not true that most of the crime in the country occurs under the cover of darkness or takes place when other people cannot see what is going on because it is human nature to not want to get caught doing something that is wrong?

With regard to the public disclosure of names of children who have done something wrong, is it not common sense that if we published the names of these children a shame factor would come into play? Would it help prevent them from doing it again, or has society gone so far away from the shame factor that it does not matter any more? I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the publication of names does two things. It helps to protect society. I talked about that in my speech. As a parent, the publication of names would allow me to be very careful whom my children hang around with. It would let me know about someone living down the street or close by in the community that I would not want my little girl or boy hanging around with.

I could then do one of two things. I could be there all the time that my child is with that individual, or I could step in say that I do not want my child hanging around with those types of people. The publication of names is a good idea.

The fear of their name being publicized creates a deterrent as well. If they commit a crime or are involved in a crime they do not want their community to know. The hon. member is 100% right. It serves as a deterrent and a deterrent that we should not question. Over and above that it give us another tool to protect society and our young people.

We need to publish the names of all violent offenders such as the individual the hon. member came in contact with. We are not asking for the publication of names of individuals who have shoplifted or stolen candy from a candy store. That is not what we are asking for. We are talking about violent offenders.

The school boards said that they wanted to know the names of those involved in crime. It was information they could use to educate. It could also protect society. Other members said names of violent offenders were already published but not to the extreme they would like to see. Some information is provided to schools to a certain degree, but not to the community to the point where I as a parent would know that young Johnny who just moved in is a convicted drug dealer.

The whole issue of drug dealing is not mentioned under violent offences. We should look at what drug dealers are doing to the country. That is another area that should be publicized. It is ripping our country apart. It is to a large degree driving young people into crime. Parents have said that we need to know who the drug dealers are and who is convicted of drug dealing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member. When he speaks of the issue of deterrence. I agree that general and specific deterrents are an important part of the messaging in the criminal justice system. It applies to youth as well.

Having looked at the bill he would know that it attempts to draw a line in the sand between violent and non-violent offences. It sets up the impression in the public sphere that somehow the bill would enable more to be done in terms of early intervention. There would be more programming available by virtue of the bill. There would be more attempts made to be proactive in our criminal justice system. All those things are certainly laudable goals. They are areas, he will agree, that we should be looking at.

The difficulty that exists in the bill is that the federal government through the Department of Justice has given no undertaking whatsoever to increase its share of the costs of the administration of justice, particularly pertaining to the young offenders system. As it currently exists in most provinces, the federal government is picking up less than half the cost.

My question for the hon. member is quite simple. If the new bill is raising expectations and putting in place mechanisms that put greater emphasis on early intervention and rehabilitation, goals that we should be trying to attain, yet at the same time is giving no commitment whatsoever to funding such programs, are we really not in some instances making things worse by dashing the hopes of dedicated people in probation and other dedicated workers who are trying to do more to help youth at risk?

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. As I read through Bill C-7 I did not understand the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction. A lot of what the hon. member is referring to is true. Funding is definitely lacking.

Our lead critic from Provencher spoke about the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction. As a new member in the House I have gone through the bill, but I have not been privy to all the witnesses and all the committee meetings. I have heard concern that we are stepping into provincial jurisdiction and that we are putting expectations on the provinces. We are not willing, as we used to say down on the farm, to put our money where our mouth is.

It is a huge problem when we download to provinces programs which perhaps they should be in charge of and there is no money available to help follow up. The whole thing should be looked at as far as the federal portion of funding is concerned. If they are willing to come with these programs, the government had better be willing to back it up with its wallet.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time.

This debate by and large generates more heat than light and has, over the past seven years of these last three parliaments, generated a great deal of heat. I do not know how much light we actually came to over the course of those three parliaments, but this occupied the 35th parliament. The justice committee reported in May 1997 on this issue and that formed the basis for the 36th parliament's Bill C-68.

In the course of dealing with Bill C-68, parliament was prorogued and that bill became Bill C-3. In the course of dealing with Bill C-3, we in the justice committee had extensive hearings, as did the previous justice committee, hearings that were nationwide. In the course of those hearings, we heard from pretty well every corner of the country and from every interested jurisdiction. Bill C-3 has now become Bill C-7 and we are now in the 37th parliament and back to debating this issue.

While I have some discomfort at times about time allocation, there comes a time when time should be allocated. I believe this is one of those occasions where we finally have to deal with the evidence we have heard, the testimony we have heard and the manner in which the government has put it forward in a bill after extensive hearings.

May I say that at the point where we were just about to get down to clause by clause in the justice committee, the Bloc Quebecois decided that would be a good time to filibuster. The Bloc took up something in the order of 27 hours of the committee's time on a filibuster which ultimately had to be returned to the House, with the net result that the bill was not heard and not dealt with prior to the election in November 2000.

I submit that we are not going to make everybody happy. There are times at which government just has to be government. Parliament does its thing and expresses its view because, after all, this is a talking shop. We do talk and we do advise, but ultimately it is the government that makes decisions.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice on her willingness to listen to evidence and to change significant portions of the bill based upon the evidence she heard at committee.

The first change is in the area of the preamble and principles of the bill. Members will notice that clause 3 has been changed. Again, this is as a direct result of what she heard at committee.

The first statement of principle will now read as follows:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to

(i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour,

(ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and

(iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence—

As I say, a number of people before the committee said that we had the principles in the preamble as a declaration of principle and that was not correct. The Minister of Justice listened and the Minister of Justice has put that into the bill.

Second, the importance of timely intervention is recognized in the principles. In some respects that may be stating the obvious, but in testimony after testimony we heard that a youth would commit an offence in May of one year and not be dealt with until a year or 18 months later. At the best of times one has difficulty bringing together the consequences of one's activity with the punishment, and the result is that the youth loses all appreciation for the justice system, so the importance of timely intervention is right in the declaration of principle. Again, the minister changed this.

