Antoine Dubé

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also rise in support of this motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse, whose riding happens to be next to mine. I think it would be worthwhile to remind the hon. members that the motion in question reads as follows:

That this House denounces the government for its refusal to set up a Royal Commission of inquiry on the alleged illegal activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I listened with interest to the remarks made by previous speakers and I think that what the opposition is suggesting is not that all activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service be abolished but rather-and the Bristow affair was the pretext

for introducing this motion-to ensure that the Canadian public, and particularly the government and the House of Commons, be as well informed as possible on the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The public has reason to believe that illegal activities have taken place. During hearings held by the House sub-committee looking into this matter, our colleague, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm asked a number of questions which, to tell the truth, remained unanswered for the most part. That is an important fact.

I think that the Canadian public, the Canadians taxpayers who are paying to receive services, are entitled to get as much information as possible. Often members are asked questions and if those of us who sit on committees are unable to get the information required to answer these questions, how are we expected to adequately inform the public?

This motion is about setting up a royal commission of inquiry to do everything possible to make sure that, at least the members of Parliament sitting on the commission, hear all the facts.

Let me tell you about my personal experience as a Quebecer. It is a fact that we have gone through some rather quiet times, but I recall an event that many Quebecers of my generation remember. There was this incident in 1973 when a barn was burned down and a list of members of the Parti Quebecois, illegally seized. Quebecers of my generation remember that incident. The younger people were not around then and cannot remember, but it has remained in the minds of many Quebecers.

At that time, some measures were taken; then there was the Keable Commission which was finally able to establish that some illegal acts had been committed. Of course, not as many people were convicted as should have been, but the facts were proven. After that, there was a relatively quiet period.

In spite of all that, in the more recent past-I refer to a certain affair which I prefer not to name-there was evidence of an attempt to infiltrate not a political party but the Government of Quebec.

The Bristow affair is another case that has come to our attention. Everyone saw it on the news.

This was not just an attempt; another political party was actually infiltrated. This time it was not the Parti Quebecois but the Reform Party. I find such infiltration unacceptable on purely "democratic grounds".

Problems of infiltration by secret agents from foreign countries were mentioned. That may be, but since the Berlin Wall fell, I do not think that there is a really big threat from foreign sources. I listened to my colleague from Longueuil; yes, a security intelligence service may indeed be necessary, but it must operate legally, within a legal framework.

The issue here is not the one raised by the member for Longueuil, but rather illegal activities. Given what such a security service costs, I think that not only Quebecers but all Canadians are entitled to answers.

I will mention some questions that could be raised in a royal commission of inquiry. Has CSIS directly or indirectly obtained information on Canadian media or political parties since 1989? We admit that we must not go back too far, but since 1989. Yes or no? We were unable to obtain that information. Without necessarily disclosing the information itself. However, if the answer is yes, it should perhaps be studied by a sub-committee. There could be some really important things. We should at least know whether or not information was gathered directly or indirectly on the Canadian media or on recognized Canadian political parties. Not small groups from abroad but legally recognized political parties that are among this country's democratic institutions.

Could we have an answer on this? That is the kind of question to which Canadians would like an answer.

Did the Inspector General of CSIS and the Security Intelligence Review Committee find cases where information was gathered on the media, unions, political parties and other legitimate Canadian organizations?

Rightly or wrongly, as a member of Parliament, and before that as a member of public organizations, people told me personally on many occasions-that is not hearsay-of their concerns regarding some individuals then involved in militant and union activities-I could give examples of CSIS collaborators infiltrating the CNTU, a major union body in Quebec. Infiltration may be acceptable but I think that dynamite, arson and theft warrant investigation.

I have a general question: What is the basis-I would very much like to know that-and the scope of the contacts which CSIS has with foreign intelligence services and with the Communications Security Establishment of the Department of National Defence? This should not be an official secret. What is the basis and the scope of the activities of that service? We should be allowed to know that. Why is it not the case?

Does CSIS receive information from other Canadian or foreign intelligence services on activities conducted by Canadians within our borders? If so, is the receipt of such information by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service legal under the CSIS Act? Is it legal or not? Bench marks are required. If such bench marks exist, then they must be known.

