Debates of Jan. 31st, 2002

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for North Vancouver. He gives such lucid examples and persuasive arguments for the case that he makes.

While he was talking, I was wondering if he knew why the Liberals kept doing this. What is their motivation in bringing in this kind of legislation when it seems so wrong?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have thought about that quite often. I am certain that for a lot of members of the government it is very well-meaning. I do not think they have thought it through. It is a little like the refugee determination system, where people arrive at our doorstep every day claiming refugee status and we let them in while we ignore five million refugee claimants in refugee camps around the world.

The attitude of the government should be that queue jumpers should not be allowed in. We should send them to the refugee camps and take people from the refugee camps who have already been waiting for three years. It is distorted logic. The Liberals definitely have good intentions but they are misplaced intentions.

The only other explanation I have is they are not willing to face the political fallout that would come from chiefs and the native communities across Canada. The chiefs and the power brokers on reserves will just have an uproar if or when the government tries to change things to bring democracy to the reserves. That may be the reason why they do nothing to change it.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts. The debate today is on the amendment put forward by the member for Berthier—Montcalm, which reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be not now read a second time and concurred in, since it does not in any way take into consideration the distinct character of Quebec and the Quebec model for implementation of the Young Offenders Act”.

Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling which we respect, following the point of order raised by the member. However, I wish to submit immediately that there is a fundamental problem. There really is a difference in the translation and that is what the member for Berthier—Montcalm sought to clarify. We therefore respect your ruling from a procedural point of view.

Yet there is a serious matter of substance, as this will not be interpreted in the same manner by all of those involved, by judges and lawyers. I think that this issue will cause all kinds of trouble and confusion. The government must look into this difference at once.

Furthermore, the response to the questions asked of the Minister of Justice by the Bloc Québécois this week raises a serious issue. The minister has been in this portfolio for only two weeks. Quebec's distinct character, which the House passed a resolution to support, is being denied. The minister made things even worse when, after only two weeks on the job, he told us, regarding his bill, which is of course the former Minister of Justice's bill, that he would go and explain it to stakeholders who have spent more than 30 years making sure that the Young Offenders Act works in Quebec. Quebec has expertise in this and he has the gall to tell us that after two weeks, he is able to explain to Quebec stakeholders that their consensus is a house of cards because the bill is good.

I do not know who he thinks he is, but he is trying to tell us that Quebec's distinct character is not important and that Quebec will not be allowed to opt out from the legislation and use the expertise of the people that we have trained: social workers, psychologists, judges, the police and even associations of defence lawyers and crown attorneys. I do not understand how, after two weeks, he can go to them and explain to them in what way this bill will be an improvement.

What is worse is that under this bill, any adolescent who makes a mistake will be considered a hardened criminal from then on. Why such a sudden change in the definition and implementation of the terms for dealing with youth? The Bloc Québécois wants answers to this and has yet to be given any reasonable and logical explanation. The Bloc Québécois has come out against this bill from the beginning and we are still against it today. Let me explain why.

The act that is currently in effect, namely the Young Offenders Act, gives good and concrete results, particularly in Quebec. It was demonstrated time and again that the existing act must remain in effect. That is what this government and the new Minister of Justice should really do. However, it seems that the government, the new Minister of Justice and his predecessor do not want to listen to the comments and wishes of Quebecers, and particularly the consensus among stakeholders and experts on this issue in Quebec.

We are opposed to Bill C-7 because the new youth criminal justice system adversely impacts on the current Young Offenders Act, an act which respects young people for who they are, that is young people.

And how does the Young Offenders Act respect young people? By allowing for the use of a series of individually adjusted measures based on each person's needs, by taking into consideration the fact that we are dealing with young people, and by taking into account their specificity.

The existing Young Offenders Act, not Bill C-7, achieves concrete results in terms of young offenders' rehabilitation.

The goals are achievable and are often achieved, because the sentence relates to the offender, not to the offence. The Young Offenders Act also seeks to make the offender responsible for his actions. It also allows for the treatment of psychosocial problems, as part of a rehabilitation process designed to eventually get the young offender to reintegrate into society.