There is another change. A reference to the needs and level of development of the youth has been added to the principles. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(iii) reads:

(iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family—

and so on.

Those are significant additions and, again, are based upon evidence we heard. Again I have to commend the Minister of Justice. She listened to the testimony. The changes were made in the bill.

When she attempts to come before the committee members opposite filibuster. I cannot quite see how that is being a responsible parliamentarian. Members are forever saying that they have no impact on legislation. Frankly, the justice committee did have an impact on this legislation. Frankly, the justice committee spent a lot of time listening to the evidence. Frankly, the minister reacted with significant amendments. Yet members opposite say that we have to debate this some more and that members opposite are irrelevant and do not have any impact on legislation.

With reference to the interests of victims, that was probably a flaw in the previous bill and has been referred to in the preamble of the bill where it has been incorporated by reference. It states:

Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice system that commands respect, takes into account the interests of victims, fosters responsibility and ensures accountability—

I do not know what else can be said in terms of how to incorporate those kinds of principles into a bill.

We heard a great deal of testimony about how Canada treats its youth when they come in contact with the law. What became clear in the course of listening to our evidence was that we overrely on incarceration, particularly on incarceration for aboriginal youth. I can recall the testimony of one youth justice of the Northwest Territories who gave a rather sad commentary on our youth justice system. He said that one of the reasons he puts aboriginal youth in jail is that he knows they have no real alternatives, that they either go back on the street to dysfunctional families or go back on the street to no families at all. As a consequence, he saw it as his only option to put kids in jail. That is a pretty sad commentary on our situation.

Canadians would be interested to know that we incarcerate youth at twice the American rate. That is a pretty shocking statistic and is frankly something I had not heard prior to becoming a parliamentarian. That contrasts quite distinctly with the fact that Americans incarcerate adults at four times the rate Canadians do.

The other point of interest that came up in testimony had to do with learning disabilities. It became clear that a disproportionate number of youth offenders have learning disabilities. The low estimate was something in the order of 35%. The higher estimate was something in the order of 80%. More than one out of every two young offenders cannot read. In this society, people who cannot read will likely be marginalized. If they are marginalized, they are likely going to be hanging out with people they should not be hanging out with and doing things they should not be doing. The consequence is that they will be involved in conflicts with the law.

We also heard that young offenders drop out of school at twice the rate of their peers. At some level this is not really news and at another level it is a profound recognition of societal failure, which brings us into conflict between the needs of criminal justice and the needs of social justice. That is a kind of philosophical divide that we all straddle in some manner or another.

One of the pieces of testimony that really caught my attention was that of professor Allan Leishfield of the University of Western Ontario.

I know he is not from Queen's, Mr. Speaker, but he still probably has something to say in this area.

He states:

There is simply not enough evidence to support the notion that incapacitation through incarceration of relatively large numbers of youth is an effective way to promote community safety. The second is partly drawn from the first and that is that the cost of providing custody for large numbers of youth is considerable and not justified given the poor outcomes recorded in the vast majority of the programs that rely on incapacitation.

Members opposite should know that it costs about $106,000 a year to keep a youth in jail, whereas referrals to other non-custodial situations cost somewhere in the order of about $9,500.

When something is costly and is not working, there is something wrong. When we are faced with that situation we have to look at other alternatives.

I respectfully submit that this bill has looked at other alternatives, that this has been completely and thoroughly debated by members opposite, and that it is time to deal with the issues that criminal justice presents to all of us.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his intervention. It is a pleasure to again be back on the justice committee with him.

I have one question with regard to the provisions for what is essentially parole for young offenders, that is, mandatory supervision, which would equate to half of the length of the incarceration period of the sentence.

The initial idea was to mandate one-half the period. In other words, if there were a three year sentence, one year of that would have to be under supervision as mandated. There were some objections raised to that. I can understand that. I think we could all agree that for certain offenders, especially violent offenders, we would want to see some period of supervision after an incarceration period.

However, some objections were raised to that because it in effect reduced the incarceration period, which a lot of people were saying was too short as it was for violent offences. The government in its wisdom has decided to give that discretion back to the judge, which in effect now takes away any form of mandatory supervision for the most violent offenders.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that. What we would suggest is to increase the actual length of time of the sentence and impose the mandatory supervision. To reduce the incarceration period and then take away the supervision for the offenders who probably need it the most does not seem like much of a solution.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the presumptive offences, an area that is actually a fairly significant change in the bill. Now crown attorneys and defence attorneys will not argue as to whether a case should be tried or not tried in adult court. The crown will simply ask for an adult sentence at the end of the presentation of the evidence.

The interesting anomaly was raised in evidence as to whether this would in effect, if there were an imposition of an adult sentence, result in the reduction of incarceration time, the time actually in incarceration, and a period of supervision. There was that anomaly.

I do not have a good answer for the hon. member's inquiry. I think it is a legitimate issue to raise. That was an area about which we all had some questions. It was rather a pity that the last committee did not get down to debating significant issues such as the hon. member raises. I am hoping that we do have the opportunity at the committee to raise that particular issue and arrive at a reasonable solution.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to try to correct some of the information that has been circulating on the opposition benches since Bill C-7 was tabled.

Some are suggesting that Bill C-7 is too tough on young offenders, whereas others are criticizing it for being toothless. Bill C-7 is a departure from these two contradictory philosophical approaches and strikes a balance resting on three closely interconnected and complementary elements: first, crime prevention; second, accountability for young offenders; and third, the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders.

We have been consistently hearing comments to the effect that Quebec has taken the approach of treating its young offenders well, an approach which would be jeopardized by the implementation of Bill C-7. This is not quite the case.