In the Bristow case, when did CSIS become aware of Mr. Grant Bristow's participation-this is very important-in political events held by the Reform Party of Canada? Did CSIS end its relation with Mr. Bristow at that point?

Regardless of its nature, has information gathered by Mr. Bristow been used for judicial purposes, in Canada or elsewhere, since 1989? Yes or no? These questions do not touch upon official secrets, and they can be answered by a simple yes or no. We could not find out.

These vague answers, or even the lack of answers, leave Quebecers and Canadians with an uneasy feeling which may well undermine their confidence in certain institutions. Yet, we should reinforce public confidence in those institutions. The setting up of a royal commission of inquiry, as suggested by the Official Opposition, is justified since it would hear all those who can shed some light on certain activities. I am alluding to presumably illegal incidents. The idea is not to question the system as a whole but, rather, some specific actions and facts.

[1992 Referendum, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers have long known that they should not take the federal government's word. They are also used to being forced to fight to get the millions of dollars owed to them. But what really hurts is to have to put up with the mockery and sarcasm of all the Liberal MPs when claiming the $26 million owed to Quebec taxpayers following the referendum on the Charlottetown accord.

It hurts even more when this sarcasm comes from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. Some day, all government members from Quebec will have to explain why they spurned with such delight the justified claims of the Bloc Quebecois.

Given their chuckling and their sarcasm, must we conclude that this is the price to pay to remain in the Canadian federation?

[Party Fundraising, September 22nd, 1994]

Ah, he is against the amendment. I must have misunderstood.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was distracted by the noise in my vicinity.

So, to get back to these figures, these are very substantial amounts. Perhaps I may start with the party in power. I am quoting again from the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for 1992, to look at the extent of these contributions. The SNC: $78,417; Canadian Pacific: $63,000; Mr. John F. Bankes: $48,454; Imasco: $47,000. I will go a little faster: Royal Bank of Canada; $45,000; Bank of Nova Scotia: $42,000; CIBC: $42,258; Toronto Dominion Bank: $40,872. There are other banks as well, and banks certainly have a vested interest: mortgage rates, and so forth.

As for the Conservatives, there was Bombardier: $70,480; Canadian Pacific, playing it safe again: $64,233; Bank of Montreal: $48,833; Bank of Nova Scotia: $42,000; Brascan Ltd.: $30,000; Baton Broadcasting: $28,833; BCE Inc.: $25,000; National Bank: $25,000. And there are more.

The Reform Party also had a number of contributions over $5,000, although not as substantial. I also have another example. The Bloc Quebecois, although under no obligation to do so, decided to act in the spirit of the legislation passed in Quebec, when in 1993, it raised $3,500,000 donations from 70,000 different individuals, the average donation being $50.

When we talked about real power during the election campaign, that is what we meant. We wanted to represent the voters, first and foremost, and as far as I know, corporations do not vote.

[Party Fundraising, September 22nd, 1994]

No, I am referring to the hon. member who said that he was-

[Party Fundraising, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the Reform Party who just spoke more or less supported the amendment. However, we feel the amendment contradicts the intent of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Richelieu. I may recall the wording of the motion, which says that the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals-that is the operative word-the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations-this is also very important-to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

I would like to start by commending the hon. member for Richelieu for introducing this motion in the House, because I think there are two objectives here, the first one being to improve our democratic system. I imagine and, in fact, I am sure that members speaking for the various parties want to maintain and improve our democratic system. The purpose of the motion presented by the hon. member for Richelieu is to improve the system.

The second objective is transparency, which ensures that we know who contributes to political parties and how much, because increasingly, people are saying that they feel cut off from government and from the decision-making process.

Recently, Enjeux , a program on the CBC French network, described the situation very well. The impression was that although elected by their constituents, members were losing their ability to influence the government, whether they were in the opposition or not.

According to public opinion, governments are mainly influenced by lobbyists working for big corporations. There is another factor as well. Many people say that since they are elected, members may be influenced by or mindful of the contributions they received in their riding or the contributions their party received.

So what can we conclude from the report of the Chief Electoral Officer? The report now lists the names of those who made contributions, including companies, so we know where the money comes from. But I am not sure the general public is aware of the main items in the report.