Therefore, I wonder why the federal government and the new Minister of Justice insist on changing this act, which gives very good results in Quebec, through appropriate and specific implementation.

I also wonder how these goals can be considered as grounds for change. In fact, I wonder how these goals can simply be replaced without any consideration for the results that they provide. The examples in Quebec speak for themselves and the government should have taken them into account.

But now we have Bill C-7 coming along to overturn the approach that is already in place. First and foremost, it seems that the intention is to no longer consider the offender an individual, but rather a criminal. One could even conclude that there is no longer any presumption of innocence. The crime takes precedence over the individual.

According to Bill C-7, it is the criminal principle which dominates, and responsibility and reintegration are somewhat secondary. From now on, hard line intervention with young offenders will be foremost and this is unacceptable.

The criminal act will be given first consideration. There will no longer be any question of taking the specifics of the young offender into consideration, his present context, the family situation, and the personal circumstances that have led to the commission of a criminal act. Nor is there any question of taking into consideration the psychological needs of the young person in determining the sentence appropriate to his case.

It is the governments intention, with Bill C-7, to lump all young people into one category: delinquents with no potential for rehabilitation. Why should this approach be taken, when there is evidence to the contrary in Quebec, with a system that has been successful for a number of years?

The Bloc Québécois believes that our young people deserve better. We are all responsible. Why then are we abandoning them? They belong to us all. Let us take the time to help them, rather than applying a simple criminal definition to them.

I will not refer again to the figures that support the Bloc Québécois's position regarding the successful application of the Young Offenders Act in Quebec, because, as we have seen, they mean nothing to the government or the new Minister of Justice. I will remind the House though that all of the main stakeholders in Quebec have unanimously denounced this bill.

Once again, I just do not understand how the government and the new Minister of Justice can ignore the opinions and recommendations of experts and draft a bill that does not begin to take into consideration young people and their needs, despite the fact that the bill mentions these needs in its preamble.

Therefore, I question the real motives of this government and the new Minister of Justice who have developed and drafted a bill such as this on youth crime without taking into account the reality of youth today.

I fear that the repercussions of Bill C-7 will be disastrous. Rather than adjusting the modalities of the bill to the specific needs of young people, Bill C-7 seems to promote a rigid and strict framework to which young people will have to adapt automatically. It is this type of enforcement with no regard whatsoever for needs and circumstances that makes this bill worrisome.

The Young Offenders Act gives positive results and helps reduce crime among young people because it is enforced based specifically on the needs and circumstances. Its success was demonstrated in Quebec. The Young Offenders Act gives positive results.

Why not allow Quebec to opt out of Bill C-7 and keep doing a fine job with the existing Young Offenders Act?

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-7, because this legislation promotes the systematic enforcement of the act and uses the offence, instead of the offender, to determine the applicable sentence.

I am also concerned when I read that the main focus of Bill C-7 is not the child's interest, but presumably society's interest. Thus, Bill C-7 tends to make the child guilty before the conclusion of the judicial process. This goes against international law, which provides that the best interest of the child must always come first. In fact, the Quebec government will challenge Bill C-7 as soon as it becomes law. The federal government is eliminating the status of young person to have only one status, that of adult.

The child's interest must be paramount in any sentence. This is a legally recognized principle. However, in Bill C-7, it has been set aside in favour of the principle of proportionate accountability. In short, sentences must be similar, regardless of the circumstances and needs, which are specific to each individual.

This approach will very likely cause a problem, because it requires a complete change in the procedure to be followed for all stakeholders. Furthermore, there is talk of several hundreds of millions of dollars just to implement Bill C-7, and close to a billion dollars to introduce it. Imagine all that we could do with this money if we used the Young Offenders Act the way it was meant to be used.

Now, youth justice stakeholders will have to place the emphasis on sentencing. Individuals will no longer be individuals, but sentences.

They will also have to perform small miracles if young offenders are to obtain rehabilitation that in any way meets their needs.

Under the existing legislation, stakeholders can act quickly for lesser offences. The needs of offenders are identified right from the start and the sentences are determined accordingly.