Statistics show that Quebec tends to put its young offenders into custody even for minor offences. Statistics also show that between 1997 and 1998 Quebec was the province with the biggest increase in its incarceration rate, which jumped by 6%.

Everybody can benefit from Bill C-7. At the national level, our justice system's way of dealing with young offenders is such that our young people are detained in custody four times as often as adults and, at the international level, from 10 to 15 times as often as young Australians or Europeans.

Bill C-7 recognizes the difficult times some of our young people are experiencing. Although criminal legislation by itself cannot be an appropriate response to their problems, it can provide the necessary tools to bring in both health and youth protection agencies, and remedy the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency. This is exactly what Bill C-7 does.

The youth criminal justice act, Bill C-7, would allow the use of health professionals at any stage of the process to assess if the young person has health problems, physical or mental disorders, psychological problems, emotional problems or learning disabilities, or if he or she is mentally retarded.

The diagnosis could then be used in sentencing or in determining extrajudicial measures to be applied. Bill C-7 even provides for a custody and supervision system that includes an intensive rehabilitation and reintegration program.

The bill would also enable a youth court to submit the case of a young offender to a youth protection agency so it could determine if he or she needed its services.

However, detention or custody cannot be used as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures. Despite what some people say, putting young people in prison or in youth centres, even though it may sometimes be necessary, is not the only effective way of fighting crime.

We reject the statement that custody may be necessary to treat a young offender with problems even though the offence does not require such a strict penalty. Our response to that argument is threefold.

First, it is not necessary to have a young person in custody to ensure that he or she receives appropriate treatment. Treatment is the responsibility of the health and welfare system or the youth protection system, but it is not the responsibility of the criminal justice system.

Second, detaining a young person just because his or her particular condition requires an action by the health or child protection system, in cases where the offence is a minor one, would be contrary to the principle of fairness and equity.

Finally, this kind of approach would penalize a youth simply because of some unfortunate circumstances, not to mention the stigma of detention that could limit a young offender in his or her endeavours to become a productive citizen.

Bill C-7 was criticized for being prejudicial to what Quebec took over 20 years to build. As an elected representative from Quebec and a former president of the Quebec Bar Association, I approve the criminal justice system for young persons set out in Bill C-7. The bill commands respect but also protects the interests of the victims, promotes responsibility by providing positive opportunities and focusing on rehabilitation, keeps harsh sentences for the most serious offences and limits detention for non violent young persons.

Finally, let me review some of the elements of the bill that would improve upon the current system and reinforce the strength of the Quebec model while enhancing its approach.

In no specific order, these elements are the following. First, there is the exclusive jurisdiction of the youth justice court and the fact that young offenders would no longer be transferred to adult courts, as is currently done.

Second, an adult sentence would only be imposed after a person is found guilty and the names have been published.

Third, in clause 4, the bill creates some kind of framework for the discretionary power of the youth workers on the front line. This is set out in clauses 4 to 12.

The following point concerns the emphasis on diversion and the means available to stakeholders to use it effectively.

Another point has to do with the notion of time, which is so important when correcting criminal behaviour. The current legislation, I note, is silent on this point. All signs are that Quebec will improve its response time, or at least maintain it, when faced with the requirement to act rapidly and effectively.

The following point has to do with the distinction made between the majority of offenders, who commit non-violent crimes, and the minority, whose crimes are violent.

Another point concerns the clarity of the objectives and general guidelines for each stakeholder in the system at all phases of the procedure, and the specific principles applicable to a particular stage or intervention.

A wide array of measures is available to stakeholders, whether they be the police, the crown, judges or social workers, to help young offenders take responsibility and adopt behaviour that is consistent with the values of our society.

The following point has to do with the recognition given frontline workers for their contribution to the youth criminal justice system.

The creation of committees of citizens, to be called youth justice committees, on which the bill confers duties and powers of recommendation, supervision, support, information and advice, is another point contained in the bill, as is the possibility of convening conferences to deal with a specific case. This possibility is given to a police officer, the crown and the judge.

Such a meeting would bring together the victim and his or her family, the young offender and his or her family, community organizations, school authorities, and other individuals concerned in determining specific solutions in a given case.

The bill also contains the principle of recognition of the victim and the obligation to forge partnerships with the community and the community organizations for a better understanding and resolution of the problems surrounding youth crime.

In conclusion, let us keep in mind that, in support of the efforts to implement the youth criminal justice act, Quebec would receive a substantial portion of the budget allocated for this, as well as an increase in the federal government contribution to the administration of justice.

I recently wrote an open letter in response to a letter from the president of the Junior Bar of Quebec. I sent this open letter to La Presse and invite them to publish it.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always respected the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi but today I was both surprised and disappointed by his comments.

He based part of his arguments on the fact that he is a former president of the Quebec Bar Association. Listening to him, I got the impression that he was talking more like a Liberal member trying to support a minister who finds herself in a rather awkward situation.

As a Quebecer, he is well aware of. I know that he reads the newspapers. I was not surprised to see that La Presse did not publish his letter because La Presse must have realized that it did not reflect the consensus in Quebec.

Let me ask the following question of this former president of the bar association. I think La Presse should have noted that the national assembly, of which his brother is a member, agrees that this bill makes no sense in Quebec.

All the organizations, the youth centres, the representatives of the young people and the CLSCs say so. Everybody says so. There is a consensus, and the member for Berthier—Montcalm has shown this on a number of occasions. I even did so in the previous parliament. There was a very broad consensus among all the organizations concerned with young people in Quebec. They say that this law makes no sense, that is was introduced simply to please a certain western lobby, which wants measures to be more severe.