In the latest report by the Chief Electoral Officer, in the case of both the Liberal Party now in power and the Conservative Party, the statistics show that individuals are responsible for less than 50 per cent of the campaign funds raised by these parties, which alternated as the party in power. People wonder who is influencing the government, and they wonder whether contributions affect the way we are represented.

This debate took place in Quebec 20 years ago, finally leading to the legislation referred to as Bill 2 on political party financing. Since it came into force, this legislation, according to many observers, has improved the public's confidence in government. I say this for the benefit of my colleagues in all political parties, because we all meet constituents in our riding offices.

I imagine that when someone who made a generous contribution asks for an appointment, it is harder to say no because these people probably think the way they used to in Quebec: Now look, I helped to get you elected and contributed to your party's campaign fund, so the least you can do is see me. Rightly or wrongly, politicians get a lot of criticism nowadays. It is often a matter of public perception, however. It may not happen in every case, and I do not want to tarnish the reputation of our parties, but my point is that it must influence what members or ministers

or governments do when they have to make a decision. At least that is what the voters think.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the latest report from the Chief Electoral Officer, which says, for instance, that in 1992, the Progressive Conservative Party received only 41 per cent of its financing from individuals and the rest from corporations. The Liberal Party of Canada, the party in power today, received only 53.4 per cent of its financing from individuals. In the case of the New Democratic Party, only 41.1 per cent came from individuals, since the left-leaning NDP, if I can describe it that way, received more of its funding from the labour unions. Amounts of up to $300,000 were contributed by one major union and some smaller unions. Nearly 1,000 different unions made donations to the New Democratic Party, which certainly must have influenced the New Democratic Party's operations and policies.

I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member of the Reform Party objecting to the intent of the motion of the hon. member for Richelieu, because in 1992, and I think this is an important point, 90 per cent of his party's financing came from individuals.

[Quebec's National Holiday, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, June 24 is fast approaching and I would like at this time to extend my best wishes to all Quebecers on their national holiday.

Over 700 events are scheduled this year for all regions of Quebec. The theme of Quebec's national holiday is "Quand 7 millions de gens" which reflects the fact that this day is for all Quebecers, regardless of their origin.

This theme is also indicative of Quebecers' collective ability to take their future into their own hands.

It should also be noted that June 24 is celebrated by all of Canada's francophones. This day provides them with an opportunity to express their pride in their francophone roots and to show their commitment to preserving their heritage.

May everyone enjoy themselves on June 24.

[English]

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, clearly I agree with my colleague on some points. As to his question: Why? I think it is obvious, it is that public pressure seems to influence the Liberal government. In my opinion, we have to be wary of contradictions and inconsistencies.

For example, we are telling young people that they cannot vote before 18, that they cannot drive before 16, but if they commit a crime they can be treated as adults. I think we have to be consistent, we cannot have more than one standard. I believe this should be corrected.

As to the weight of public opinion, I would imagine that members of the committee will hear witnesses, and I hope they make them change their minds on the general direction of this bill. A good start would be for the people satisfied with the present legislation to be more active in order to balance the influence of those who request dramatic changes.

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking this question. I thought I had said it rather clearly in my speech. We in the Official Opposition feel that this act already provides sufficient punitive measures and that we should instead-and this is really the crux of today's debate-be considering the need for additional resources to rehabilitate young people and reintegrate them into society-in short, preventive measures.

A parallel can be drawn with the health field, where money spent on prevention may seem like a lot initially, but pays long-term dividends. This is particularly true for young people. If we are harder on a young offender and send him to an adult prison, which is a highly criminalized environment, what will happen? In all likelihood-and I am tempted to use the word guarantee here-that young person will turn to a life of crime. Instead, we should tell the young offender: "You have done something wrong and you must acknowledge that fact, but we are giving you a chance to start over again". That is very important.

My colleague's question also indicates, quite obviously, that there are two countries within this country. I can understand the Reform Party members, they represent the views of their constituents; and I will admit that the newspapers clearly show that this is a major public concern, and I can understand that. But in Quebec-I must say this because it is the role of a member of Parliament to advocate the interests and demands of his constituents-there is no such collective reaction against young offenders. Yes, the issue remains a concern, but not on the same order of magnitude.