Although the new bill deals with diversion, it will also lessen the number of young people who will be sent to residential youth centres. This might become a problem, because a young person who repeatedly commits minor offences could only be given warnings, rather than any attempt being made to nip his delinquent tendencies in the bud by requiring him to be kept in a youth centre and trying to correct his delinquent behaviour.

Those in Quebec who deal every day with young offenders could tell you—and in fact a number of them did in committee—that there is a real potential for rehabilitation and social reintegration within the current legislation, the Young Offenders Act, as it is applied in Quebec.

The shortcoming in Bill C-7 lies in its inflexibility. There can be no corrective intervention except once the young offender has become fully engaged in criminal activity. So the whole thing has become reversed: the sentence takes precedence over the individual.

Another problem with Bill C-7 is that it introduces the concept of parole. In fact, Bill C-7 provides for automatic parole after two-thirds of a sentence. The Young Offenders Act requires that a young person be kept in custody throughout their sentence. There is no question of parole, unless there is evidence of genuine progress suggesting that the young person could return to the community.

It must be kept in mind that the decision to grant parole is an individualized one, and thus provides proper protection for the quality of rehabilitative interventions.

The Bloc Québécois is totally opposed to Bill C-7 because it does not give free rein to education and rehabilitation and, as the bottom line, does not make the young person assume any responsibility. Bill C-7 transforms young offenders into adults and totally forgets about what differentiates youth from adults.

What is more, with this bill the government has introduced a false notion about young people, by creating an image of the violent and unredeemable young delinquent with no hope. The government has preferred to react to a wave of panic that sees all young people as offenders.

By introducing Bill C-7, the government is seeking to allay society's fears about young people. It is, however, lulling society into a false feeling of comfort and security. I must say again: our young people are being rehabilitated, made to assume responsibility, and reintegrated into society at the present time, particularly in Quebec. Bill C-7 on the other hand is criminalizing our young people by punishing them first rather than rehabilitating them.

This is a rushed bill, and one that has not had sufficient scrutiny of its repercussions. It must also be pointed out that this bill jeopardizes something Quebec is doing well, as it attempts to set national standards but without defining their parameters.

The government has a duty to respect what yields positive results. This bill is vague, confining and repressive. Overall, Bill C-7 is against education, against reintegration, against assigning responsibility, and of course against our youth.

We have learned that it is pointless to count on the government listening. On the one hand, we were being encouraged to present our views in committee but, on the other hand, once we turned up there we were told we could question the government in the House during question period. Being shuttled back and forth like that is not getting the government to listen.

In the same vein, stakeholders from Quebec came to give testimony that the Young Offenders Act must remain in effect because it responds exactly to what young people and society, Quebec society, need if it is implemented properly and in keeping with its intent. This is not something that happened overnight. To get it operating properly has taken 30 years. Our statistics are among the lowest in North America, and the lowest in Canada. Why not use the Quebec model, instead of once again pushing aside what is being done well in Quebec?

We have noticed that the government would rather not hear what those who work with youth everyday have to say. The government and the new minister are responding to some false notion of youth in their approach to this sensitive issue, and this is disappointing.

At the risk of repeating myself, the government and the new Minister of Justice would rather abandon young people and reassure society with a false sense of security than learn from Quebec's extensive experience, which has proven itself on many occasions in this field.

The Bloc Québécois is proud our youth and we want to protect them, but more importantly, we want to listen to them and provide them with the tools they need to succeed and become proud and full-fledged citizens. This is why we oppose this bill.

We are talking about enormous sums of money that could have been used, given to Quebec and Canada to rehabilitate our youth. We had been hoping that a minister from Quebec, and not Alberta would listen to what people from Quebec had to say. Our response is the following: “If you want this bill, if you want to impose stricter sentences and send your young people to jail instead of rehabilitating them, that's your business”.