He surprises me especially where he expresses the statistics in national terms and notes increases in certain statistics. At the same time, he speaks of a 6% increase in detentions in Quebec, finding that this is serious and significant. Yet, the rate of detention is low—that is the way to see it—in fact, it is lower in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. He said there was a slight increase and yet this is where there are the fewest detentions in Canada. His making a point of saying “It increased by 6%” in order to justify his remarks, I find unacceptable.

Is the member aware of the list of all those opposing his bill? Could he list, by memory, those involved with young people in Quebec who agree with what he says? Could he name a dozen organizations in Quebec that would agree? Does he remember all those opposed, when in fact there is a consensus, which includes the Quebec National Assembly and his own brother?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has a little trouble with shipbuilding in his riding, but in this case I think he is missing the boat.

I draw the attention of the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and particularly of the member for Berthier—Montcalm to the bill before us. Earlier, I spoke about correcting some of the misinformation our Bloc Quebecois friends are circulating right and left.

I urge them to read the bill carefully. Let us begin with the first page. It says:

WHEREAS members of society share a responsibility to address the developmental challenges and the needs of young persons and to guide them into adulthood;

That is the first “Whereas”. The second paragraph says:

WHEREAS communities, families, parents—

What do they have against families and parents?

—families, parents and others concerned with the development of young persons should, through multi-disciplinary approaches, take reasonable steps to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, to respond to the needs of young persons, and to provide guidance and support to those at risk of committing crimes;

That is the second “Whereas”. I could go on with the other paragraphs, which are along those lines. Members need to read the bill and to understand what is in the bill.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank our justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for the work he has done on this which extends way beyond this parliament.

As hon. members well know, this bill has been introduced and reintroduced. In fact, it goes back to three parliaments ago when it was originally brought in to update the Young Offenders Act, which we know has been a very troubled piece of legislation since its inception. I point out that the Young Offenders Act has gone beyond the life of young offenders. It is 17 years old.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out on a number of occasions that the present Young Offenders Act does not deserve much of its present reputation. The government could do a number of things to improve the act.

He pointed out that Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, from the outset looked very encouraging. It talks about early intervention. It talks about preventive measures on youth who could be embarking on a life of crime. That is of course what we want to prevent. A reversal of one's behaviour can come about only by interventionist activities on the part of professionals that can help steer young people in the right direction. That is very commendable.

However it is the shear complexity of the bill with which most of us have some major concerns. The previous speaker had a copy of the bill in his hands. The physical size of the bill is double the size and the complexity of the existing legislation, the Young Offenders Act.

Quoting from a previous speaker, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, in remarks made in the House on February 14:

This particular bill in its current form is so complex, so convoluted and cumbersome that were it to be enacted it its current form, the delays, the interpretations, the legal jargon and the manipulations that would result would be astronomical.

He and other members have mentioned the convoluted nature of this piece of legislation. That has been borne out by judges and others who have worked in the youth criminal justice system over the years. A number of opinions have been rendered on that. They simply say that interpretation of the act would be very difficult for some of our most skilled members of the legal profession.

We have other examples of what we should do and how the bill could be reconstructed, but basically the problem we see is that the present government has refused to give to police the tools needed to do their jobs and the proper resources to effectively implement the present act, let alone any new act. The government's failure to address the problem has allowed the Young Offenders Act to become synonymous with the problems involving youth crime in Canada. There is a need to restore public confidence in the system.

As I mentioned earlier, we have had over seven years of delay and numerous promises in regard to the bill. Originally the government, back in the early nineties, introduced it as Bill C-3. That was replaced with Bill C-68 in the last parliament. We are still talking but nothing is happening.

The bill was criticized by all parties, including the Liberal Party, and all youth justice experts around the country. The reasons were that the bill was too long, too complex and too expensive for the provinces to implement. If the provinces do not have the financial resources to implement the bill, what good would it be, despite its good intentions?

As a result of the frustration of members of parliament in the last parliament during committee hearings on the bill, the member for Berthier—Montcalm filibustered for 27 hours in a determined effort to derail this particular bill. The bill to which we are speaking has only minor technical amendments. Experts still think the bill is too long, too expensive and too complicated.

One of the models we often point to is the province of Quebec. Certainly in terms of the treatment of young offenders, it has a lot of which to be proud. Quebec is certainly miles ahead of the rest of the provinces. The bill attempts to reflect that but without giving the provinces the resources to do it. It is going to complicate and exaggerate the differences between a province like Ontario with that of Quebec.

Bill C-7 does not offer any real disincentive for youth criminals. The Liberals say that crime rates are falling and that opposition parties are only fearmongering when speaking about the need to crack down on violent crime in Canada. Last July Statistics Canada announced that crime rates had fallen to their lowest level in 20 years. However, it did not mention youth crime.

The overall decline in crime masks a sharp increase in violent crime and a staggering rise in youth crime. While less serious crimes have petered off, violent crime is actually up by 57% over the last 20 years and violent youth crime is up by over 77% in 10 years. It is quite obvious that this is not fearmongering. It is a real problem when we look at an increase of 77% in 10 years.

I will not end there because the numbers get even more disturbing. Violent crime by young girls has risen 127% since 1988, with most of those statistics coming from categories such as murder and hostage taking. Obviously we have read about stories like that. There was one in the National Post on July 20, 2000, if anyone is interested.

Lack of accountability for the crimes committed by young offenders is no deterrent. Even when young criminals are convicted, they are often given a custodial sentence which can often be served at home. They are sentenced on average to a single month. It is not much wonder that 40% of all young offenders are repeat offenders.

Almost half of the convicted youths between the years 1998-99 were simply placed on probation. Seventy-five per cent of custody sentences were for three months or less, and 90% of those sentences were for six months or less. Only 2% of these convicted offenders got more than a year. We are talking about serious crime, not petty crimes. Only 0.1% of youth crimes made it to adult court between 1998-99. I believe the last point or the numbers are precise. Forty-eight per cent of those convicted had at least one previous conviction.