In the present federal system, the Criminal Code must be enforced the same way in every province, and I find that unfortunate. Clearly, some people, particularly in Western Canada, are not happy with the act in its present form. In Quebec, we are satisfied with the act as it now stands. It is often said that this is a big country. Now, that is all well and good, but when you try to dress everyone in the same clothes-tall, short, fat, thin-you find that "one size fits all" sometimes does not apply. I am drawing this parallel simply to illustrate my point, but I do feel that it is the essence of what I wanted to say. I see a difference of opinion, and we in the Bloc, obviously, say that the status quo is better in this case.

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-37 as to Opposition critic for Training and Youth. Two principles are set out in the first clause of this bill which are worth repeating first, crime prevention is essential to an orderly society and second, young persons should not be held accountable for their behaviour as adults, but must nonetheless bear responsibility for their actions. These principles go along the same lines as points made by other Official Opposition members.

Bill C-37 refers to crime prevention, yet it contains nothing but repressive measures. It would seem that rehabilitation for young offenders is dependent upon coercion and imprisonment. Transferring to adult court 16- and 17- year olds charged with serious crimes is not in keeping with the stated principle that young persons should not be held accountable as adults. Yet this transfer procedure is a major feature of Bill C-37.

Amendments are introduced in clauses 3 and 8, whereby 16- and 17- year olds charged with criminal offenses causing death or serious injuries would systematically be proceeded against in adult court. The onus is on the young person to apply to be tried before a youth court judge.

Also, 16- and 17- year olds charged with assault causing severe bodily harm will have to convince the court they should be proceeded against in youth court, or else they will be tried in adult court. It used to be up to the Crown to decide whether to transfer the young person or not. A transfer procedure is now in place for young people aged 14 and up, and it is up to the Court to demonstrate that adult court is the only court qualified to hear serious cases.

So different age groups are treated differently by the courts. Those between 12 and 15 will not be treated the same as 16- and 17-year-olds if they commit serious crimes. Some lawyers will undoubtedly argue that this violates the right to equality before the law as provided for in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now on to psychological and medical considerations. Clause 4 of Bill C-37 would allow the courts to direct that teenage repeat offenders undergo psychological or medical examinations. At the present time, such examinations are allowed only if the court has reasonable grounds to believe that a young person may be suffering from a psychological disorder. Young repeat offenders are regarded as mentally ill rather than as normal human beings damaged by their living conditions. This clause also has a legal dimension. Requiring a person to undergo a psychiatric assessment based on their criminal record may violate basic rights in the Charter.

This measure is troubling because some provinces like Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan do not have a system to look after young people in trouble. Youth custody conditions and their administration come under provincial jurisdiction. These young people may be the victims of some provinces' lack of supervision resources and end up spending more time in adult jails.

It is not normal for a court to bypass the reasonable grounds prescription to send a young person to a psychiatric institution for assessment. These psychological reports could be disclosed to third parties, which may violate the principle of confidentiality for teenagers' records.

This disclosure of records is expanded upon in Bill C-37, which calls for a better exchange of information on young offenders between the various police forces, school authorities and social workers involved. We must ensure that this exchange of information is restricted, because the public and the media are getting more and more interested in young offenders, so that

the principle of confidentiality may be seriously threatened by this openness. It is the Lieutenant Governor in Council who will rule on the clause concerning the disclosure of information.

The reaction of the Quebec Minister of Justice suggests that would not change, at least in Quebec, but what about the other provinces?

The last of the major changes proposed in Bill C-37 is unquestionably the harsher sentences provided for in the case of first- and second-degree murder. Pursuant to clause 13(3) of the bill, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder would rise from five to ten years. In the case of second-degree murder, the maximum sentence would increase from five to seven years.