What we are asking for, and what we have been asking for is that Quebec be allowed to opt out of Bill C-7 in order to protect our young people and rehabilitate them. These are not criminals, these are not delinquents, these are young people.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to inform the House as to whether the rules of procedure have been changed and whether it is now allowed to use a cell phone in the House, as my colleague for Nepean—Carleton is doing at this time. I would like to hear your ruling on this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. As hon. members are aware, House practice does not allow the use of this equipment, that is cell phones, within the Chamber. I trust I still have the co-operation of all members on both sides of the House on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Châteauguay on his excellent speech. Clearly, his sensitivity where young people are concerned, plus the fact that he is a lawyer and has experience in private practice, give him even more credibility in this debate, where we are discussing not only youth but the law.

First, there is one aspect on which I would like him to elaborate, because it is important that people understand the difference between the new law and the current one, which was applied in Quebec with a view to rehabilitation.

In my opinion, cases were heard before the youth court and not the adult court, with adult rules, it seems to me. I would like the member to elaborate on this if he has the time.

Second, it seems to me that, as a member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on human rights and international development, this is the aspect that concerns me the most. But when we see reports of the UN commission on human rights advising against this kind of new approach, we realize that the Canadian government appears to want to ignore them.

Finally, having been present here as a Quebecer and as an MP when a distinct society motion was passed, what does the member think of the fact that on the first occasion, or one of the first, that we have to test the concept of a distinct society for Quebec, the government ignores it, showing that the motion is therefore basically meaningless?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the hon. member's third question, since I find it is one of the most important matters we have had to address this week.

It is incredible to hear the Minister of Justice, after a scant two weeks in office, a minister from Quebec, telling Quebec “We are going to listen to the stakeholders”. More serious still, he takes the liberty of saying, a scant two weeks after his appointment, that there are others with more expertise in this matter than the Quebecers with their 30 year involvement in rehabilitation and social integration of young offenders. He gets up in the House to send a message to our stakeholders, “I will be coming to see you and to explain Bill C-7, and why it will be better than the present Young Offenders Act”.

It is incredible to hear such words from a minister who was there when the resolution on the distinct character of Quebec was adopted. There is no finer example of what is going on in the House at the present time. A resolution was passed, saying “Quebec is a distinct society”. But what does this mean? This is the first opportunity they have had to show that they respect this resolution. What is going on at present with Bill C-7 and the young offenders is the finest possible example.

Quebec's youth crime rate is the lowest in Canada and one of the lowest in North America. Our system works well. The government cannot claim not to know about this. Quebec stakeholders came to testify before the standing committee on justice. They explained what they could do and even more. Indeed, even judges came and said “We can even help implement our system in the rest of Canada if they so wish, but do not change this legislation. It works”.

It is not just members of parliament who say that the system works in Quebec. There is a consensus among all the stakeholders. And these stakeholders include judges, social workers, defence attorneys and police officers. They are unanimous.

I could mention others, but I do not want to give a comprehensive list. What we are talking about here is quasi-unanimity, in fact, unanimity among stakeholders.

Personally, I have never met anyone who said to me “Change this act”. No, it works. This is why I am saying this. And the facts and the figures show it. Our crime rate is the lowest in North America. This is rather significant, this is not idle chatter. The government must recognize this fact and respect what works well and even very well in Quebec.

This is the first opportunity for us to see how we are respected and perceived in Canada, to see if Quebec's distinct society truly exists. This is a golden opportunity for the government to say yes, to respect Quebec, to respect Bloc Québécois members who are making this request, and to respect the unanimous resolution passed by the Quebec National Assembly, asking for the right to opt out of Bill C-7.

Why not allow us to opt out? It would be consistent with their resolution if they allowed Quebec to be a distinct society, because the current legislation is working fine. Of course, the situation would be quite different if we had the highest crime rate. But this is not the case. Why not let us do what we want in Quebec, in our country, with the people who set up a system that respects our young people, and their parents?

The problem lies not only in criminalizing youth, but it will affect parents.

When young people commit an offence, regardless of how minor the offence may be, if we want to prevent them from repeating it, it is not enough to simply warn them in a letter: they need to be rehabilitated immediately. It is important to find out what prompted them to act in such a manner. Psychologists and social workers can work with them to put them back on track. The results in Quebec have been excellent and could be even better. How could this be done?