If we ask frontline police officers if things are getting easier, their answer is absolutely not. They say so called minor youth crimes are not being reported due to an overworked police force that is stretched to deal with too much crime. Too many young offenders are being dealt with through what they call extra judicial measures. They do not become part of the government's statistics. If it is not reported, it did not happen.

Frontline victim groups are upset that under Bill C-7 crimes such as common assault are not considered by the government to be violent in nature. That would not be included in the violent crime statistics, thus helping to further massage the government's statistics to support its theory that violent crime is decreasing.

It is hard to believe that children under 12 years old are committing serious crimes and many of them are not being charged at all. I would like to give the House an example.

On August 23, 2000, Ms. Margaret Moore, an elderly woman in Calgary, was mugged and beaten at noon hour by two young girls aged 11 and 13. The 13 year old faces one charge of robbery and the 11 year old is too young to be charged under the Young Offenders Act. That is an important point to make. It is obviously a flaw in the Young Offenders Act.

Another example is an 11 year old boy walked into an Edmonton bank in broad daylight a few weeks ago and proceeded to rob it. The young boy was wearing a ball cap, sunglasses and carried a knapsack. He handed the teller a note demanding money. Being only 11 years old, the system has no means of dealing with this young offender.

Children under 12 and older youth are expected to be dealt with through provincially administered programs which are supposed to receive 50% of their funding from the federal government. Obviously they do not because every province, including my home province, is complaining about the lack of funds from Ottawa to help in rehabilitation. Under the present government, the provinces have seen their 50% share drop to as little as 30%. This decreased funding equates to children not receiving the services they need and rehabilitation does not occur. That is the key. If we want to look to any part of the country where rehabilitation has worked we would obviously look to the province of Quebec.

Victims of youth crime could give us stories behind these statistics. They could give us stories about the lives that have been taken and the hurt that has been caused. They could give us stories about the victims who have been left behind to fight for recognition from a Liberal justice system which is concerned more with the rights of the young offender than with the pain of the victims and the need to be accountable to the public, which is scared that these young offenders will continue to get off with a slap on the wrist.

There are not many weaknesses in Bill C-7. However, if we are reintroducing or bringing in a new bill, we have to provide the provinces with the tools and resources to implement it. The bill simply puts an impossible burden on the backs of the provinces, especially the poorer ones.

We have a couple of things that could happen.

First, judges could be given more power to impose mandatory treatment or therapy for troubled youth. The key is obviously treatment and therapy.

Second, serious violent crime offences involving young offenders could be automatically transferred to adult courts.

Third, we should enact a parental responsibility act to make the parents of young offenders financially responsible for the criminal acts of their children.

Fourth, we should lower the age of accountability to include violent criminals of all ages. Currently, as we well know, violent offenders below the age of 12 face no punishment for their crimes. At least in cases involving serious crime, the justice system should be able to bring a child under the age of 12 into the youth justice system in the same manner that a young offender can be transferred into the adult system for serious crimes.

Our party, although we risk being accused of this when we speak in such terms, does not intend to incarcerate youths in inhuman or cruel facilities. None of us want that. However we do support mandatory youth access to adult criminal rehabilitation resources and increased accountability for violent youth crime.

Through such services we hope to prevent young adults from continuing a life of anti-social criminal activity. We can make a positive change in the area of law enforcement by making a commitment to action in at least three areas.

First, we should reform the youth criminal justice system.

Second, we should build safe communities through the promotion of anti-violence and by providing adult mentors for our young people, especially our youth at risk.

Third, we should give law enforcement agencies the resources they need to do their jobs.

In the last parliament, as the House is well aware, we put forward a number of amendments. We will do the same in this parliament. We put forth amendments to Bill C-3 and Bill C-68, and we plan to do the same for Bill C-11.

The bill should be scrapped, but Liberal members are obviously unwilling to listen to the public. We hope they will at least take a close look at our amendments which aim at improving this piece of legislation.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite made a comment that there are not many weaknesses in Bill C-7. I agree.

He refers to children 11 and under and says there are no repercussions. Is he not aware that all provinces, to my knowledge, have youth protection agencies that intervene on a regular basis for those individuals? Does he really want to jail a 10 year old?

His other point was about the frustration of our police officers. Under the act our police officers will be the gatekeepers. They will be at the front end. Under the advice of crown attorneys they will be able to use their discretion. Is that not good? Will it not address some of the concerns of the police at this time?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the point the member made. However the point we are making, if one follows the points our justice critic has made on the bill over the past months, is that the bill is fine in a perfect world. However nothing in the bill guarantees funding to allow provinces to encourage the counselling and mentoring of youths through various agencies.

We truly believe that must be part of it. If one thing has hurt our youth justice system more than anything else, it is the lack of funding. If the corrective approach is prevention, counselling and identifying children at risk, the hon. member has made a good point. However we must have the resources to do that. Unless they are there it simply will not happen.

Not only are our police forces going flat out to do the best, but so are our counsellors. I was a teacher at one time. The school systems simply do not have the resources to help young children at risk. If they did, it could make all the difference in the world.

If the bill goes through, I hope the money would flow through the provinces to make sure the bill could be enacted or enforced and that we could prevent youth crime from occurring in the first place. If it did occur we would have the rehabilitation services to move those young people on to better things.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Reflecting on the fact that the member was a school teacher, the association of school board trustees was here last week lobbying each and every one of us to do something about the notification provisions.

I would like to hear the member's comments on the desire of teachers and school administrators that it be mandatory or automatic that they be notified when there is a violent offender or sex offender in the classroom. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been out of the teaching profession more than 25 years but I know some things have not changed in the school system. When there is a disruptive influence in the classroom everyone is hurt. Unless we have the resources to deal with the individual causing the disruption, everyone suffers. That has not changed. I know teachers have concerns about that.