This is a strange provision in that 16- and 17-year-olds can already be tried in adult courts. Therefore, the ones who stand to suffer the most as a result of this measure are 12- to 15-year-olds. Youth crime statistics do not justify such a harsh stance. Youth violence is generally on the decline. In the big cities, violence is either increasing or changing in nature with the upsurge in gangs. We are now seeing different kinds of violence than in the past. One can believe the government has been influenced by the families of victims of violent crimes who are motivated by a desire for vengeance. The Youth Protection Act was amended in 1992 to increase the sentences from three to five years. Why is the government taking this hard-line approach when the number of murders has declined? It is not even waiting to see the results of the initial changes and here it goes increasing the length of sentences again. Will it decide to lengthen the sentences again in two years' time?

It is obvious to the official opposition that the government is acting with undue haste in bringing in this legislation and that it is trying to please everyone.

Surely the rising popularity of the Reform Party in Ontario, a Liberal stronghold, has something to do with this decision. As far as the Quebec government is concerned, the bill should not have been introduced in the first place and the government should work within the parameters of the existing legislation and enforce its provisions.

It should be noted that the provinces are responsible for enforcing the provisions of the legislation and, in the opinion of the federal justice minister, they will enjoy considerably more latitude in this area. However, if ever a genuine legislative review process were to be undertaken, the provinces would have to be seriously involved.

No further details are given about the federal government's crime prevention policy mentioned in clause 1 of Bill C-37, despite the fact that it is an essential component of an effective juvenile crime prevention strategy. The bill is also silent on another problem, that of adults who use young people to commit their crimes and who get off scot-free.

The Official Opposition supports harsh penalties, but only in the case of premeditated, first-degree murder. With respect to other crimes, the existing provisions should remain in effect. It has also been said that the Youth Protection Act should not be mentioned too often because it only confuses matters.

Instead, I will quote statistics. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the average number of murders committed by teenagers in Canada fell from 55 between 1972 and 1982 to 46 between 1982 and 1992. In 1992, police laid charges against 140,000 teenagers for violating the Criminal Code and other federal laws. The number of charges laid has risen by 25 per cent in the last seven years. Two thirds of the 115,000 cases heard by youth courts led to a guilty verdict. About one third of teenagers found guilty by youth courts were committed to custody in correctional institutions or to open custody.

According to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star on June 6, it would cost between $70,000 and $100,000 a year to keep a young person in a detention centre. In 1992-93, the average number of teenagers in detention institutions was 4,734 a day, one third of whom were in secure custody. Fifty-three per cent of the teenagers convicted in 1992-93 were 16 or 17 years old.

According to the Canadian Department of Justice, in 1992, less than 15 per cent of violent crimes were committed by young people. According to an article published in a magazine called Canadian Social Trends in the fall of 1992, only 13 per cent of the charges laid against young people in 1991 involved violence.

According to a Statistics Canada survey, 70 per cent of all charges laid against teenagers in 1991 were related to crimes against property. However, the number of charges linked to crimes against property has increased by 17 per cent since 1986.

According to an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 19, 1993, one in three Canadians mistakenly believes that violence is as widespread here as in the United States.

In 1991, 753 homicides were reported in Canada, as compared to 24,000 in the United States. This means 32 times more homicides in a population 10 times larger that ours. There is just no comparison. The only detectable element of commonality between our two countries is the fact that repression does not make the crime rate go down, while media coverage of murders has a greater effect on public opinion.

A study carried out in Manitoba in 1992 showed that 90 per cent of young sex offenders had been assaulted in their childhood. Another study, which was carried out in London, Ontario,

in 1987, showed that 50 per cent of young persons charged with violent crimes had seen their father beat up their mother.

In its report on crime prevention, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Solicitor General noted that incarceration rates are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world and they currently spend $70 billion on law enforcement, judicial and correctional services. Nevertheless, in 1990, the United States ranked first in the world for the number of murders, rapes and robberies committed on their territory. In fact, U.S. figures in that area continue to rise.

The Minister of Justice did not include in Bill C-37 provision to toughen sentences for adults who solicit or hold young persons hostage to force them to commit crimes in their behalf.

Not only are these young persons forced by adults to commit crimes, but they will have to bear responsibility for the actions of adult criminals. The severity of this legislation should be directed toward these adults who often manage to evade the police, thus escaping prosecution, instead of the young people who get caught for such offenses.

The young people are taking the rap for adults. What is the idea? To brand young Canadians and Quebecers for the sake of making good a promise made in the red book? True enough, young people's inexperience often makes them easy game for police forces who are better at arresting young people than their adult counterparts.