Just imagine the excellent rehabilitation services that could be provided to our young offenders if we had the resources, the hundreds of millions of dollars, even a billion dollars that will be used to implement Bill C-7.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech made by my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who is a lawyer, just like me. I appreciated what he insisted upon in his response to my colleague from Lévis-et-Chute-de-la-Chaudière.

I would like him to elaborate on that and to tell us more on the human aspect of the issue. We are talking about a piece of legislation. My colleague from Châteauguay is a man of law, but we are talking about human beings, about young people who are starting their life on the wrong foot and, therefore, need help.

I would like my colleague to tell me how the approach currently taken by Quebec allows this kind of rehabilitation, as opposed to what is being proposed to us in Bill C-7.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could speak at length on this issue. When talking about our young people, about a sense of humanity and even about an international convention on the rights of the child, we must look first at what is in the best interests of the child.

It is not only in the Divorce Act that we must look at what is in the best interests of the child, but in every aspect of our lives. In dealing with young offenders who are just starting out in life, this sense of humanity that I mentioned should be an important factor.

I am out of time, but I hope my remarks have helped our fellow citizens to gain a better understanding of Bill C-7.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that members are anxious to receive answers to questions on the order paper. I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to revert to questions on the order paper?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to questions on the order paper?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for government to do those things. I would like to speak to Bill C-7. There are a couple of areas I want to address. First is the bewilderment of most people in Canada as to why the government would put through the Senate to the government an amendment to a bill which gives special consideration to aboriginal youth within the youth justice system.

The place to address the issue of aboriginal youth is with the minister of aboriginal affairs. It is not through the criminal code. Basically the government is saying that it realizes it has failed in how it handles aboriginal affairs and aboriginal youth and therefore it will address it in the criminal code by saying that any crimes committed by aboriginal youth shall be given special consideration.

This is not the way to deal with that issue. Like every other Canadian I think we listen to this stuff which comes from members on the other side and wonder what makes them think that the answer lies in amending the criminal code. If anything, why do they not amend the laws of the country which affect aboriginal people? Better yet, why do they not just fix the problems rather than trying to address them after crimes are committed? I think that is really sad.

Another issue I want to raise is what happens when government members vote for a bill in the House. What do they really do about it? Is it true that they will fix everything that they have put before the people of Canada? Is it true that they will even act on it?

I want to give an example by talking for a few minutes about the issue of the national sex offender registry. That brings home to me what is wrong with the institution of the House of Commons and what is wrong with the government. It tabled Bill C-7 for young offenders. There is no doubt in my mind that it will not deliver on this stuff. Time and time again I see in the House of Commons where it says yes to something but just does not deliver.

At some point last May all opposition parties agreed to a motion in the House for the government to deal with the national sex offender registry issue and develop one by January 30, 2002. That was yesterday. As it turned out the solicitor general and all the Liberals agreed with it. It was unanimous in the House. Approximately 304 members of the House of Commons said yes, by January 30, 2002, we would have a national sex offender registry.

Yesterday I stood in the House and asked where it was, where was the software that is required. That is not a big deal as I will go through in a moment. More important, where is the legislation that mandates that sex offenders shall report certain information and there shall be a penalty if they do not report it?

The solicitor general stood in the House and said that they were working on this thing called CPIC, a police information system which does not do the job. Every police organization in the country says that it will not do the job.

Yet he government says that it does not matter what it promised, what it said or when it said it would do it. It just did not do it and the rest of the people out there can just darn well live with it.

One of the serious problems people have with government today is that it says one thing and does another. It can even come into the Chamber and commit to doing something via a motion, a mandate of the House of Commons, and turn around on the day it is supposed to be delivered and tell everyone to stick it in their ear. That is what it did.

When I leave the House of Commons I think I will look back at this place as one bitter disappointment. We have a government that basically says it will do something and just says that it has decided that it will not do it and to heck with all the victims out there. It just does not care.

I do not know how anybody in the House can get enthusiastic about coming in here and expecting the government to do anything other than what it wants.