With respect to the issue of violence I know the member has spent a tremendous amount of time on the bill. He is speaking from experience that none of us, thank goodness, have ever had to live through in terms of violence and youth crime and so on. However when we look at the shootings in various high schools and institutions over the last number of years, especially in the U.S. but also in Canada, the common theme is that they were done by troubled people who had no one to help them.

Without such help nothing changes because we have no idea, or we cannot say categorically, what kinds of homes those young people come from. Obviously some come from what we consider good homes. What happens behind those walls none of us know. I know parents do their best to deal with this, but teachers need professionals and support staff they can depend on. That would avoid a lot of this.

I know some young people are the victims of teasing, taunting and peer groups and so on. However putting up with young people who are subjected to that, and who then vent their emotions on an entire classroom, takes a lot out of a teacher.

The teaching profession, unless I am wrong, would be very supportive of interventionist moneys or resources to help the problem. Unless the problem is addressed and there is honest dialogue in terms of what is happening in the classroom, nothing will change. We must pay attention to the problem.

Let us put resource people into the classroom. Let us make the commitment to do that. Such commitment means moneys from Ottawa. We must identify the problem and the federal government must finally stand up and say yes, we have the resources to help. That is what we want. We want help in the classrooms of small towns, communities and cities across Canada. We want something to happen.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I note, in relation to the principles and purpose of youth sentencing, that subsection 38(1) asserts:

The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is to contribute to the protection of society by holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Does the hon. member agree that this is a reasonable and sensible approach to the sentencing of youth criminals? We are talking about people who have been convicted at this stage and are going on to sentencing.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, to sum up, we are in favour of rehabilitation and identifying youth at risk. For the problem to end and violent crime to be addressed, a number of things must happen. Problems must be identified before they happen. There must be a sense of deterrent. There must be financial resources to allow all provinces to have a solution that would work from one end of Canada to the other. It would truly mean a financial commitment by the Government of Canada.

However the key to the entire problem is rehabilitation. We must provide the resources to bring about rehabilitation in the classrooms, and we must provide police forces the tools with which to work. Unfortunately it often comes down to financial resources, and that must be part and parcel of the package once the bill is passed.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today regarding youth criminal justice. The bill will replace the Young Offenders Act. It is a key part of the Government of Canada's youth justice renewal initiative, an initiative that is very important.

I had occasion recently to speak with a person involved in the issue of restorative justice. We talked about the importance and the challenge of ensuring that justice is swift while at the same time guaranteeing the rights of an accused person. That is a difficult balance. We want to see matters brought to justice very quickly.

It is important for any person, but particularly young people, to understand there are consequences to a criminal act and to know what the consequences are. It is important that such acts be dealt with swiftly. Their consequences must be swift and the person responsible be held to account. They must face the victim if that is appropriate. They must face the community and confront the fact that their act has had a negative and terrible impact on the community. That is important.

If young offenders are to overcome and get beyond what they have done, recognize they have done something wrong and grow and learn and change, they must be confronted fairly quickly with what has happened. That is why restorative justice is a step in the right direction, and I am glad the Department of Justice is working on it.

However the other side of the challenge is that while justice must be swift we must ensure the rights of an accused person are protected. As a judge said many years ago, it is better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. That is one of the golden threads of our legal justice system in Canada.

The new act will incorporate some very important new considerations. It will incorporate the initiative's new approach to youth justice and it will form the backbone of a major restructuring of the youth justice system. This restructuring has been going on since 1988. Let us look at the key elements of the new bill and the principles it applies.

The preamble of the bill underlines the values, rights and responsibilities both of society and of young people in relation to youth crime. Clearly we do have rights and responsibilities on both sides and our values are important. What we are trying to do, obviously, is to teach or to inject those values, so to speak, into young people. We are not always talking about people who are absolutely devoid of values. Often we are talking about people who have strayed from those values, who have learned the basics but perhaps have made an important and fundamental error, in some cases a very serious error, and have strayed dramatically from those values. However, in some cases, yes, they are people who do not appear to show any of the values that we think are important as a society.

The bill sets out the most important objectives of the youth criminal justice system. The objectives are to prevent crime, to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into society, and to ensure meaningful consequences for offences committed by young people so that they have the consequence of being confronted with their actions, of being brought to account to face the victim and recognize what they have done to someone, and also to face their community and recognize the impact on the community of what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you, by the way, that I will be splitting my time with the minister of state for youth.

The principles of the bill recognize that these elements, pursued together, are the best way to protect the public and promote safer communities over the long term.

Let me talk for a moment about the provisions of the bill regarding sentencing. I mentioned a few minutes earlier, and I want to repeat, what subclause 38(1) of the bill says. I think it is a very important provision of this bill. It is important to understand what the bill is all about and what the idea of sentencing is all about within the new youth criminal justice bill.

Subclause 38(1) asserts that the purpose of imposing a youth sentence is:

—to contribute to the protection of society by holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

That is very important. We have to consider that. Those who feel, for example, that all people under the age of 18 who are convicted of a criminal act should be in adult institutions, in adult prisons, ought to consider the impact of that. Surely if we put a 15 year old or a 14 year old or a 13 year old into an adult prison facility, what we are doing, in effect, is helping him or her to be trained to become a more proficient criminal. Surely that is not an objective we ought to be endorsing or embracing for our youth criminal justice system.

As this legislation states, the key purpose of youth sentences is to hold young people accountable for their crimes. That is vital. It is vital that they be held accountable and have to confront what they have done. If there is any chance for reform or rehabilitation, they must first confront and be confronted with what they have done.