The police make them spill the beans and take on full responsibility for the actions they are accused of, charges them and finally, have them convicted and sentenced in the place of adult criminals.

In Bill C-37, the Minister of Justice neither provides for nor supports any effective direct measure to eliminate juvenile delinquency. A proven direct alternative for eliminating juvenile delinquency is financial support for street workers.

At present, street workers are barely surviving on reduced subsidies. By the way, these subsidies, which most of the time called employment development programs and were subsequently cut could pay for a large part of youth services. This is an important point to note. Many communities in Quebec and in other regions of Canada used this employment program.

Resources are being cut back, resources which were used effectively but which could be even more effective if they were increased for this purpose. Organizations are already established, know their clientele, know their young people and are already up and running and what happens? Resources for them are cut.

Would the Department of Justice agree to give some of its budget to these street workers? Adult criminals who make use of young people's services do not have to pay the cost of their own defence since they are not charged and do not pay the cost of defending the young people charged in their place. In such a case, society now pays the costs involved in bringing them to justice.

Instead of punishing those who are really guilty, namely the adult instigators, Bill C-37 insists on punishing these young people who, I repeat, have been enlisted by adults.

I would like to conclude now with the impact of the message we are now giving our young people. Four hundred thousand young Canadians are unemployed-I am speaking broadly; I do not know how many are under 18-and the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata spoke of two million young people in Canada who are under 18. What message are we now giving these young people? It is this: "If you do wrong, you will be punished". It is a message declining responsibility, unlike the following: "We trust you. You may have done wrong, but we will try to give you a chance and rehabilitate you". Why do I say that? Because the provinces everywhere lack resources for rehabilitation and social reintegration.

I will not name him, but during an exchange, an hon. member told of his experience. This was actual testimony from his youth when he did something wrong at the age of 12. He was delighted that some adults took charge of him to help him straighten out, so much so that he is a member of this House today. This is an important position, unless the role of MP does not really amount to much.

The problem in this House now, as in Canada, is that people tell horror stories. Not enough success stories are mentioned, but there is a lot of experience. We need only talk to educators and to people who have been involved in community development, municipal recreation services or volunteer organizations. Every day they could tell us about the benefits of a prevention program based on the positive side of young people.

Right now, we talk about school drop-outs, delinquency rate, etc., but we forget to ask questions such as: What pushes young people to commit crimes? I remember one case in the Quebec City region. I will not give any names. Some young people had watched a violent movie which had led them to kill a taxi driver. They were influenced by the movie. Why not legislate at that level? Why let young and very young people watch violent acts?

I do not have exact figures, but a young person watching television all day can witness about 50 murders. And then people are surprised. I am not saying that there is more crime, but these are measures which we should think about.

The whole issue of firearms comes to mind when I read that young people still have access to such weapons. This morning again, there was a story involving military firearms. There are so many firearms.

This is another aspect, but I want to go back to the main issue. What is needed is some positive action to convince young people to get involved in the community, on a volunteer basis or otherwise. But, first, the message conveyed by our leaders must be a positive one. It must be a message of hope telling young people that they have an interesting future ahead, instead of being about harsher sentences and incarceration.

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

It was probably a mistake. So there is a coincidence, and I do not know whether in Western Canada our Reform colleagues may wish to help us out on this, there are not many, but they tend to be in ridings that are carefully chosen. The Secretary of State says the program will also be used to rehabilitate offenders, and I do not mind, but when they announced this plan, it was supposed to be about jobs.

I wish she would try and convince me, and I would also like to ask her about the $150 per week, because I remember that initially it was $61 per week for those living with their families, and it went up to $121. She talked about partnership and consultation when she came to Quebec City. I heard she was coming the day she came, so it was too late for me to be invited. Another point is that to finance this Youth Service strategy, the government is taking funds intended for existing programs, including women's programs, which means that the government is more or less robbing Peter to pay Paul. Is this the kind of attitude the Liberal government wants to take? So I listened very patiently to the Secretary of State, but quite frankly, she has yet to convince us that she made a very positive presentation on the subject before the House today.