Getting back to the Young Offenders Act, the government today calls it something else but everybody else calls it the Young Offenders Act. It is now called the youth criminal justice act. The government changed the darned name on it but did not change a whole bunch of other things that people are looking for. The age for young offenders has stayed the same. There is a litany of things that have stayed the same, yet the government says it is different, calls it a different name and says “By the way, we are really going to enhance this whole issue of youth justice by allowing special circumstances if someone is an aboriginal”.

If an aboriginal commits a crime, the same identical crime as anybody else, that aboriginal is treated differently. How does that go down with the victim? How does that go down with the many victims I have spent time with in court and other places? How does that go down with a person who has been raped?

If I am raped by someone other than an aboriginal, that person might get a stiffer penalty but by gosh if I am raped by an aboriginal youth, there will be a special dispensation. I have never in my life heard anything so bizarre as that kind of thinking. We could not convince one person outside of the House of Commons that this is a necessity. There are all kinds of areas, opportunities and alternatives for judges these days to make allowances. In all the presentations they hear and in all the court proceedings, they can make allowances. They can make allowances in sentencing. On and on it goes. Why on earth does the government say in this case, going through the change in the youth justice act, “if you are an aboriginal youth we have to treat you differently”? That is the biggest insult to a victim I have ever heard in my life. Nobody that I am aware of has really asked for this, other than in the patronizing of aboriginal peoples that goes on in the other side.

It is well known that the bulk of the crimes against aboriginals comes from aboriginal peoples themselves, so what does this say about an aboriginal victim of a young offender? It says to aboriginal victims that they will likely be treated differently from any other victim who is not aboriginal.

I cannot imagine sitting down with any aboriginal victim in my community and saying “you are less, you are considered less because the person who attacked you is aboriginal”. I am certain that not all people on the other side here in the Liberal Party believe that this is the right thing to do. I have not talked to anyone anywhere who agrees with this concept.

One has to ask why a government would start putting race issues in our criminal code or in any of the forms of legislation we have today. The criminal code is supposed to be unbiased. It is supposed to be objective. It is supposed to treat all people as equal under the law, but what it is doing now, thanks to the government, is creating an inequality of peoples under the law.

There are people out there listening to me who vote for the Liberals, and they are saying “They are such a great group, they will fix it”. They will not fix it. The Liberals do not have any plans to fix this sort of thing. By the way, this would not go through the House of Commons justice committee so the Liberals dropped it from the justice committee. They could not get it through. Then they flipped it on over to their buddies in the Senate. The Senate said “yes, we will fix you up”. Talk about another House that is supposed to be objective and unbiased: the Liberals ship it over there to their majority buddies and it comes back to the House under a Senate amendment.

We should just think about what happens in our country. This is scary. What will happen if the Liberal government gets re-elected again? It will be the Liberals' fourth term. It will be four terms in which they appoint all their buddies to the Senate. By the end of the fourth term the Senate will be down to something like 10 or 12 opposition people in the Conservative Party, which is barely a party today. There is only one Canadian Alliance senator in the Senate.

So what the country will have, in effect, will be Liberal upper and lower Houses. If the Liberals cannot get something through the House of Commons, they flip it over to their buddies who rubber stamp it. It comes back here and nobody has a snowball's chance of doing anything about it. That is a very serious flaw in our democracy.

What do we do about it? Everybody says there will be an election and we have to work harder and the opposition has to get its act together, but I think it is more than that. I think that those who represent the Liberal Party have to understand that race based legislation is leading us nowhere. I shudder to think about one of my family being injured, molested or murdered by an aboriginal youth. We should just think about me, my mother and my wife being in a courtroom because something has happened to our son or daughter and an aboriginal youth did it and the judge says “Well, because you are aboriginal you certainly do not get the same penalty you would if you were someone else”. I could not bear the consequences of that in a courtroom. My family could never understand that, nor could any other victim in our country, nor could anybody else, even if they are not victims.