The other key purpose, of course, is to contribute to the protection of society. How can this be achieved? There are a number of goals that the bill sets out. For instance, it sets out that we can achieve these goals through interventions that are just; there must be justice in these interventions. This can be accomplished through community intervention, with incarceration for the most serious crimes. Community intervention may work well in some cases. I think it is important that we give it a try.

We have already seen the idea of restorative justice, whereby young people are confronted by the community and particularly by the victims they have injured and are required to make restoration, not only to the victim but also to the community at large. A crime is an attack not only on one person, on one family or on one resident, but is in effect an attack on our society and on the community in which the attack takes place.

Another important goal is that we ensure meaningful consequences. Clearly the youth must recognize the severity of the crime, and the punishment should suit the crime. These are very important objectives.

Finally, it must promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

It seems to me that the bill goes a long way toward achieving those objectives. Provisions in the bill will encourage community based sentences where appropriate, such as, for example, compensation for victims, community service and supervision in the community.

It will allow the courts to impose adult sentences upon conviction when certain criteria are met. It creates the presumption that adult sentences will be given to young people 14 and older who are found guilty of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault or who are repeat serious violent offenders. That is a very important provision, this presumption of an adult sentence, because it means that for serious crimes they will do serious time. It means that young offenders can expect this if they are involved in serious violent crime.

At the same time, because we recognize that there are different situations in different parts of the country and we recognize that different provinces have had success with different models in relation to these issues, the provinces will have increased flexibility in regard to the age at which this presumption will apply within their jurisdictions.

Lastly, it will create a new, intensive, rehabilitative custody and supervision sentence for the most violent high risk youth so that they get the treatment they need. That is so important. Not only is it important that they be confronted with their actions but, particularly with the most violent youth, there is a real need for serious treatment. These are people who obviously have severe problems and we have a great challenge in order to have a hope that people like this may at some point go back into society. It is important that we find a way to give them good treatment.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. colleague across the way. He refers to clause 38 under “Sentencing, Purpose and Principles”. I would ask the hon. member to explain to the House why we do not see any mention of deterrence or denunciation.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked about justice and I have talked about meaningful consequences. I think that when we talk about meaningful consequences, we talk about holding people to account and about the strong impact.

In fact, a moment ago I mentioned something that relates directly to this. I talked about adult sentences being given to people who are 14 years of age or older and who are found guilty of serious crimes. Clearly that is deterrence. Clearly deterrence is part of this bill and part of what the provisions provide.

Perhaps the member does not find it in this particular phrase, but it talks about “holding a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person” et cetera. Those consequences are publicly known. The fact that there are these consequences becomes public. The person's peer group is certainly going to be aware of these consequences. That is clearly a deterrent to further actions of this kind.

At the same time, there not only needs to be deterrence but also treatment and rehabilitation. There cannot be the imbalance of having one and not the other. There has to be that combination. That is the challenge before us.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Brunswick Southwest suggested to the House that there should be criminal sanctions to a parent for the offences of his or her child.

I would like to ask the member for Halifax West if he feels that punishing a bad parent is going to make him or her a good parent.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this brings up a very interesting challenge for society, because how do we legislate good parenting? On the other hand, how do we penalize parents who have maybe been good parents when, in spite of their best efforts, one of their children has engaged in criminal acts, particularly in violent criminal acts?

I do not believe that this permits simple solutions. It might be attractive to say to throw the parent in jail or to penalize the parent in some severe way and that would solve the problem. I am not convinced that it will. I am not convinced that this suggestion encompasses the reality that is out there, the reality of parents who have been good parents or of parents who have done their best but who may have limited ability, for whatever reason, because of their own background, to provide the parenting we would like to see them provide, to provide the level of parenting we would like to see ideally.

It seems to me that the idea of penalizing the parent is one that is not well founded. At the same time, yes, we want to ensure that parents do a good job. Perhaps there is some way that provinces could improve parenting training and perhaps there are other things that could be done.

Clearly for children who are under the age of 12, where there are consequences under provincial laws, in some cases a child may be taken away from his or her parents because of this kind of situation. However, to say that we can impose on one person a penalty for what someone else has done is so contrary to the fundamental principles of our justice system and of our legal system historically that I think it makes no sense. I do not think we can we can go that far or accept that kind of a leap in that direction.

I think this bill does provide a good balance between the challenge of bringing the youth to justice quickly and the challenge of making sure that the accused's rights are guaranteed.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to speak today on the new youth criminal justice act.

Moderation is an ideal of virtue. Aristotle is said to have defined virtue as the middle path between extremes of excess and deficiency. It is the way of my party. It is the middle path that we have chosen in placing the bill before the House.

The youth criminal justice act replaces and improves upon the deficiencies of the Young Offenders Act. It promotes what Canadians want to see in the youth justice system: accountability, respect, responsibility and fairness. The act intends to promote these values by protecting the public and by preventing crime.

It ensures meaningful consequences for the full range of youth crime and, perhaps most important, ensures rehabilitating youth so that they can turn their lives around. It represents what some would call a tougher but more just approach to tackling youth crime.

It is not an excessive bill. It is a measured response to practical realities. We have not caved in to the banal desires of the members of the parties opposite whose quick fix proposals to youth crime would be neither quick nor effective. Might does not make right and justice should not be defined simply by whoever is strong enough to enforce it. We have an obligation to look beyond an individual criminal act to seek solutions, to seek justice.

The opposition, left to its own interests, would have us believe that compulsion is the only reason for obedience to authority, that jacking up sentences and restricting the youth justice process will lead to the reduction of youth crime. The facts simply do not support their arguments. If it were so, we would not have seen an overall reduction in crime rates in the last decade. Canada's national crime rate fell by 5% in 1999, the eighth consecutive annual decline. The youth crime rate is down 4% from 1997-98 and down 13% from 1992-93.

