Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few weeks I have frequently raised the issue of designation of the River Ridge facility in Fort Smith as an institution for the handling of young offenders sentenced to terms of open custody, as well as those young offenders sentenced to terms of closed or secure custody. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and I have engaged, at times, I believe to be a vigorous debate on this issue. However, Mr. Speaker, neither of us are lawyers. Unfortunately, the debate on this issue seems to have focused around legal definitions, names of statutes and other technical legal issues.

Mr. Speaker, I find this unfortunate because it has obscured the real issue, which I suggest is, how will the staff and officials at the River Ridge facility treat a young offender, who is being sentenced to an institution for the first time for what may be a relatively minor offence, differently from a young offender who has repeatedly been in and out of institutions and has been convicted of a sufficiently serious crime to warrant the imposition by the courts of a term of secure custody. Mr. Speaker, the courts impose different types of custodial sentences for a reason. I am not a legal expert but it seems to me that offenders sentenced to a different type of sentences should be treated differently.

The Young Offenders Act, under section 24(1) recognizes the serious nature of secure custody by prohibiting the courts from imposing secure custody unless certain criteria are met. Given the planned designation of the River Ridge facility, as both open and secure custody, I want to be sure that the institution has developed a plan which will deal appropriately in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the Young Offenders Act, with these two different types of young offenders.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to pursue the issue with the Minister and I sincerely hope we will be able to debate this issue on its merits and avoid getting tangled up in a debate over legal terminology. Thank you.