What do we do with a drug trafficker of serious drugs? What do we do in a big heroin bust? Believe me, there are a lot of youths doing that. I talked to a youth not that long ago about this very issue. He was doing community time for selling cocaine, just community time. I told this youth that I had some connections with the school board and maybe I could help him finish school and ultimately get a good job. He laughed at me. He said “Why would I do that? I'm pushing cocaine. I can get twenty grand a month. I drive a nice car”. He is 14 years old and says “I have a lawyer on retainer. Why would I do that”? This guy is doing some time, but an aboriginal youth trafficking in heroin, killing our kids and our adults, will not be given as much of a sentence as the other guy. That is absurd. It is unheard of in any country in the world.

The minister is here. I would love to have the minister stand up and provide with me some insight into why the government would do this. It is nice to see the minister here because there are damn few other people here.

[An hon. member]

It is the quality people.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

It is the quality people. I could call for quorum but I will not.

I want to get my point across, even to the minister. The minister is trying to do a pretty decent job. If the aboriginal program is failing for any reason and if there are more aboriginal youth having problems for any reason, the minister should try to fix that, but the government should not try to make an excuse for it, because those youths have committed crimes and we would give them less of a consequence than anyone else. That is no consequence at all. In fact it is making matters worse.

If I may, I would like to go back for just a minute to what I really believe about the House of Commons. I thought when I came here from British Columbia that I could actually sit down and negotiate with a majority government, with anyone on the other side, and try to make common sense of things, but it is such a partisan place that I do not believe it is possible.

In regard to some of the issues brought up here, particularly the national sex offender registry, the issue I mentioned, I want to say that it is something that all the provinces need. They need it so badly that Ontario had to undertake it on its own. I have heard the solicitor general say in the House that there is not much compliance in this thing, so why would we build a national sex offender registry? In fact, the first provincial registry set up in the country is Ontario's and it has 90% compliance. Of the 10% who are incompliant, that is, offenders not reporting, many have left the province. They have left the province because there is such a restriction as far as compliance and reporting is concerned. There are laws in place. How this hurts Ontario is that other provinces do not have registries, so sex offenders who want to reoffend and do not want to report just go to another province.

What we need is a national guideline, a national sex offender registry that has mandated reporting and mandated penalties if offenders do not report. It is not a difficult thing to do. In fact Ontario indicated that it would give the software to anyone who wants it, including the federal government.

Putting the legislation in place would take nothing. I have done it myself. It is sitting here as a private member's bill, but it will not see the light of day because there is no will on the other side. What we are stuck with here is a government that does not want to implement a national sex offender registry, maybe because it was not the government's idea. That may be it. Everybody else seems to want it, including its own members. All it would take is to have a bill like that, make it law and take the software from Ontario. We would then have a much better system of promptly finding young people when they are missing, but I guess that will not happen. I guess that when the government stands up and says “yes, we're all for it and we'll do it by January 30”, it does not mean a damn thing, quite frankly.

To get back to the youth justice act, Bill C-7, I guess that all the speaking we do in the House does not really mean a lot either, because the government will do what it wants. It will neglect our concerns. It will not even use its own committee to put this in place because it lost it on the committee, thanks to the opposition. It will go to the Senate and the Senate will bring it over to the House, where it will pass, much to the objections of the Alliance, the Bloc and the other opposition.

All of us in our country have a lesson to learn. Majority governments do not work if we have a specific interest that is not the government's, because it will just tell us to take a hike, stick it in our ear, and it will damn well do what it wants to do.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say that I found it very difficult to follow my Canadian Alliance colleague's line of reasoning. I thought we were supposed to discuss the amendment that was put forward.

Could he address the amendment before us today?

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will need to learn how to get her points across in the House. If we have certain things we want to get across we do it when we get the opportunity. That is what I do.

As I said before, and she may have trouble with it but I do not, this is a bad amendment. It should never go through. It would introduce race into a bill and into the criminal code. It should not be there. The criminal code should make everyone equal before the law. If the member does not understand that, maybe we should talk about something else.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Langley--Abbotsford would be interested to hear that I agree with the main point that he made in his presentation.

I feel very strongly that laws should not be based on race. They can be based on economic situation, even ethnicity in certain instances, but race alone, people are always the same regardless of their race. It is other factors that make them different, and the law can take an account of those other factors but not race.