While last year's overall crime rate was down by 4% in the Northwest Territories, youth crime is up, as it is in many parts of northern Canada.

These reductions have not resulted from tougher sanctions but from improvements made in education and in living conditions. The higher youth crime rates in the north and among aboriginal people poses a much more difficult issue. Tougher sentences will not reduce the number of young aboriginal offenders. There are other mitigating factors. Many of them are social and others have to do with perhaps other disabilities that could be better addressed in another forum.

Improving the living conditions of northerners, including our large aboriginal population, is the way to reduce poverty and crime rates. It is a painful fact that aboriginal people represent an alarming 15% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the general population. It is more alarming when one considers that the aboriginal offender population increased from 1997 to 1999.

Tougher sentences will only ensure that aboriginal people will further increase their proportion of the federal inmate population. That is not justice. It is vindictive and ineffective. We cannot just lock people away and hope that the problem will go away. It has not worked, it does not work and it will not work.

That is why our party has taken a balanced approach. We have adopted an aboriginal justice policy that tackles these issues directly. Correctional Service Canada is working with aboriginal organizations to seek new ways to heal aboriginal offenders. The legislation before us recognizes the unique needs of aboriginal young persons. It recognizes the cultural differences of young aboriginal people, and that there are more effective ways to deal with young people than simply locking them up.

Encouraging community involvement is one of the central components of our strategy. We believe that community involvement is central to repatriating the justice system to aboriginal people, a system that for too long has been seen as a foreign system by many aboriginal youth.

Some provincial correctional authorities report that aboriginal youth constitute 80% of the youth in their correctional facilities. In my riding of the Northwest Territories it is 90%. The statistics are shameful. However, the Leader of the Opposition's platform calls upon all Canadians to be treated equally regardless of race, sex, religion or ethnic origin.

In building safer communities, the leader opposite also wants to play a leadership role internationally. Can there be any better example of the ideological failure of that party and its platform? Which country in the international community does that leader want to impress with these statistics?

That is not all. He wants to get tougher on these aboriginal youth. Clearly, there is another way. It is found in the proposed legislation. The proposed act would provide that measures should respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and young persons with special requirements. Clearly there must be community involvement and we must try different approaches when dealing with young aboriginal people.

In my riding justice committees have been established in 70% of our communities. The act would encourage this practice. These community committees would continue to play an important role in the development of extrajudicial measures that would be provided for in the new act.

The new act would encourage the use of non-custodial sentencing for youth. This is in keeping with the Northwest Territories' commitment to apply a restorative justice approach. These extrajudicial measures would be particularly appropriate when dealing with first-time offenders who commit minor offences.

The new act would also provides for the use of conferencing which promotes community involvement in dealing with youth involved in the justice system. We believe that the new act would respond to the needs of our justice system. We believe the new act would be a marked improvement over the Young Offenders Act. However, laws that provide a more effective framework for dealing with young offenders is only one small part of our government's approach to making Canada a better place for our young people.

We have adopted an approach that cuts to the heart of the problem. We have adopted a diverse and holistic approach to crime prevention, which attacks the social causes of crime. We are focusing on areas such as early childhood development, education and training for young people. That is why we have supported the aboriginal headstart groups and developed multi-youth purpose centres for aboriginal people. We are working to provide our youth with more opportunities so they will be less likely to come into conflict with the law. We share the same goal; a society that is safe, secure and respectful of all citizens.

It is sad but a true commentary that the Leader of the Opposition spends more time on locking up young people than supporting entrepreneurs. I had the opportunity to review the leader's aboriginal policies. He talked about aboriginal policies on one page, maybe one-quarter or half a page. That is all that was dedicated to aboriginal people. He talked about equality for Canada's aboriginal people. His definition of equality was as confused as his definition of justice. The opposition leader believes that he must take away aboriginal rights and benefits to make aboriginal people equal. What is more, this perverse logic is the cornerstone of that party's approach to social policy and the poor.

It reminds me of one of the statements by the world renowned economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, who is to be recognized as an honorary officer of the Order of Canada next month. In his book, the Culture of Contentment , Mr. Galbraith summed up the prevailing view of the contented middle class, and I believe the view of the party opposite: “To help the poor and middle classes, one must cut the taxes of the rich”.

However the party opposite wants to further help youth, aboriginal people and the poor by removing the public support system that is in place for them, including training and employment assistance. That is not our way.

We believe in a more holistic approach. We believe that in addition to criminal sanction we must have a capacity and willingness to help young people when they get into trouble. Make no mistake, young people, including young aboriginal people, can continue to count on our government to help them obtain the tools and skills that will keep them out of the criminal justice system all together. That is our way and that is the Canadian way.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. secretary of state, for whom I have a great deal of respect, for her heartfelt position on this and many other issues.

In her remarks she criticized the principle which guides the position of the Canadian Alliance with respect to the relationship between the Dominion of Canada and aboriginal peoples. She suggested that equality is not an appropriate principle for those relationships.

The principle of equality, which my party articulates in a classical small l liberal sense, is predicated on the ancient Liberal principle that ethnicity and race ought not to be a factor in a relationship between the state and the individual. This was a principle very strongly articulated by none other than the late right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and of course manifested in his 1971 white paper on Indian affairs, where he proposed a paradigm similar to the one articulated by the Canadian Alliance.

Could the minister reflect as to whether she thinks that Prime Minister Trudeau was wrong for advocating the same position? She says that the Alliance simply wants to take rights away from aboriginal people when in fact what we want to do is for instance grant individual aboriginals property rights which in many cases they do not currently have.

Rather than a kind of confrontational approach, would she consider that there is some merit, certainly Pierre Trudeau saw it, in the kind of approach that we are advocating and perhaps a more constructive dialogue would be a better way to go forward?