I would suggest to him, if he does not mind if I extend my comments for a bit, that the analogy he might consider is the situation in Winnipeg where there is a lot of urban poverty. That urban poverty involves not only aboriginal young people. It also involves non-aboriginal young people, people of other ethnicities, people who have come to Canada from Asia or Europe or somewhere else in the world. Yet the amendment would suggest that, all things being equal among the poor young people in Winnipeg who might be tempted to crime, the aboriginal young people should be treated differently, and I would agree that this is unacceptable.

I also sympathize with the government, however, because this is something that was raised in the charter of rights and I think has created a pattern of legislation that derives from an original mistake, if you will, but the member for Langley--Abbotsford raises another point in his speech that I found most fascinating, and that is this whole question of how this House should respond to amendments from the Senate. The problem, as he rightly points out, is that if a government stays in power for a very long time then it will dominate the Senate, and he was suggesting that this amendment would never have made it through the committee and it is going back to this House possibly through a back door.

Well, I do not know whether that is a fair analogy but I will say to him that perhaps parliament, perhaps members on both sides of the House, should consider Senate amendments in the same sense as private members' bills. In other words, perhaps Senate amendments that really do not reflect the will of the elected representatives should be treated when they come to the House as free votes. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this particular vote.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments. It is interesting. I was listening to the U.S. president in his address to the nation the other night. He got quite a round of applause from congress when he talked about republicans and democrats working together.

On issues like this or any other issues it would be a good idea in the House for all parties, not just opposition parties but all parties, to sit and try to work things out rather than get into the partisanship that exists. That is one of the problems with the House, quite frankly. If the Prime Minister and cabinet want something done it reverberates through the backbench and we know that when we meet here on Tuesday night to vote we will lose. We all know this amendment will go through. There is not a snowball's chance that it will not make it.

Somewhere along the line when the House finally goes through the metamorphosis it is trying to get through we will one day have less partisanship and start debating and deciding on issues on the basis of what the people in Canada want, not what the party in power wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the answer given by my Canadian Alliance colleague to my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who asked him a relevant question without raising the point of order that was called for.

Being an experienced parliamentarian, the Canadian Alliance member, who at one time was his party's House leader, and as such is one of the members who know the standing orders best, he should have referred to the amendment to an amendment put forward today. I also listened to him answering the Liberal member.

As a member of a party looking to reform parliamentary customs, what he is saying is “It is not really necessary to answer the questions put to us. In the end, we will not change anything. The Liberal Party will do as it pleases”. What a fine example. Really, what a bad one.

I would like to give him another chance. I am taking for granted he took his responsibilities seriously and read Bill C-7. What does he think of the amendment to an amendment put forward today? I am seeking his opinion on that and nothing else.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these individuals do not seem to understand that I need not address every specific thing in the bill. I need not address every specific thing anyone else wants in the House on a subamendment or an amendment.

I came here to address three things that are important to me on the whole issue: the fact that race is being put into the criminal code where it ought not to be; the fact that the House of Commons is not operating right; and the fact that this affects Bill C-7 and every other bill. Another thing I am trying to address is that one day the House of Commons will have to operate right.

We can speak about anything we want in the bills. I am not sure what the Bloc members are getting at but the other thing they must understand as much as anyone else here is that all opinions put forward by all members in the House of Commons should go toward impacting some kind of decision. If we all spoke to the same thing within any bill we would only need one speaker. In representing my area I speak to the issues that concern my area, not the issues that concern the Bloc or anyone else for that matter.

I reiterate what I said. Race based legislation, regardless of any amendments to any part of any bill, does not fit in the House of Commons whether in public works legislation, finance legislation, the criminal code or any other code. It is wrong. It is trying to address the fact that the government is not--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Terrebonne--Blainville.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

It seems rather obvious to me that the member is not dealing at all, with the amendment before us today.

I am trying to be fair and honest with taxpayers. I believe we do not have time to waste rambling on about all kinds of issues.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe this is not a point of order. If hon. members wish to have this debate outside the Chamber once the member is finished with his speech, they are free do so.

I will allow the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford to conclude his remarks.